Commons:Deletion requests/Archive/2006/07

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

[edit] Muenchen1860

redundant to TSV 1860 München, which is the official name --Ahellwig 15:35, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

•  Delete not the official name. Could be speedable. --ALE! 16:19, 1 July 2006 (UTC)
• Blank and redirect, even easier. NielsF 21:53, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

I deleted it. The name of the page was just plainly wrong. No need for a redirect. --::Slomox:: >< 16:20, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

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

[edit] Lithospermum

Reason: wrong identification. My own uploads.

• Image:Lithospermum purpurocaeruleum 16-06-2006 19.43.36.JPG
• Image:Lithospermum purpurocaeruleum 16-06-2006 19.44.06.JPG
• Image:Lithospermum purpurocaeruleum 16-06-2006 19.44.34.JPG
• Image:Lithospermum purpurocaeruleum 16-06-2006 19.45.34.JPG

TeunSpaans 19:55, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

• Deleted. Please use {{badname}} and indicate the properly named file in the future. NielsF 21:52, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

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

[edit] image:HNlogo.gif

(has been tagged since May 24, but never listed) This is not a flag, but a logo, and is copyrighted as such. --Circeus 01:05, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

•  Delete as per nomination --ALE! 22:47, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

Deleted. Copyrighted logo. -Samulili 20:16, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

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

[edit] Image:Tito Rodriguez.jpg

Uploaded by User:Mattes who claim that this photo is public domain as long as it is not used for personal gain and only for educational purposes. Thuresson 13:06, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

 Delete That is not what I read. Anyway, on en.wikipedia.org the image is tagged as undetermined copyright. See: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Tito_Rodriguez.JPG . Therefore I vote delete. --ALE! 15:38, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

See Image talk:Tito Rodriguez.jpg. Thuresson 23:46, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

Well, but the law cited in the license "template" states something differnt in IMO. --ALE! 21:03, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

• Unless someone can prove that this image was PD, delete. The Spanish text on the image talk page comes from here, and says that (a) their web site may contain copyrighted works of third parties, and furthermore they claim copyright on all their original web contents. Please note that according to the Compendium of Office Practices II, section 206.02(d) of the U.S. Copyright Office, works of the government of Puerto Rico are not U.S. governmental works and do not fall under 17 USC 105. Lupo 12:13, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

deleted--Shizhao 15:34, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

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

[edit] Image:Costume from Konavle near Dubrovnik, Croatia.jpg

stolen from: http://www.croatianemb.ca/images/girl_konavle.jpg --Decius 22:30, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

• Delete. Uploader has on Nov 12, 2005 uploaded a large number of scans from brochures of the Croat National Tourist Office. These brochures were labelled as "gratis" and credited several photographers for their images. Nowehere did they say it was PD, and it isn't PD-self for sure. Although the particular source given above is not the immediate image source (it's too small), it is clear to me that the version we have was also scanned from such a brochure. The Croatian Embassy has other images, evidently from the tourist office; see e.g. Image:Lavender fields, Island of Hvar, Croatia.JPG, which exists at the Croation embassy in Canada as http://www.croatianemb.ca/images/hvar_tour.jpg: the file name clearly indicates that this comes from the tourist office. Lupo 06:57, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

deleted by User:Paddy --ALE! 08:22, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

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

[edit] Image:Souillac-blason.gif

REASON (the author is not the one i asked permission :()

Don't be so cryptic. Could you explain a bit more. --::Slomox:: >< 11:29, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

This makes sense, he obtained 'permission' for the image, but later discovered that the person he asked was not the copyright holder. This is not uncommon, but it's uncommon that we catch it before the copyright holder complains. --Gmaxwell 16:11, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

But whom did he ask? And who is the copyright holder? And why is Image:Ecusson souillac.jpg OK, but this not? --::Slomox:: >< 16:55, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

It's all lies, they are not the authors. They use a vector drawing package to copy a template. But copying doesn't make you being an author; in fact, copyright prohibits that. But CoAs are often not protected by copyright, but by other rights.--Rtc 09:43, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

• Deleted -- Infrogmation 20:51, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

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

[edit] Image:HMS Commonwealth HS.jpg

Copyritgh status for images from this site are sketchy at best, see the disclaimer. --Circeus 00:47, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

It seems unlikely that he is the copyright holder of these images, he merely scanned them. See where he says "It is source of photos that are BELIEVED to be in the public domain, so they can be used by anyone, for any purpose, without obtaining permission". Although we can't tell if the image is actually public domain, so perhaps we should still delete. --Gmaxwell 16:13, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

It is highly probable this image (and other images regarding british naval ships of that time) had been made by Royal Navy sailors so {{PD-BritishGov}} should be used. --Denniss 20:28, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

Without further information, the probability of "made by Royal Navy sailors" is 0.5 which is far away from being enough. Note: I couldn't find anything about "HMS Commonwealth" at IWM.--Wiggum 10:33, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

The photograph could not possibly have been taken after 1916, as the vessel sunk then. If it was an official photograph (as seems highly likely - at the time, photography equipement would not have been available to sailors to use in thier own time whilst aboard ship), then the Crown Copyright expired at the very latest in 1966, and probably in 1955. If it was a personal image, but published within roughly a decade of being taken, which is certainly the next most likely status, the copyright will have expired (image published before 1923). If it was not published, then the copyright will (have) expire(d) 70 years after the death of the photographer (possibly, but not necessarily, in the past), or 120 years after creation (in the future - 2025 or possibly 2036) if photographer remains unknown. There are also fun issues if it was ever published in the US. As such, we can sit on it for three decades and then use it. Or, possibly, find out the actual status of the image. :-) James F. (talk) 19:01, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

There's a much better reproduction of that image on Phil Curme's web site, and yeat another version is here. I've asked Phil Curme whether he could tell me more about this picture, such as where he got it from or whether he knows when it was published or who took it. Lupo 07:51, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

According to HMS Commonwealth, she did not sink in 1916 but was sold for scrap in 1921. Anyway, the image was taken in 1912 and comes from a postcard available at the National Maritime Museum in Greenwich, UK. Phil was unclear about whether that was an old postcard (or a facsimile of one), or a new postcard showing an image for the NMMs collection. I have not found any 1912 image in the NMM catalogue of negatives. I think there is reason to believe that it was indeed an old postcard, given the existence of this version... if so, it is reasonable to assume that it was published between 1912 and 1918. As such, the image would be {{PD-US}} (pre-1923), unless you insist on the stricter 1909 date (see below). In the UK, I think it would be out of copyright (author unknown, photograph created before June 1, 1957: copyrighted until 70 years after creation or 70 after publication, if published within 70 years since creation). Lupo 08:01, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

Got an e-mail from the NMM today; they state that the image came from the collection of Dr. Oscar Parkes, some of which is now held at the IWM. This Mr. Parkes is probably the author of several books on British ships, see e.g. ISBN 0-850-52604-3 or ISBN 1-557-50075-4, at one time also editor of Jane's Fighting Ships, and I bet he was also the painter of this picture... The NMM doesn't know the photographer's identity, but acknowledges having reprinted the image as a postcard. See also [1] for some additional trivia on the ship, or see its listing in Jane's Fighting Ships 1919. BTW, it appears that Jane's Fighting Ships 1919 is still copyrighted... can they really do this?? Unfortunately, I still don't know more about this photograph, and in particular not if it was published as an old postcard. Lupo 15:43, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

Deleted - No conclusive evidence of freedom of image. Cary "Bastique" Bass ^parler _voir 15:49, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

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

[edit] Image:Catal Hüyük Restauration 2.JPG

Forgot to rotate it; uploaded it well (Image:Catal Hüyük Restauration B).--Mathae 09:35, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

Deleted --JeremyA 16:46, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

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

[edit] Image:Goose, Phrygia.JPG

The same problem like above.--Mathae 10:21, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

Deleted --JeremyA 16:48, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

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

[edit] Category:Taxodium distichum

Over-categorisation; duplicates existing Taxodium distichum page - MPF 09:18, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

deleted by User:Fb78 --ALE! 15:04, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

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

[edit] Image:P7020062.JPG

Requires that author be notified of use, contrary to Commons:Licensing --bjh21 00:13, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

 Delete, license against commons policy. --Tomia 15:55, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

•  Delete --gildemax 17:55, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

deleted--Shizhao 13:29, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

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

[edit] Image:E 022 3A.jpg

Requires that author be notified of use, contrary to Commons:Licensing --bjh21 00:10, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

 Delete, license against commons policy. --Tomia 15:55, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

 Delete Against policy --ALE! 14:14, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

deleted--Shizhao 12:03, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

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

[edit] Image:Cross Pattern.jpg

Just some pixels, I can't see what's the use of this for any Wikimedia project at all. -- Andre Engels 01:00, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

From the summary, it's intended as a computer desktop (presumably tiled). I set it on my computer and it does look reasonably cool, although I can't read anything. :) Also can't see any Wikimedia use though. pfctdayelise (translate?) 06:24, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

deleted (out of the scope of the Commons project) --ALE! 13:37, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

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

[edit] Image:Lazykat.JPG

Copyright information is missing and it belongs in the text (not "... knows the source") Mattes 21:57, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

• Just delete this thing. The image was tagged no source on 16 October 2005 and then an IP added that stupid source. Besides, it is only used on User pages on en and de.wikipedia. --ALE! 22:53, 2 July 2006 (UTC)
•  Delete --gildemax 17:56, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

deleted --ALE! 10:19, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

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

[edit] Image:Kurukshetra.jpg

Possible copyvio, as incorrect license given. The manuscript might be 18th century, but the work of art as it is, is obviously modern Adobe photoshop days. The uploader has also provided the source. --202.164.136.210 04:39, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

I don't understand your complaint. As far as I know, the manuscript included the art. --Gmaxwell 06:14, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

I dont see how it could be, considering the manuscript is some sort of leaf like pupyrus written around or even before the time of Christ. But nonetheless, the liscence given is incorrect. The copyright of the manuscript might have expired. However, the copyright of the photograph of the manuscript (which cerrtainly isnt over 60 years old), hasnt expired. --202.164.139.88 12:47, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

I sincerely doubt that any of the computer files in category:PD Art are more than 60 or even 70 years old. However, whoever scanned or photographed them haven't added anything substantial to the image, and therefore cannot claim copyright. The manuscript with the artwork in question is estimated to be from the 18th century, and is therefore not quite as old as you think. -- Ranveig 13:14, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

• Kept. 2D for US. -Samulili 20:19, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

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

[edit] Image:Springfield Interchange on I-95.jpg

The source says "Copyright 2000-2004 Virginia Department of Transportation" ([2]). Kjetil_r 10:57, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

•  Delete copyvio Jaranda ^{wat's sup} 22:46, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

• Deleted, copyvio. -Samulili 20:21, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

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

[edit] Images uploaded by user:Tarokun1005

The following images all seem to have been sourced from websites and there is no evidence of right to release under a commons license. All were previously uploaded to en.wikipedia with fairuse rationale.

William Avery 14:31, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

image:Alekos EDHN.jpg

image:Alekos_Panagoulis_Palazzo_Medici.jpg

image:Alekos_panagoulis_Nov_68.jpg - User claims this one is his own work.

 Delete -- unless correct licence information can be found. JeremyA 16:40, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

Some comments have been put on my English Wikipedia talk page. How quickly one gets déjà lu around here. William Avery 21:07, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

 Delete -- Copyrighted images. ~Pyb 11:41, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

deleted--Shizhao 14:41, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

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

[edit] Image:800px-Blick uber den Rio Douro auf Porto.jpg

Photographer only allows use in Wikipedia. Thuresson 23:44, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

 Keep I think at least that some further inquiry should be made before deleting, because You have my full consent to use the photos for the Wikipedia project. and I'm happy to share these photos with the world. to me sound quite positive.. The first upload of this image (on de:| was done in 2004 when there probably wasn't a completely clear procedure. So until original uploader has had time to sort this out, keep this image, although this version should be replaced with the original hi-res image from de:. NielsF 00:54, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

Speedy keep and add {{ConfirmationOTRS}} for ticket #2006070510014176. See de:Bild:Blick über den Rio Douro auf Porto.jpg. Lupo 12:47, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

kept --ALE! 07:36, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

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

[edit] Image:DameEdnaPoster.jpg

Copyrighted Image of Dame Edna. --Steschke 13:39, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

•  Delete Should be moved to Wikipedia under fair use. — Erin (talk) 09:00, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
•  Delete clearly a derivative work of a copyrighted work and therefore a copyvio itself. --ALE! 15:05, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

deleted' --Raymond ^Disc. 05:51, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

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

[edit] Image:AMD Athlon 64FX.jpg

There is a debate about the licence. I believe the licence is free for website and publication"Pictures are free for use in publications and websites on condition that they are accurately labeled. There are no copyright restrictions on use. When downloading pictures , you are agreeing to the above condition." [3]. Before uploading more images from the AMD website, I want to be sure of the licence. --~Pyb 11:08, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

That's an AMD press image. Your citation missed some essential parts: Low res version for use in webpages and Hi res version for use in publications. This is a website here and it has the Hi res version thus braking the agreement. Also the AMD site does not mention derivative works or event third party (commercial) use. See also usage guidelines here. These image should fall under the fair use regulation but nothing really freely usable.

The same problem with Image:AMD Opteron.jpg and Image:AMD 64X2 Dual-Core.jpg. --Denniss 12:50, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

 Keep (Sorry Denniss I forgot this issue, should have commented earlier).

I would like to draw your attention to the text of the website which goes:

This page includes both AMD product imagery and logos. The listed pictures come in two formats:

1. Low-resolution pictures (for use in websites)
2. High resolution pictures (for use in print publications)

Pictures are free for use in publications and websites on condition that they are accurately labeled. There are no copyright restrictions on use.

Now, as I interpret it, the distinction of website-image and printing-image has nothing to do with copyrights, it is just a suggestion from the nice people of AMD who realizes that website developers need not to download a 3.5 MB image when they need only a 50KB thumbnail. / Fred Chess 23:29, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

 Delete press license. They should put a regular CC-whatever-they-want there, then we can keep. --Rtc 09:45, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

 Keep IMO 'No copyright restrictions on use' is quite clear. Morven 05:08, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

 Keep per Morven Jaranda ^{wat's sup} 21:55, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

kept--Shizhao 12:01, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

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

[edit] Image:WikiPediaTan-0O7.png

Sorry,I Upload error Filename,proper is in here:Image:Wikipe-tan-in-seaside.png (My English Is Very Poor)陈少举 03:21, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

Speedy deleted as a unused misnamed duplicate --^grm_wnr (^home_wiki) 16:00, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

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

[edit] Image:Torso.JPG

i would be surprised if this photo has a "warranty of existence" --Brightster 14:05, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

"made with consent of the photographer"? Thuresson 14:48, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

The photograph shows a person run over by a train. This only as a warning to persons who think they will see the picture of the nice torso of a nude female or something like that. I don't think Commons should host images like that. I can't think of any use of this particular photo. Anyway there is no release notice, so Delete. --::Slomox:: >< 16:07, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

•  Delete {{subst:nsd}}

Deleted. Ugly snuff photo, license doubtful (uploader is not photographer). --Fb78 09:51, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

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

[edit] Image:Erststimmen-saarbruecken2005.png

Neither in use nor will be used. Was proposition for de:wikinews article, I'm the uploader. --Thoken 17:28, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

deleted by uploader request --ALE! 20:45, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

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

[edit] Image:BG comunità.png

I'm the uploader. The file neither in use nor will be used. --Hill 17:56, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

deleted --ALE! 20:42, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

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

[edit] Image:Adolf Hitler Bigger.jpg

Delete Inadequate licence information, presumably copyvio. Uploader has an offending / troll user name (TeleportingHitler) and should be banned. Wischmob 19:34, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

• delete, as it has been deleted some time ago.--Wiggum 21:13, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

deleted by User:Slomox --ALE! 15:03, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

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

[edit] Image:Ppo.pdf

Outside of Commons:Project scope --JeremyA 00:04, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Image:Christian Gonzalez Díaz Mírame en todos los Rostros.pdf

Outside of Commons:Project scope --JeremyA 01:29, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

both deleted --ALE! 15:18, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

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

[edit] Image:Italy coa.png

I uploaded this with the wrong filename to delete at en:. Now at Image:Italian coa.png. Craigy 02:23, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

Use the {{badname}} tag for this purpose, please. Sanbec ✉ 08:30, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

will be handled elsewhere --ALE! 16:09, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

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

[edit] Image:Jet Ski.JPG

This image seems to violate copyright. It is not tagged with any license and seems to be a derivative of a work of Dru Blair. The uploaded version can also be found on several websites, such as this. --NEUROtiker 19:10, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

I noticed this picture too and i agree to Neurotiker. Obviously the lower left corner of the pic has been edited, looks like a text notice or logo has been removed.--Wiggum 21:13, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

Derivative work of http://www.drublair.com/productgroup.asp?0=203&1=&33=47 painted by Dru Blair. Therefore a copyvio. --ALE! 15:09, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

deleted (Copyvio!) --ALE! 15:18, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

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

[edit] Image:Lucca 1.jpg, Image:Lucca 2.jpg, Image:Lucca 3.jpg, Image:Tanakayasuonantonakukurisutaru.JPG

Awfully poor quality. -Samulili 15:44, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

•  Delete as per nomination --ALE! 06:47, 4 July 2006 (UTC)
• uploader informed; it would be good if the person who tags an image with deletewould do so --gildemax 18:06, 9 July 2006 (UTC)
•  Delete useless --jed 12:54, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

deleted--Shizhao 11:23, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

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

[edit] Image:Warsaw siege4.jpg

No author provided, the license is just an unproven claim.--Wiggum 21:13, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

 Keep Was first published without author's name in Poland. Shaqspeare 11:04, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

Poland is member of the EU -> 70 years pma. Besides, to prove that a) the picture is really anonymous und b) that it has actually been published first in Poland might be somehow difficult. ;-)

Not in this case. You cannot aply European law to it, it doesn't work backwards - anything published and not marked with ©-sign went into public domain. I don't have to prove anything - we should assume good faith of the uploader. And I didn't say it is anonymous - but it was published without any autorship comment and without ©. Shaqspeare 19:27, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

The author's copyright is independent from the existence of a (c). This picture is copyrighted throughout the European Union due to directives 93/98/EEC and 2001/29/EC which were implemented by Poland. Btw, the polish modernized copyright law of 1994 was retroactive as well as the EU law. Besides, the {{Copyrighted free use}} licensing causes this case to be much more bogus - if the author had released the picture into public domain, he most be known. This is obviously contrary to the "published without author's name" claim. Anyway, this picture cannot be PD.--Wiggum 23:23, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

But when one didn't put the ©-sign by the photo, we should assume he was willing to put this in PD. E.g. Polish postcards, press photos etc. were often marked "© CAF", "© PAP", "© TASS" etc. So the author had possibility not to put it in public domain. But he did. P.S. I changed the licence to {{PD-PRL}}, which applies here. Shaqspeare 11:39, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

I can just repeat what i said: the moral rights are independent from a (c)-sign. And no, you can't assume that the author was willing to put the picture in the PD when the (c) is missing - the complete opposite applies: the author has to agree to the publication explicitly. I don't have a (c) on any of my private picture but i surely don't want to put them in the PD.--Wiggum 15:36, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

But AFAIK it is generally treated just the way I described in Poland and wasn't questioned by Polish law practice yet. By the way, it accords not to private pictures, only the pictures that were published. The ©-sign hadn't to be on the picture itself but e.g. beyond it or on the other side of the postcard etc. Shaqspeare 15:26, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

If it is practice in poland as you described, it would be a highly questionable practice. Anyway, the picture is protected in all countries - maybe except poland. So it is useless here. It think it's also very unlikely that this is a polish photographers picture as the template states. Imagine an iraqi would be able to took such a picture of US troops...--Wiggum 20:19, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

This discussion doesn't make a sence any more, I think. I agree with Shaqspeare, but I don't know the EU copyright law good enough. Maybe ask some authority? Warsaw Rising Museum? --MStankie 11:46, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

Keep PD-Polish rationale (source and date) for this photo is given. Mentioning the author eigher by (c) or fot. clause meant copyright restriction, therefore author is unknown for most of photos with this license... A.J. 15:17, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

kept--Shizhao 12:10, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

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

[edit] Image:Uganda coa.png and Image:Uganda coa.gif

These are artist's impressions of the Coat of Arms of Uganda, and do not even remotely look like the real one. The proper image is at Image:Uganda Coat of Arms large.jpg. I believe it is better to have no image than to have a false one. --Ezeu 03:46, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

Why do you think that the version you uploaded is "the real one"? Thuresson 12:55, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

Because he took it from an official site and it is the version used by the authorities of Uganda. But I don't know whether Uganda has a law, that specifies the exact design of the coat of arms. Perhaps even the authorities use the more inaccurate version on Internet (representation of Ugandan government on the Internet is not very professional). And perhaps all versions are problematic cause of copyright? The coat of arms is from 1962, so it is not PD-old. --::Slomox:: >< 15:58, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

I fail to see the difference between the two/three, apart from the fact that one is lighter, slightly larger, has a source and copyright information, the other is darker and the source link is a dead one. They are both representing the same thing and of course it's an artist's representation of the coat of arms because it was drawn by someone other than the artist who drew the original. The only one which should be deleted should be the .gif one which isn't good for rescaling on pages. Craigy 20:13, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

Well, then I guess I'll have to draw a more correct image myself. Wouldnt like to see a distorted Coat of Arms of Uganda being spread around. --Ezeu 08:28, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

 Keep In heraldry, what matters is how the coat of arms has been described in the blazon. There is a blazon available at www.ugandahighcommission.co.ke and within the limits of the blazon there is considerable artistic license to create the coat of arms. WikiCommons already has two correct coat of arms (the png- and gif version) with an acceptable copyright license. Thuresson 15:43, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

You shouldn't teach others, when you for yourself don't know exactly ;-) What you linked is a description, not a blazon. And it is not correct, that only the blazon matters. Some coats of arms have also one specific official design. For example the coat of arms of Lower Saxony is only the symbol of the state Lower Saxony, if the horse is depicted in exactly that way. But I don't know, whether this is also true for Uganda. --::Slomox:: >< 14:12, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

 Comment reply: According to the heraldic rules, Thuresson is correct in that a coat of arms can be illustrated in different ways. But coat of arms are sometimes used as symbols independant of the heraldic rules.

Anyways, as long as the image matches the description, I see no reason why this image shouldn't be  Keep. / Fred Chess 13:34, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

• Kept - no rationale for deletion. Cary "Bastique" Bass ^parler _voir 15:51, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

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

[edit] Image:Vollschiff Preussen.jpg

Incorrect/missing licence. The picture is licenced by GFDL, but should be - if ever - licenced as PD-old. Tho photographer is unknown, the date stated as "before 1910". That's not sufficient. The photographer has to be dead for seventy years. --Zinnmann 08:15, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

The text on the picture says that it's a photo of the Preussen when it ran out New York. Since the Preussen travelled from NYC to Yokohama in 1908, the picture is not old enough :-(--Wiggum 17:30, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

• uploader informed, it would be good if the person who tags an image with {{delete|incorrect/missing licence}} would do so --gildemax 18:00, 9 July 2006 (UTC)
• Image is now correctly tagged as PD-old. Morven 05:13, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
  • No it isn't. There is no indication that the author is dead for more than 70 years, so pd-old is not applicable--Wiggum 18:45, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
•  Delete In doubt we should apply the 100 years rule. Anyway, there is a good usable substitute for this image, for instance on this page: http://www.seemotive.de/html/dpreussen.htm

  We could use the German stamp as {{PD-Deutsche Bundespost stamps}} (see also: de:Vorlage:Briefmarke-Deutschland and Commons:Stamps/Public domain) --ALE! ¿…? 15:08, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

Uploaded stamp image over questionable image. Cary "Bastique" Bass ^parler _voir 15:58, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

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

[edit] Image:Delta Force during Operation Just Cause.jpg

the website doesnt state that it is a work of the United States federal Government, no hint where it is taken from --Schlendrian 09:59, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

new situation: a User of de.wiki stated that the picture was Formerly available at DOD'S official server till change Delta' status of classification (now higher). There are no official Delta-images available anymore. How to handle that? --Schlendrian 13:40, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

The version we have is evidently scanned from a magazine; witness the fold running vertically through the middle of the image. The publicly accessible images at the DVIC are generally sized 640 pixels wide and are original photos that do not have such artefacts. Remains the question why the uploader didn't use the corresponding DOD image then, if it was once available... Note that civilian press also took pictures during that military operation. Lupo 08:18, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

 Keep Cause the picture is evidentely public domain (217.83.35.61 14:35, 10 July 2006 (UTC))

and what is the evidence? --ALE! 14:03, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

A IP keeps deleting the Deletion request, and still states the pictures was also available at osd.dodmedia.mil. I dont see evidences for this, the pictures pretty obviously is a mag-scan, please delete --Schlendrian 11:56, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

 Delete The de.wiki image was uploaded in March this year, I don't think the classifcation increase alluded to would have occurred in the past few months. Besides its an obvious mag-scan...--Nilfanion 09:52, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

The first Upload of the picture was in the en Wiki with Licence PD-USGov. --88.73.195.94 10:09, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

Which was still this year, is there any source to the claim that DFs classification was changed recently? Besides, "en.wiki uploaded it as PD so it must be OK" is bad logic,--Nilfanion 23:49, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

Deleted - No verifiable source Cary "Bastique" Bass ^parler _voir 17:47, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

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

[edit] Image:Janus moon.jpg, Image:Venus Galileo.jpg

Nominated for deletion because (or similar) "Although this image comes originally from NASA sadly a person that post processed this image (the webmaster of solarviews.com) Calvin J. Hamilton claims own copyright on this image, see http://solarsystem.nasa.gov/planets/profile.cfm?Object=Janus (all images on NASA pages with such a sepia color are from Calvin J. Hamilton). So I fear that it has to be deleted. I have also created a free alternative out of the raw voyager image and will upload it the next time. Arnomane 12:46, 23 January 2006 (UTC)" -Samulili 15:38, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

 Delete Venus image; taken from Astronomy Picture of the Day. Unsure about status of Janus image, the text on the page is copyrighted, not clear on status of the image.--Nilfanion 10:04, 11 August 2006 (UTC) deleted -- These versions are not free Cary "Bastique" Bass ^parler _voir 20:45, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

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

[edit] Image:NYC subway riders with their newspapers.jpg

The original source is http://www.travisruse.com/archives/2005/11/f_train_manhatt_2.php (via en.wikipedia). There is no evidence that the photographer has given permission for the licence used. The photographers website states: "All text and images, unless otherwise noted, are subject to US and international copyright laws and are the property of Travis Ruse. If you'd like to use one of my photographs on a personal website, or for any other non-commercial purpose, please ask first. If you have a commercial interest in any of my images, please contact me to discuss licensing and fees." As we require that commercial use be allowed I think that this image needs deleted unless the photographer marks it as an exception to the copyright notice on his website. --JeremyA 15:30, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

on this link http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:NYC_subway_riders_with_their_newspapers.jpg, this image is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution ShareAlike License v. 2.5. That's why I have uploaded it here. DeansFA 08:33, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

I left a message for the editor who originally uploaded it to en.wikipedia as there is no transcript of the email permission anywhere that I can find. --JeremyA 23:52, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

Any news? --ALE! 09:48, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

I overwrote the image with a red cross. Maybe that gives us some attention from the en user(s). --ALE! ¿…? 12:06, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

I just saw, that I will not get a reaction as the en Wikipedia is using a local duplicate. Therefore I will delete the image now. --ALE! ¿…? 12:10, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

deleted --ALE! ¿…? 12:10, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

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

[edit] Image:Hunter.png

I'm the author and uploader of this photo. I uploaded .jpg version instead of .png, so this version is useless. C41n 13:02, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

Deleted. Please use {{badname|Image:good name.xxx}} or {{duplicate|Image:good name.xxx}} next time. NielsF 13:45, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

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

[edit] Image:Oraliens.jpg

Coypvio of a tv program [4] CyrilB 22:01, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

deleted by User:WarX --ALE! 08:59, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

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

[edit] Image:Port Havre 2.jpg

Duplicate of Image:Le Havre-Portiques.jpg. Captain Scarlet 23:14, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

•  Keep High quality version uploaded by the original author. Replace the other, low quality, image. --Denniss 01:15, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
• Kept and a little bit reworked. Duplicate deleted. --Raymond ^Disc. 06:34, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

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

[edit] Image:Inselsberg-Adlersberg-Beerberg-Eisenberg-Finsterberg-Hundskopf.jpg

Has been replaced --Elop 18:52, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

•  Delete very bad quality, but the replacement has also a bad quality! could you upload a file with better resolution and a low level of Jpeg compression? CyrilB 22:13, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

I could upload up to 2000px, but it wouldn't really improve it. When the weather and the light direction will be better, I will try to take the photo again. But this might take some time. Usually the conditions are even worse than on the photo.

I have already seen that these two photos are candidates for speed deletion. --Elop 08:24, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

deleted by User:Paddy --ALE! 12:47, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

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

[edit] Image:Simmersberg.jpg

Has been replaced --Elop 18:55, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

•  Delete Bad quality, and not used anywhere at the moment. CyrilB 22:12, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

deleted by User:Paddy --ALE! 12:47, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

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

[edit] Image:Portrait of Henri Matisse 1933 May 20.jpg, Category:PD Van Vechten, Template:PD-Van Vechten

• w:Carl Van Vechten died in 1966, so his photos are not in the public domain in the US or elsewhere, no matter what the Library of Congress believes.
• Usage restrictions: "the Carl Van Vechten estate has asked that use of Van Vechten's photographs "preserve the integrity" of his work, i.e, that photographs not be colorized or cropped, and that proper credit is given to the photographer." - Commons does not allow usage restrictions for image modifications like colorizing or cropping. --Fb78 09:40, 4 July 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. Here's the whole quote from Rights and reproductions of Carl van Vechten's photographs: Per the instrument of gift, "for a period of 20 years from the date of this Instrument [1966], none of the photographs contained in said collection may be sold, reproduced, published or given away in any form whatsoever except with my [Saul Mauriber, Photographic Executor for Van Vechten] express permission in writing." This restriction expired in 1986. In 1998 the Library's Publishing Office was contacted by Bruce Kellner, Successor Trustee for the Van Vechten estate, who disputes Mr. Mauriber's authority in executing the Instrument of Gift. Upon review of the relevant materials, the Library continues to believe that the photographs are in the public domain. However, patrons are advised that Mr. Kellner has expressed his concern that use of Van Vechten's photographs "preserve the integrity" of his work, i.e, that photographs not be colorized or cropped, and that proper credit is given to the photographer. Privacy and publicity rights may apply. (Emphasis added by Lupo.) The LoC has reviewed the case and continues to believe that the works are in the public domain. Period. That some successor trustee "expresses concerns" is irrelevant for us and not a legal restriction. If the U.S. Library of Congress says that some U.S. works were PD that's good enough for me to consider them {{PD-US}}. I certainly won't second-guess the experts at the Library of Congress. (Besides, van Vechten died 1964. Not that it mattered.) Lupo 09:56, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

  A different question is of course whether we want to allow images that are "{{PD-US}} only" here at the commons... (I'm not arguing this either way.) Lupo 08:08, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

• Keep' I trust Lupo reasoning Jaranda ^{wat's sup} 01:22, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

kept--Shizhao 12:06, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

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

[edit] Image:Wikipedia-Flag.png

Badly drawn, utterly useless... Computerjoe 18:24, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

• Delete useless Jaranda ^{wat's sup} 01:20, 12 July 2006 (UTC)
•  Delete --jed 12:13, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

deleted --ALE! 10:25, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

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

[edit] Image:City of Korcula, Island of Korcula, Croatia.jpg

this picture ist stolen, see: http://dalmatia.250x.com/pejzaz.htm --Decius 18:00, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

• Delete, although the given URL not necessarily is the source. The image comes in all likelihood from a brochure of the Croat national tourist office. See #Image:Costume from Konavle near Dubrovnik, Croatia.jpg above: the uploader had uploaded a number of images scanned from such brochures. Lupo 10:31, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

deleted by User:Paddy --ALE! ¿…? 15:26, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

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

[edit] Image:Michelle Bachelet official photo.jpg

The source provided does allow for free use of its photographs. However, modification of them is not permitted, meaning they aren't quite free enough to be on Commons --GeeJo ^(t)⁄_(c) • 07:31, 4 July 2006 (UTC) 07:31, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

Where does it say that these types of images can't be used in Commons. And if they can't be used in Commons, can they be used in regular Wikipedia? Cantus 00:12, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

From Commons:Licensing#Acceptable licenses: "Publication of derivative work must be allowed". The english Wikipedia also considers such restrictions to make an image non-free. However, if no free alternative can be found you might be able to upload under a claim of fair use (be sure to include a detailed fair use rationale for every article that the image is used in or the image will be deleted). --JeremyA 03:55, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

Deleted. -- Infrogmation 05:00, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

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

[edit] Image:Portiques.jpg

Duplicate of Image:Le Havre-Portiques.jpg. Captain Scarlet 23:14, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

• Comment Which one of the three is then being kept ? There two still present. Captain Scarlet 10:33, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

tag {{deleted duplicate}}--Shizhao 11:42, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

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

[edit] Image:Carte Chiyoda-ku en.png

Has been renamed to Image:Map Chiyoda-ku en.png. --Akanemoto 00:35, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

deleted by User:Fb78 --ALE! 21:16, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

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

[edit] Danish coins

Category:Danish coins is perfectly fit for this application. And the text has been copied to each individual coin image page (or a description is already available). --Chochopk 03:33, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

•  Keep Article is fine, no need to delete. The same with the norwegian and south african money article. If you don't like articles then ignore them. --Denniss 10:42, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Norwegian coins

Category:Norwegian coins is perfectly fit for this application. And the text has been copied to each individual coin image page (or a description is already available). --Chochopk 03:41, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

 Keep nothing wrong with having galleries here as well as categories is there? they are organised better, rather than just by whatever the filename happens to be --Astrokey44 13:57, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Rand (currency)

Category:South African money is perfectly fit for this application. And the text has been copied to each individual coin image page (or a description is already available). --Chochopk 04:08, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

 Keep as above --Astrokey44 13:58, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

Deleted. Thanks for cleaning up. --Fb78 18:19, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

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

[edit] Image:VanderWaals forze attrattive.jpg

redundant to Image:VanderWaals forze attrattive.png.--Shizhao 06:15, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

deleted by User:Fb78 --ALE! 21:14, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

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

[edit] Pound Sterling

This article has nothing, and is linked from nothing

Deleted --JeremyA 03:44, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

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

[edit] Image:Thomasnasenbohren.JPG

do we really need to become a private webhoster? --Schlendrian 20:06, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

•  Delete, useless. Don't forget to warn the uploader when you nominate a file. CyrilB 20:49, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

•  Delete, blödsinn --GeorgHH 23:54, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
•  Delete, quite funny pictures, but unfortunately images of minors are restricted legally. Longbow4u 23:56, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

• Speedy delete as nonsense. -- King of Hearts 23:57, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

Deleted --JeremyA 03:42, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

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

[edit] Image:Markusnasenbohren.jpg

as per above --Schlendrian 20:13, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

•  Delete, children prank CyrilB 20:57, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

•  Delete, blödsinn --GeorgHH 23:54, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
•  Delete, quite funny pictures, but unfortunately images of minors are restricted legally. Longbow4u 23:57, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

• Speedy delete as nonsense. -- King of Hearts 23:58, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

Deleted --JeremyA 03:43, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

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

[edit] Image:Ashton West Ham.jpg

Source site on flickr states "C All rights reserved". I could not find the CC-license. Longbow4u 23:50, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

Deleted --JeremyA 01:10, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

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

[edit] Image:IMG 0526.JPG

Such a low quality that it's hardly useful. (If you agree that deeltion requests for images with low quality might need another section/page, please comment on the discussion page.) -Samulili 16:59, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

 Delete might only be useful for Commons:Quality images guidelines in the "out of focus" section CyrilB 20:30, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

 Delete out of focus, not used --ALE! 14:48, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

deleted--Shizhao 12:09, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

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

[edit] Image:Methane.png

Has been replaced by a better SVG image: Image:Methanespacefillingmodel.svg. King of Hearts 23:55, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

 Keep, delete the .svg instead maybe? Better is alway a subjective statement if both images aren't equal to the naked eye, in this case they aren't; in this case I think the .png is a (lot) better. I like the fact that you are willing to convert images to vector versions, but just use {{SupersededSVG}} instead of putting pngs up for deletion... NielsF 02:38, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

 Keep Please don't use some tracing program to convert png's to svg, quality will always be worse than original. Draw images using svg primitives (lines, circles etc) instead. --Tomia 15:28, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

 Keep Deletion decisions should be based on quality rather than on file format. The svg-version is clearly of much lesser quality - Quistnix 15:13, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

 Keep for now. The PNG is quite ugly and low quality, but this SVG is worse. A better SVG needs to be created and uploaded over the existing one. I would do it myself but I'm no good with 3D. — Erin (talk) 08:44, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

kept--Shizhao 12:09, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

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

[edit] Image:DRKB.Streckennetz.jpg

replaced by Image:DRKB.Streckennetz.png Hostrod 14:02, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

I put a superseded tag, but I also noticed that the size of the jpg version is twice that of the png one, so I'm not sure the png version has a better quality... ideal would be a svgCyrilB 20:28, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

I think the png is good enough for being used in wikipedia articles with its maximum resolution of 1656 x 2328px, so it should not be necessary to build another image. I just made a beginner's mistake creating and uploading a jpg, and that's why I'd like the jpg to be deleted. Hostrod 14:14, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

You saved the PNG as a 24-bit file. This was unnecessary, as the 8-bit type supports up to 256 colors. (Your image contains only 28 colors.) By converting the image to the PNG-8 format and optimizing the compression via the PNGOUT program, I've reduced the size from 205 KB to 72 KB. —Lifeisunfair 14:49, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

There's only one thing left to say: Thank you! :o) Hostrod 16:48, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

deleted --ALE! 22:50, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

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

[edit] Image:BajaDream.jpg, Image:P9120019 Peggys Cove sea.jpg, and Image:File cont4518 lang0 1579.jpg

None of the three are PD. All of them have incorrect licensing, and looking at the links provided, it says nothing about them being PD. 68.46.61.88 01:44, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

•  Delete all! Non of the stated sources provides any hint that the images are usabale under a free license. --ALE! 09:38, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

• Deleted / Fred Chess 10:12, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

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

[edit] Image:Ngc 6744.jpg

Very probably copyrighted, according the the copyright notice at [5]. The source site given for the image, http://salt.camk.edu.pl/firstlight/, is Polish. Can anyone who dan read Ploish check for a ploicy notice there? ---09:39, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

Same problem for Image:47tuc salt.jpg Image:Ngc 6152.jpg, Image:Triffid nebula salt.jpg and Image:Lagoon nebula SALT.jpg. --Vesta 13:20, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

 Keep User:Polarianin, who uploaded the images, answered on my talk page: "Yes, the free license is granted on the polish site, where it is written that All photos placed on this site can be published without limitations (in polish: Wszystkie zdjęcia zamieszczone na tej stronie można publikować bez ograniczeń.)" --Vesta 15:07, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

• Kept then. -- Infrogmation 20:54, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

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

[edit] Image:Gare de Denfert-Rochereau - Batiment voyageur.gif

Uploaded a poor version of the image, made redundant by a jpg version of the file: Image:Gare de Denfert-Rochereau - Batiment voyageur.jpg. Captain Scarlet 10:03, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

deleted, please use the template {{duplicate}} next time. --ALE! 13:44, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

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

[edit] Image:Goleo in Berlin.JPG

urheberrechtlich geschützte Figur, Panoramafreiheit greift nicht 217.88.177.218 16:21, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

Deleted. Photograph of copyrighted FIFA mascot --Fb78 18:14, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

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

[edit] Image:Carl Schmitt.jpg

i doubt that the uploader at en wp is the author or holds any rights, therefore he cannot publish it under the gfdl. Furthermore the picture is not old enough so that copyright would have expired. Thus this image is a copyright infringment and should be deleted. (we already had this discussion at de wp some time ago) --C.Löser 17:25, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

Deleted. Fb78 18:11, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

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

[edit] Image:010 Church.jpg

No discription, no license. --GeorgHH 17:30, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

deletion request replaced with a no-license-warning. --ALE! 21:31, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

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

[edit] Several orphaned categories

The subcategories of the Camera type category are slowly being cleaned up and renamed with a consistent naming convention, which is "Taken with CameraManufacturer CameraModel". I have recently shuffled a few categories around to aid in this process, and as a result, the following categories are now empty, unreferenced and obsolete:

• Category:FinePix 1400Z
• Category:Taken with FinePix S9500
• Category:Taken with FinePixA201
• Category:Olympus E300
• Category:Taken with DSC-P92
• Category:Images created with Canon PowerShot G5

--Pomakis 18:10, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

all deleted --ALE! 20:12, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

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

[edit] Image:Rs lokacija.PNG

This map is incorect inappropriate, unusable and a irredentist provocation. The user who uploaded the image has been banned for 2 weeks for personal attacks and vandalism. The map shows Republika Srpska, a teritorial entity of Bosnia and Herzegovina as a state in Europe. It is inappropriate representation and a presedent (no other entity and even some more sovereign states are not represented in such way). This is clearly a provocation and a quick deletion is reccomended --Dado 18:06, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

The map is absolutely appropriate, noone is suggesting that Republika Srpska is independent, the first sentence in every wikipedia states that the Republic of Srpska is a teritorial entity of Bosnia and Herzegovina and therefore a part of it. It is not a provocation, Republika Srpska has a status unlike any other territory in the world, according to the Dayton agreement of 1995, and deletion is not needed for a map that shows where Republika Srpska is in Europe (which helps a lot, because not everyone knows where Bosnia and Herzegovina is). User:Dado has tried to show that if the user that sent the photo is banned, the photo must be false too, which is really funny (and I even sent the photo long before I was blocked for 2 weeks). I'd like to say that another photo showing the location of the Federation of Bosnia and Herzegovina in Europe was not mentioned by this user, which shows his obsession with destroying what little international status Republika Srpska has. Bottom line - no one is claiming it's independent, no one is claiming it's a country, but it is a political entity unlike any in the world, and the map is absolutely appropriate. --Bormalagurski 23:21, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

User:Dado also broke the rules by not notifying the uploader (me) that he has proposed this for deletion. As the deletion template clearly states: When applying this tag please list it as well on Commons:Deletion requests and notify the uploader with {{subst:idw|Image:Rs lokacija.PNG}} ~~~~. --Bormalagurski 23:25, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

I actually agree that the other version of the map showing the Federation of Bosnia and Herzegovina that you mentioned should be deleted as well if such map was uploaded on the commons. Wikipedia and for that matter Commons is not the place to glorify "international status Republika Srpska has" which is none anyway. The map is nothing more than a provocation and a ligthning rod for future conflicts. Finally how do you expect me to discuss this with you when you made perfectly clear to avoid contacts with you through a personal attack for which you were banned. [6]. --Dado 01:32, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

Another attempt to denounce my arguments by pointing out that I did one thing wrong on English wiki. I agree that Wikipedia and Commons is not a place to glorify a status, but it isn't here to diminish it either. Saying that the international status of Republika Srpska is non existant only shows your destructive attitude towards the Dayton agreement, which clearly defines Republika Srpska as a separate entity, and NOT controlled by the majority of Bosnia - Bosnian Muslims. IT is not a "lightning rod for furure conflicts", noone is saying that Republika Srpska is independent or anything like that, you're making too much of a big deal over this. The map is usefull, but you keep on trolling, because of your own personal opinion, without the good of the Wikipedia community in your mind. I say good day to you, sir. --Bormalagurski 06:12, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

 Keep There are many similar maps, showing e.g. the location of Munich in Europe and nobody claims Munich is independent from Germany. Shaqspeare 12:20, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

kept. There is no problem with the image. It shows an existing entity. I have added 'part of Bosnia and Herzegovina' to the description, so nobody will consider it as an independent country. --::Slomox:: >< 12:21, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

Thanks, good decision. --Bormalagurski 20:10, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

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

[edit] Image:Ss4-ss5.gif

Copyvio: clearly says "© C.P. Vick"; it is not a work of the US federal government but a work of a senior fellow of globalsecurity.org, a private website. --Fastfission 00:46, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

•  Delete as above (same uploader). pfctdayelise (translate?) 11:45, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

Deleted, pfctdayelise (translate?) 11:47, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

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

[edit] Image:HDTV displayed on notebook computer.jpg

Showing a screenshot of a movie without proper licence. greets, --Andreas -horn- Hornig 18:47, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Image:Televisionscreen.JPG

Showing a screenshot of a movie without proper licence. greets, --Andreas -horn- Hornig 18:51, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

deleted --ALE! 22:59, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

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

[edit] Image:Coat of Arms of Magnitogorsk (Chelyabinsk oblast) coat of atms (1993).png

Copy of this image with incorrect name. --Panther 07:07, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

Duplicate, not used. Deleted. Please use {{duplicate}} instead of {{delete}} in such cases! Shaqspeare 09:15, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

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

[edit] Image:Opel-gt-vorne.jpg

Permission not clear, see User talk:Manerr. We need a written confirmation by Opel for a free licence. Image:Opel-antara.jpg, Image:Opel-corsa.jpg, Image:Opel-gt-hinten.jpg and Image:Opel-corsa-5tuerer.jpg are affected too. --Raymond ^Disc. 14:57, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

You can see more at http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Benutzer_Diskussion:Manerr#Opel_Fotos and it is okay to delete, because Opel wants a licence which is not in the Wikipedia. --Manerr 20:21, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

deleted --ALE! 09:51, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

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

[edit] User:Dickbauch + User talk:Dickbauch

Please delete and block my account permanently. I´m out for good. ((o)), Ja, bitte?!? 17:13, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

 Comment Können/dürfen Benutzerkonten auf Commons gelöscht werden? Auf der deutschsprachigen Wikipedia wird das nicht getan. --ALE! 10:44, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

 Comment Is it possible / allowed to delete user accounts on Commons. On the German Wikipedia this is not possible. --ALE! 10:44, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

AFAIK Lock on user's request is possible but not delete (unless it was a vandal-only account) --Denniss 11:58, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

blocked and protected --ALE! 09:05, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

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

[edit] Image:Morgengrauen.jpg

bad quality, not in use --GeorgHH 17:18, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

Oh no, has Commons run out of disk space again? I'm so glad you're doing something about it! --Fb78 18:11, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

Anyone have to do it...--GeorgHH 19:41, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

I also see no use for it. So, why keep it? It shows an unspecified country road in southern Germany on a misty morning photographed from within in car with a mobile phone camera. delete --::Slomox:: >< 12:28, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

Was soll der Trollantrag? Qualität ist kein Löschgrund, kann gut als Illustration des Bildrauschens genommen werden 217.88.156.78 12:50, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

Translation: Why that troll request? Quality is no reason for deletion, the image could be well used to illustrate [digital] image noise. --ALE! 16:53, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

Considering what the IP says, I vote  Keep --ALE! 16:53, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

I don't call that useful.  Delete. - Andre Engels 02:26, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

Bad quality image,  Delete. NielsF 02:32, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

deleted--Shizhao 11:25, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

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

[edit] Image:Satellite1984.jpg and Image:FastWalkerleakedfile.jpg

Following through from a suggestion in the Wikipedia. None of these images provide a clear copyright status. They say they are copied from a website and are free to be used, but there is no indication on that website about their being free, nor does the image description give any other form of confirmation. --24.76.102.248 02:03, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

Absentee uploader who has not responded to previous queries regarding licensing. No sign of a legit licence after a fortnight up for deletion. Deleted as copyvio. — Erin (talk) 04:46, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

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

[edit] Image:IMAG0055.JPG

The image/license is copyright are saved only wikipedia use --GeorgHH 16:04, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

Totally unfree. Deleted. — Erin (talk) 15:07, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

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

[edit] Image:Taepo-dong-2.jpg

Copyvio: clearly says "© C.P. Vick"; it is not a work of the US federal government but a work of a senior fellow of globalsecurity.org, a private website. --Fastfission 00:44, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

• Delete copyvio Jaranda ^{wat's sup} 01:19, 12 July 2006 (UTC)
•  Delete ACK. Just tagged it again as copyvio in the hope that the CommonsTickers will unlink it. pfctdayelise (translate?) 11:45, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

deleted --Raymond ^Disc. 12:23, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

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

[edit] Image:Farben logo.jpg

logo, not PD --Shizhao 04:00, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

 Comment Could it be {{PD-ineligible}}? I do not know much about this. (Stichwort: Unzureichende Schöpfungehöhe) --ALE! 12:06, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

 Delete Graphical work. Shaqspeare 12:22, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

Keep there is no thresold of originality, imho {{PD-ineligible}}.--Wiggum 19:20, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

Well, the graphic designers work on such symbols really long. To create a good logo is a question of many days or weeks. And it is a well paid job. It would be rather applicable to say the "wikimedia commons"-logo has no thresold of originality. Shaqspeare 19:07, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

How long it takes or how much is paid for the logo doesn't matter. It's only a question of threshold of originality. I don't see that for two letters orbited by a black line. Ok, this point is disscusible, i know. :-)

A short story for free: I remember a recent inquiry on de-Wiki where someone told us that he would be paid for a picture from wikipedia. Funny, isn't it? ;-)--Wiggum 21:52, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

What I said was not just a funny story. I wanted you to imagine that the graphic design is not just what you think - you said the creator of that did kinda nothing, but to do that nothing is still an intelectual work. To put the two letters of the right typeface in the right way together and to find the right composition for that was IMO much harder than to compose the funny commons logo. Shaqspeare 22:07, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

 Keep {{PD-ineligible}} Shaqspeare does not understand what copyright is all about. It's exact the same old nonsense he tells us here as the typeright lobby repeats again and again. This stuff does not have and does not deserve copyright protection. What such mad claims always try to hide is the fact that there is a limited protection available under design patent law for these things, for up to around 20 years (depending on country) and if you pay for it properly. 70 years pma for such trivialities would really be outrageous—yet designers for some reason or another seem to be unable to accept this simple fact and arrogate for their three letters and four circles the same protection as a Picasso. No copyright for designs! --Rtc 05:23, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

 Delete Clearly above the threshold of originality. Not one of us would have thought of the same creation in a million years if given just "IG Farben Konzern". -Samulili 07:20, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

That is total nonsense; you do not have any idea what threshold of originality means. Threshold of originality is entirely different for utilitarian things (designs) compared to non-utilitarian things (art). Go read what I wrote and [7] (section 'Design patents and copyrights'). There is limited design patent and trademark protection available for designs, but generally not copyright protection. Please get this simple fact and do not continue to repeat these incorrect design copyright lobby views again and again. --Rtc 14:22, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

Interesting page. However, at the very top it says "The patent laws of the United States provide for the granting of design patents to any person who has invented any new, original, and ornamental design for an article of manufacture." What we are dealing with here is not an article of manufacture. Also, from Commons:Licensing: "Consequently any licence to use the material should apply in all jurisdictions relevant". I would think that in this case Germany is a relevant jurisdiction.

Finally, I would like to say that I regard myself to be a sensible person. If by bolding rude messages you're trying to imply that my skull might be too thick without a proper use of cluebat, you're not helping yourself in convinciong me over. -Samulili 15:14, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

If Germany is the jurisdiction, then things are clear: It's not protected by copyright. Please read de:Schöpfungshöhe. It has the nice example Laufendes Auge which was deemed by the german constitutional court as not protected. If Laufendes Auge is not protected by copyright, this logo is for sure not. Such logos are merely protected by trademark law (Markenrecht), and, sometimes, design patents (Geschmacksmuster). --Rtc 15:53, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

ACK --Historiograf 22:23, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

ACK ACK -- Stahlkocher 15:31, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

kept and tagged with {{Logo-Germany}} --ALE! 21:41, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

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

[edit] Many things to delete

There are many files I would like to delete. They are all considered as not immediately useful to Commons. They are all in this category, and most of them are drawings : http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Category:HV, but not all of the files (most of them, actually) need to be deleted. Niladmirari 01:24, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

Actually, I think I will not tag them all in one shot, but the comment will be applicable to all the files that come in this category for the next days.

deleted all, except for the ogg files and some used files. --ALE! ¿…? 15:45, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

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

[edit] Image:MG42.jpg

Image sourced from here. Website displays copyright notice at bottom, but it is not certain that they own the copyright. Image tagged as PD "common property," but definitely does not qualify for such. ArmadniGeneral 06:47, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

• Deleted -- Infrogmation 20:55, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

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

[edit] Pagan symbols

• Pagan symbol male phallus.png
• Pagan symbol male phallus2.png
• Pagan symbol female chalice.png
• Pagan symbol female chalice2.png

Orphaned and superseded by either Pagan symbol male phallus.svg or Pagan symbol female chalice.svg. --Fibonacci 15:40, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

•  Delete superseded --jed 12:11, 16 July 2006 (UTC)
•  Delete Superseded. — Erin (talk) 11:49, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

Deleted — Erin (talk) 11:53, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

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

[edit] Image:Albert Einstein.jpg

Image by Yousuf Karsh, which I had uploaded back in 2004. We've discussed this image several times back in 2005; it was kept because I wrongly argued that it was in the public domain because the Library and Archives Canada said so. I failed to notice that this applies to Canada only. The image was first published in Karsh's book Portraits of Greatness, University of Toronto Press, Toronto 1959, and Thomas Nelson & Sons, London, 1959, p. 68. (See [8].) Having been simultaneously published in both Canada and the UK and still under copyright in the UK, it is also copyrighted all over the EU, and, even if it should have never been published in the U.S., which is doubtful anyway, still copyrighted in the U.S. due to the copyright restoration of the Uruguay Rounds Agreement Act. Note that Karsh for years maintained two offices, one in Ottawa and one in New York, and was in general rather diligent about registering and renewing his copyrights with the U.S. Copyright Office. We had also been told by an anon IP that was later found to resolve to CameraPress in the UK that the image was copyrighted by CameraPress. CameraPress manages Karsh's copyrights in Europe. All evidence points to this image being copyrighted just about anywhere outside of Canada. Therefore, I'm asking to delete this image. (Note that a possible replacement image that is at least {{PD-US-not renewed}} exists at Image:Albert Einstein 1947.jpg.) Lupo 09:44, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

• Lupo's reasoning looks pretty sound to me. There is no indication that this thing is not copyrighted outside of Canada which IMO is a bit too limiting for being on Commons (if it is not public domain in at least the US it also is a problem in hosting it on US servers). So I ruefully (it is a nice photo) agree that it should be deleted. --Fastfission 03:02, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
• delete ACK Lupo --Historiograf 00:31, 8 July 2006 (UTC)
•  Delete Lupo should have considered these things earlier. --Rtc 05:28, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
• Comment This is a featured image on english wikipedia. Shouldn't it be reuploaded there and other places which accept fair use/where the copyright has expired? -Aknorals 02:01, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Yes it could, if someone wants to do it. "Albert_Einstein.jpg is used on at least 447 pages in 85 projects". Ok I'll replace it with a red X and delete it without orphaning, in the way I described on the talk page (template_talk:Deletion requests). / Fred Chess 20:49, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

• Deleted / Fred Chess 20:49, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

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

[edit] Image:Albert Einstein Swss Patent Office clerk 1905.jpg

This Image copyvio. from NASA's Astronomy Picture of the Day. Authors & editors: Robert Nemiroff (GMU) & Jerry Bonnell (USRA). see About image permissions. and Image:Einstein patentoffice.jpg Crop --Shizhao 18:04, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

Who is the photographer? NASA is certainly not, so they have no rights to the picture. --Fb78 18:22, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

Lucien Chavan (1868-1942), a friend of his when he lived in Berne. When was the image published? If pre-1923, it might be at least {{PD-US}}. If kept, there's a much larger version available at the Historical Museum of Berne. (The red text says that the images were cleared for use in a report on the museum; fo all other uses the permission from the archives listed with the images must be gotten. For our image here, the archive mentioned is the Einstein Archive in Jerusalem. It is unknown whether they really would hold the copyright.) I suggest asking at the first link I've given about the copyright status of this work; it's the web site of the Swiss Federal Institute of Intellectual Property... I wonder if they got clearance from the Einstein Archive. Lupo 18:53, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

It would only be PD-US if published in the US pre-1923 (it is pre-1909 if published abroad). Without any evidence to its publication history we should probably delete it. --Fastfission 03:04, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

I am aware of this 1909 thing, see en:WP:PD#_note-0. Until now, common practice on (at least the English) Wikipedia was to apply the 1923 cut-off to works published anywhere in the world. If we want to change that, we'll have to re-evaluate and drop quite a lot of images... It appears that the 1909 date applies only to works first published outside of the U.S. without copyright notice, and is based on a court decision in the 9th circuit that is heavily disputed in legal commentaries. Lupo 07:47, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

The 1909 vs 1923 thing is really quite unclear, but it does look a bit dodgy, when the law is disputed, for us to decide to pick the version that is most convenient (even though that seems to be the most widely supported view). I think we really need two templates: Template:PD-US-Published-abroad-pre-1908 and Template:PD-US-Published-abroad-1909-1922 or similar. And whether we should be keeping the second category of images is debatable, but at least this way round it would be easier to sort the images. However, I am not convinced that the 1909 vs 1923 dispute is relevant here because that centers around publication. This image appears to be a private photograph - it has been published at some point, but it's not even clear that the date of publication was prior to 1923. If not, then I think that 70 years pma applies in which case this is still copyright in the United States too. TheGrappler 13:29, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

With regards to NASA, Robert Nemiroff and Jerry Bonnell are not credited with the photograph. They are, instead, presumed to be credited with authoring and editing the textual blurb beneath the photograph. Other photographs on their site, such as this, have a distinct credit line directly below the image. No such line is present on the Albert Einstein image page. Unless NASA somehow failed to get permission to use the image and/or failed to credit the copyright holder and their institution (as they claim they do on their about image permissions page), I think there's a good chance it's in the public domain. Punctured Bicycle 02:52, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

That's the assumption I was operating under when I uploaded the picture in question, as listed in my original Public Domain rationale. If the consensus is to delete the image due to possible copyright violations, there is nothing I can do, but please take the time to do a wikipedia useage check and re-upload the image to individual wikipedias where applicable. -Fadookie 22:08, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

• According to the investigations of the Swiss Copyright Office (officially the Swiss Federal Institute of Intellectual Property), who show that image on one of their websites, Mr. Chavan donated the image to the archive of his last employer, the Swiss Post (then called PTT). This archive is now the Museum of Communication in Berne, Switzerland. Later, the image was transferred to the Albert Einstein Society in Berne. However, no written contracts on these transferrals exist. To be on the safe side, the Swiss Copyright Office got permission from both the Museum of Communication and the Albert Einstein Society. They write in their e-mail that they do not have any indication that the Einstein Archive in Jerusalem held any rights on this image. They do not know when the image was first published. In any case, the image is still copyrighted in Switzerland (and other "70 years p.m.a" countries) until the end of 2012 (but that was clear from the beginning). Therefore, regretfully, delete. Lupo 09:17, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
•  Delete --Rtc 21:18, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
•  Delete TheGrappler 15:00, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

deleted--Shizhao 12:10, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

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

[edit] Image:JapaneseAmbiance.jpg

Wrong name. And the same image with an appropriate name already exists: Image:BMWSafety.jpg--Morio 04:32, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

Please use the template {{badname}} in such cases. Will be handled elswehere --ALE! 10:40, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

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

[edit] Image:Finder.png

logo, not free copyright --Shizhao 09:34, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

Deleted --JeremyA 04:06, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

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

[edit] Image:Aerobase.png

•  Delete Obsoleted by Image:At sign.svg, unused. King of Hearts 22:36, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
  
•  Delete --gildemax 14:01, 8 July 2006 (UTC)
•  Delete superseded — Erin (talk) 08:57, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
•  Delete superseded (although it is used on the French speaking Wikipedia) --ALE! 09:49, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

deleted and changed all uses --ALE! 23:09, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

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

[edit] Image:Leman tutorial 11.jpg

Image is a screenshot of a copyrighted program (Abobe Photoshop) - and AFIAK that excludes it from falling under commons guidelines -- Tawker 15:35, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

•  Delete as per nomination CyrilB 18:36, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
•  Delete as per nomination --ALE! 09:46, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

deleted--Shizhao 11:28, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

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

[edit] Andrew Campbell and Andrew B. Campbell

Material not suitable for the Commons, was moved here after deletion on en wiki. Also contributions by User:Artforum (all uploads of this artist, many could be considered as copyvios). -- Denniss 10:51, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

•  Keep (All images are released by consent of the artist in question) @ GFDL —the preceding unsigned comment is by Artforum (talk • contribs)
•  Delete (again) Commons is not the place for this kind of articles. It was found not suitable even for the en wiki. --Denniss 21:49, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
•  Delete This type of article belongs on Wikipedia, but its content belongs nowhere. -- King of Hearts 22:38, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
•  Keep :A serious and important artist —the preceding unsigned comment is by Artforum (talk • contribs) - Already voted

He may be, but his site states copyright © andrew campbell 2006, with no creative commons notice. Commons is a repository for free images, not an encyclopedia. GeeJo ^(t)⁄_(c) • 18:36, 7 July 2006 (UTC) 18:36, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

•  Keep (All images are released by consent of the artist in question) @ GFDL —the preceding unsigned comment is by Artforum (talk • contribs) - Already voted
•  Delete doesn't meet commons:project scope and please sign your comments! pfctdayelise (translate?) 06:18, 9 July 2006 (UTC)
•  Delete contents have simply been transposed here after being deleted from WP. If artist was NN enough for WP then he isn't notable enough for here - the commons is not deviantart. SFC9394 21:38, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

deleted--Shizhao 12:15, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

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

[edit] Image:Chant de la paix.ogg

clear copyright violation: Soviet-PD cannot be applied to music, furthermore there is no licence given by the artists. --Taxman^(de) 10:36, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

Why can't Soviet-PD cannot be applied to music ?

There is no licence because of the Soviet-PD, obviously (this is a recording of the 20s). Rama 12:29, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

Well now, it took me a while, but i got an e-Mail from sikorski's official for copyrights explaining, that Soviet-PD is (as mentioned by en:user:lupo) not correct for composers like Shostakovich, having died 1975. I got the same information from German GEMA. Therefore, as the music is still copyrighted it has to be deleted --Taxman^(de) 09:15, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

Artist died in 1970s. Not yet public domain. Deleted. — Erin (talk) 11:07, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

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

[edit] Image:Shoeonhead.jpg

Not only is there no source of the image, but it's obviously not GPL. The image features an alteration of the YTMND logo, which is copyrighted. Also, if I recall correctly, that poster was posted on YTMND itself, making it copyrighted to YTMND.

• Nominate and delete. Messedrocker 21:54, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

• Keep YTMND is rather lenient about its copyrights, but i also feel that this would fall under Fair Use guidelines 17:14, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
  • fair use is not applicable to commons - claiming fair use is in fact a reason for speedy deletion. Read Commons:Licensing and explain what exactly "rather lenient" means here. There's also a strong bias against trademark logos in general (registered or not). -- Duesentrieb^(?!) 18:22, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

Deleted. Contained several copyrighted elements. Also orphaned and useless. — Erin (talk) 10:55, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

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

[edit] Image:Sunbathe Buttocks.jpg

Neither here nor on flickr is any hint that the pictured ladies have agreed to the publication of the photograph under free license. --217.111.50.205 19:08, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

•  Keep Photo is in a public place so no model release is needed. Johntex 06:55, 8 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Please noctice Commons:Licensing#Checklist, section "definitly not ok: Photographs of normal people who have not given their consent". Location is irrelevant.
    • Thnak you for calling my attention to that line in the policy. I was not aware of that. This is a bad policy since US law (where our servers are based) allows for any person to be photographed in any public place at any time. If other countries have different laws then we should at put this in a "case-by-case" category based on country where the image was take. I have begun a discussion on Commons talk:Licensing to try to get consensus to change this policy. Johntex 15:16, 8 July 2006 (UTC)
      • • AFAIK the image was taken in Romania. --Pjacobi 20:21, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

•  Delete we can recognise the second girl--Klum 19:43, 12 July 2006 (UTC)
•  Keep per above. User:Klum seems to be a sock on 217.111.50.205 ... --Haham hanuka 20:23, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
•  Keep on the premise that the argument that 217.111.50.205 is trying to make is silly: User:217.111.50.205 is arguing that the ladies in the picture would have been ok with their picture taken and uploaded to wikipedia, had their picture been uploaded under a non-free licence. We do not have any indication of the ladies' desire or preference on their choise of licencing a picture of their buttocks. Therefore the argument 217.111.50.205 is trying to make is absurd. QED.

The choise of licence falls upon the original uploader of the picture. The Wiki Community has to assume Good Faith on the part of the uploader that he is the creator of this contribution, unless proven otherwise. Project2501a | ΑΝΥΠΟΤΑΞΙΑ, ΑΠΑΛΛΑΓΗ, Ι-5 07:02, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

The argument is that they haven't agreed to any publication. --Wiggum 08:52, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

deleted (license on Flickr is "© All rights reserved" [9]) --ALE! 23:02, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

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

[edit] Image:Sunbathe breasts.jpg

And again: Neither here nor on flickr is any hint about the model's permission to the publication of the photograph under a free license.--Wiggum 19:47, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

•  Keep Photo is a candid shot taken in a public place. The subjects permission is not needed. Johntex 07:17, 8 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Please noctice Commons:Licensing#Checklist, section "definitly not ok: Photographs of normal people who have not given their consent". Location is irrelevant.
• löschen weil keine Einwilligung vorliegt 217.88.156.78 12:47, 8 July 2006 (UTC)
  • • Thnak you for calling my attention to that line in the policy. I was not aware of that. This is a bad policy since US law (where our servers are based) allows for any person to be photographed in any public place at any time. If other countries have different laws then we should at put this in a "case-by-case" category based on country where the image was take. I have begun a discussion on Commons talk:Licensing to try to get consensus to change this policy. Johntex 15:19, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

It is irrelevant whether a model release form is signed when talking about the copyright licence. Copyright is separate from a model release form. It is up to the copyright holder to decide which licence the picture is under. David Newton 12:06, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

In Germany it is not separated. As the policy (see the checklist) recognizes the problem i assume that this point has been discussed before.--Wiggum 12:19, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

Have you asked the user on Flickr where the photo was taken? I see only a few indications that say it might have been taken in Germany. With only that to go on I'm not particularly inclined to see a copyright problem here. David Newton 20:41, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

No i didn't asked the Flickr user. I'm not the uploader's babysitter. I surely would have done it if it were an unique historical photograph but it's only some kind of bulk good.--Wiggum 20:11, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

• . I guess this girl wouldn't be too happy to see this picture released on the net without her permission for anyone to use, even for commercial purposes... --88.134.45.204 01:54, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

•  Keep - seems like the girl was aware of taking the photo. --Haham hanuka 16:34, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

•  Delete notably because my breasts are better --Klum 19:44, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

strong argument -.- --StYxXx 03:43, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

• • Look at her constb and tell me this is not a sockpuppet... also User:Klum seems a sock. We should not count them. --Haham hanuka 20:20, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. Angr 19:13, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

deleted (license on Flickr is "© All rights reserved" [10]) --ALE! 23:19, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

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

[edit] Image:Tange-bikini bottom.jpg

Another flickr image without model's permission.--Wiggum 22:58, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

•  Keep Photo was taken in a public place so no model release is needed. Especially since the person's face is not even clearly visible. Johntex 06:39, 8 July 2006 (UTC)
•  Keep Again, the first reasoning of Johntex is wrong, but as you can't recognize the person, I think this is ok. -Samulili 13:44, 8 July 2006 (UTC)
  • I'm pretty sure that i will recognize any of my friends or co-workers photographed in this position.--Wiggum 13:48, 8 July 2006 (UTC)
•  Keep nice girl and breast - girl's face is not clearly visible --gildemax 14:04, 8 July 2006 (UTC)
•  Keep Looks quite anonymous. — Erin (talk) 12:34, 9 July 2006 (UTC)
•  Delete Gosh, what a can of worms was opened here. If you look at the Flickr stream of this guy, it becomes apparent that almost all of his "models" were not even aware of the picture been taken, much less gave their consent. A person, who knows the person in the picture can easily identify the person on the picture. Fossa 14:41, 9 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Above comment was deleted by 207.232.8.34 under the pretext of it being a "sockpuppet vote".[11]. I have reinstantiated it for two reasons: first, we don't vote here, and second, irrespective of who this is, he or she has presented a reasoning. Lupo 19:31, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
•  Delete Ditto. It is not even a nice ass.--Klum 19:40, 12 July 2006 (UTC)
•  Comment Could someone of the pro-deleters just ask the photgrapher, whats the status about this issue and whats the legal aspect reagarding this issue in Romania. Otherwise  Neutral -- Test-tools 13:58, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
•  Comment Romanian Copyright law states in Art. 88 (the only thing I could find that had to do with personal rights):

Art. 88 - (1) The distribution of a work containing a portrait shall require the authorization of the person represented in that portrait. Its author, owner or possessor shall not have the right to reproduce it or communicate it to the public without the consent of the person represented, or that of his successors, for a period of 20 years after the death of the said person. This is an old version of the law, but the amendment of 2005 was about enforcement and collective rights ([12]) I gather, so this article would still be in effect. Remains to define what a portrait is and if this article applies to this and other pictures. NielsF 14:38, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

•  Delete--Iryna Nepomenko 20:12, 14 July 2006 (UTC) (the comment above by Klum is stupid.)
•  Keep - Identity is obscured. --66.71.222.118 04:13, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
•  Delete - Herself, close friends and family may identify the person. As long as she can identify herself there, it's highly doubtful it can be used here. There also already are topless women on the article where it's used, and a topless man on a beach. How many more do we need, and why do we need controversial ones? And how pretty girl, breasts and butt she have is hardly relevant in a debate about she being able to identify herself. -- Northgrove 19:51, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
•  Keep - public place. --Haham hanuka 20:28, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. Angr 19:13, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
•  Keep - The face isn't visible. 82.37.12.248 00:10, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
•  Keep - identity not recognizable --Avatar 21:45, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

deleted (license on Flickr is "© All rights reserved" [13]) --ALE! 23:36, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

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

[edit] Image:Pistorasia.JPG

poor quality, redundant with Image:Stopcontact.jpg which shows a very similar socket, not used anywhere according to check usage. -81.86.129.150 20:37, 7 July 2006 (UTC)Plugwash 21:20, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

•  Delete--Iryna Nepomenko 20:09, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

• Deleted. Maybe not redundant, but poor quality. -Samulili 12:18, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

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

[edit] images by user User:Xoxota

This user uploaded several pictures under public domain, but it is really unlikely. When I asked the user more details, he blanked his user page:

• Image:Marisapeladona.jpg

 Delete

•  Deletecopyvio--Klum 04:26, 12 July 2006 (UTC)
•  Delete--Iryna Nepomenko 20:11, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
•  Delete seems to be a clear copyvio --ALE! 23:51, 15 July 2006 (UTC)
•  Delete copyvio obvious --Pierre André 18:46, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

• Image:Ballteamgeist.jpg

 Keep

•  Keep perhaps legitimate. --Klum 04:26, 12 July 2006 (UTC)
•  Delete perhaps not. Obviously all images have to be deleted. --StYxXx 03:49, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
•  Keep--Iryna Nepomenko 20:11, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
• in doubt  Delete --ALE! 23:51, 15 July 2006 (UTC)
• in doubt but I would  Keep --Pierre André 18:46, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

• Image:Bridgetemmamas.jpg

 Delete CyrilB 21:36, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

•  Delete all, obvious copyvios, the third image even has a sports illustraed logo on it so it's likely from there Jaranda ^{wat's sup} 01:07, 12 July 2006 (UTC)
•  Deletecopyvio--Klum 04:26, 12 July 2006 (UTC)
•  Delete--Iryna Nepomenko 20:11, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
•  Delete seems to be a clear copyvio --ALE! 23:51, 15 July 2006 (UTC)
•  Delete --Pierre André 18:46, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

• Deleted (one picture). No one questioned that it's unlikely that the image(s) is in public domain. -Samulili 12:15, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

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

[edit] Image:Flashergrl.jpg

From deactived Flickr account. So we are unable to assure license and model's permission. May well be one og the many weirdos who just upload stuff found on the web to Flickr. --Pjacobi 17:53, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

• It does say that it was "relased as CC-BY-SA-2.0 on Flickr". Perhaps we could assume good faith on that. As for model's permission, she is clearly posing for the pic. Is it a useful image though? — Erin (talk) 11:19, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
• One of the weirdos. That pic has been on the Internet before October 2005. -Samulili 18:34, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
•  Delete permission questionable. --Rtc 02:38, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
• deletel assuming good faith doesn't seem to be appropriate in connection with flickr. Instead "flickr" should be a speedy deletion reason.--Wiggum 18:45, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

deleted--Shizhao 11:37, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

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

[edit] Image:Bodypainting at Purim Carnival 01.jpg

Neither here nor on flickr is any hint about agreement of the pictured ladies to the publication of the photograph under a free license.--Wiggum 19:36, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

•  Keep Photo is a candid shot taken in a public place so no model release is needed. Especially since the person is difficult to recognize behind sunglasses. Johntex 06:57, 8 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Please noctice Commons:Licensing#Checklist, section "definitly not ok: Photographs of normal people who have not given their consent". Location is irrelevant. I don't know about jurisdiction in other countries, but in germany a district court judged (in january) that even a noised Picture with anonymised face infringes about personality rights of the pictured person.--Wiggum 08:57, 8 July 2006 (UTC)
•  Delete Johntex has it completely wrong. -Samulili 13:43, 8 July 2006 (UTC)
  • • Thnak you for calling my attention to that line in the policy. I was not aware of that. This is a bad policy since US law (where our servers are based) allows for any person to be photographed in any public place at any time. If other countries have different laws then we should at put this in a "case-by-case" category based on country where the image was take. I have begun a discussion on Commons talk:Licensing to try to get consensus to change this policy. Johntex 15:17, 8 July 2006 (UTC)
•  Delete --gildemax 17:23, 9 July 2006 (UTC)
•  Keep (Speedy Keep) Photo is in a public place so no model release is needed. Not to mention that she seems aware of taking the photo. --Haham hanuka 08:30, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
•  Delete it is just plain wrong that no model release is needed if a photo is taken in a public place—that would make the requirement for model releases absurd in the first place. There's no difference for America. Please read en:model release. There are only exceptions for prominent persons if the photo is of public interest (and not used for advertisements or similar purposes, but that restriction is independent from copyright.) This person does not seem prominent to me. --Rtc 02:46, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

deleted--Shizhao 11:39, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

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

[edit] Image:800px-German Troops In Warsaw.jpg

This image was published 1940 in the book "Die Soldaten des Führers im Felde". The photo was taken by "Hugo Jäger". I do not know when he died but anyway, 70 years after the first publication would be in 2011. And therefore the image chan not be in the public domain. --ALE! 12:53, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

• on the website [14] (search identifier 559369),"unrestricted" use of the document is allowed. I don't know what that means. Also, when you nominate an image for deletion, please add the {{deletion request}} and notify the user. CyrilB 18:46, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
  • This means that NARA ignores author rights... Please see also the "Bilder von Adolf Hitler" section above where the trustability of Nara et.al. is discussed. In this case it's clear (imho, as everytime ;-) - we have an individual author so 70 years pma rule applies. As the picture cannot be taken before September 1939 the copyright is not yet expired.--Wiggum 19:25, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

Natürlich löschen! 217.88.156.78 12:45, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

• Deleted. I replaced it with a red X instead of orphaning, as explained on Template_talk:Deletion_requests#A_different_approach.2C_red_cross.

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

[edit] Image:Aiport Diagram of Clinton-Sherman airfield in Oklahoma.PNG

I accidentaly uploaded this image under a mispelt filename (note the misssing "r" in "airport"). It is currently found in several articles here and one article in the English Wikipedia. User:Kimchi.sg tagged it for deletion but did not follow-throgh by listing it here. I am not an admin on commons so I cannot fix the problem. Johntex 06:35, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

Please change all uses of the image in all projects to the correct name, and tag it with {{badname}}. -- Duesentrieb^(?!) 09:15, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

Done. Thanks! Johntex 15:28, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

deleted --ALE! 16:41, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

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

[edit] Category:Z1

now Category:Zuse --gildemax 13:53, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

deleted, empty category --ALE! 16:32, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

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

[edit] Image:Lulusuke.png

same Image:Lulusuke.jpg--Shizhao 15:29, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

deleted, please use {{duplicate}} next time --ALE! 16:25, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

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

[edit] Category:Korean people

superseded by Category:People of Korea --Ahellwig 16:15, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

Just use {{Category redirect|People of Korea}} — Erin (talk) 05:51, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

I usually prefer to delete a category, because a red category link indicates quickly that the category pretended to use does not exist. If nobody opposes, I will delete this category. --ALE! 07:33, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

Very bad idea! Deleting it will very likely lead to people just recreating it in the future, since it is such a likely name for the category. Category RDR is a much better idea (with a bot doing regular sweeps to move images). Therefore  Keep. pfctdayelise (translate?) 16:46, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

kept but with a redirect to Category:People of Korea --ALE! 08:56, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

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

[edit] Image:X11.png

The SVG-version of this image is really equal to the png which is no more used in any wiki. --Sven 19:08, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

•  Delete redundant — Erin (talk) 01:28, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
• I'm confused about the copyright status of this logo. First of all, where is the evidence that this logo has been released under a free license, and is thus OK for Commons to begin with? I realize that X11 is free software, but that doesn't neccesarily mean their logo is. On the English Wikipedia, the logo they are using for the X Window System article has actually been tagged as fair use. Second, I've noticed that the SVG version has a public domain tag. But if the PNG image that the SVG is based on is indeed GFDL, then isn't the SVG required to be GFDL as well? Punctured Bicycle 23:31, 12 July 2006 (UTC)
•  Delete superseded --jed 12:55, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

deleted--Shizhao 12:17, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

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

[edit] Image:20050917dinosaur04pano.jpg

The main subject of this photograph is a sculpture in copyright in the US. The photograph itself is therefore a derivative work and cannot be given a Commons licence without permission of the copyright holders in the original work. See Commons:Derivative works. William Avery 20:51, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

• It has come to my attention that there is a souvenir shop inside this concrete dinosaur [19]. So can it be treated as a building, with freedom of panorama? William Avery 12:56, 9 July 2006 (UTC)
• I say it can be treated as an building in a wat so Keep Jaranda ^{wat's sup} 02:36, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
• I'm not sure if it's a building looking like a sculpture or a sculpture with a shop in it, but since very little detail of the structure is shown, I'd say that even if it is a sculpture it would quite possibly be OK; with the doubts on its nature I'll go for Keep. Cnyborg 13:15, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

kept--Shizhao 11:57, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

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

[edit] Image:Gaziel obra completa.png

This image has been scanned from the main front of copyrighted book. --Yonderboy 01:54, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

 Delete copyvio — Erin (talk) 06:02, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

deleted by User:Anna --ALE! 07:30, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

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

[edit] All images in Category:Seal script GIFs and Category:Great seal script GIFs

I am in the process of converting all the images in the above category into vector format. Many have already been done. For example Image:六書通 中.gif has been superseded by Image:中-bigseal.svg.

Once I have made sure that they are not being used on any project, I'd like to be able to delete them as I replace them. Can I get a consensus for that, please? — Erin (talk) 04:07, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

All files in the category that begin with "說文解字" and "六書通" have now been replaced and orphaned. Any objections to me deleting them? — Erin (talk) 08:50, 11 July 2006 (UTC) The images have been reorganised into the following categories:

• Category:Seal script GIFs
• Category:Great seal script GIFs
• Category:Bronze script GIFs
• Category:Oracle script GIFs

I would like to delete all images in the first two categories, as they have all been superseded and orphaned. I am in the process of replacing the images in the last two categories. — Erin (talk) 08:28, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

•  Delete — Erin (talk) 08:28, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
•  Keep The category is irrelevant for my work, and can be changed. The naming convention can be changed as well. Just tell me where to post my downloads. But the file format is imposed by the data, and should be preserved. Furthermore, the pictures shouldn't be deleted without notice, please revert them. Micheletb 08:59, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

  Yes, there is a strong objection indeed. My "personnal quest" is on Chineese etymology, for which I introduce some text on the french wictionnary (see there for an index of my work in this field). I have asked for (and obtained) permission to use pictures from http://www.internationalscientific.org/ to explain graphical evolutions (see list of etymological files). When I need to upload some files from internationalscientific, the upload will always be in .gif format, unless there is a magical trick that can change a .gif on my disk to a .svg on commons during the upload. The Category:Seal script, Category:Bronze script and Category:Bone and Shell script will be messy if both .gif and .svg are used, since no one can know which is the correct format for a given download, if .gif are suppressed. The other point is, the downloaded pictures are pictures of archaeological interests, which cannot be replaced as equivalent by drawings which are their modern interpretation. The idea that the "pictures have been orphaned" simply means that the link now points to the wrong picture, and should be reverted. See User talk:Erin Silversmith for more details. Micheletb 08:53, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

  There is no "modern interpretation". The images are the same except that the ragged edges have been smoothed and the images are now scalable. The ragged edges are not of archaeological interest; there are purely the result of the GIFs being saved at very low resolution. — Erin (talk) 09:44, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

  This is but an interpretation, and but one half of the problem. The other half is: they should be kept for compatibility, since newly incoming files will comme in .gif format. The fact that a .png is higher quality dosen't mean my work should be put to a mess and/or to a halt. Micheletb 10:28, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

  This is a "mass deletion" request, which should be vetoed out. If the only reason is "low quality", then please consider the guideline that says "Redundant or low quality files get only deleted on a case by case basis" and ends by "If you're in doubt do not delete such a file". Micheletb 10:28, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

• OK, since deletion of these useless files would traumatise Micheletb so much, I withdraw the request. — Erin (talk) 07:21, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

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

[edit] Image:Fritz Todt.jpg

The {{PD}} license is an out-and-out lie. Todt was promoted to general in 1939 and died in 1942, therefore no reason for being PD.--Wiggum 11:51, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

• ACK  Delete --gildemax 18:08, 9 July 2006 (UTC)
•  Delete copyvio — Erin (talk) 05:54, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

deleted--Shizhao 11:30, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

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

[edit] Image:Mount-feathertop-from-south.jpg

Has been superseeded by Image:Mount-feathertop-from-south-enhanced.jpg

deleted --ALE! 08:54, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

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

[edit] Puffy AmiYumi SVG files

• Image:Ami Onuki.svg
• Image:Puffy AmiYumi.svg
• Image:Yumi Yoshimura.svg

Looks like copybio. A fictional character designed from an actual person is under the copyright. --Kasuga 17:40, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

Er... I think fanarts belongs not to its representatives but to theirs creators... Hołek ҉ 16:58, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

If they are your design, it might be so. However, these are reproduction of official designs.(w:Hi Hi Puffy AmiYumi) Cartoon Network owns the copyright of them. --Kasuga 17:57, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

Heh... I didn't know... Anyway: Do NOT delete them. Move them to English Wikipedia and change those poor graphics there. Hołek ҉ 17:50, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

•  Delete after moving to Wikipedia. — Erin (talk) 10:59, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

deleted --Raymond ^Disc. 12:31, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

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

[edit] Madame Tussauds#Wax

Image:Marie Tussaud.jpg Image:DIE BEATLES.JPG Image:BEYONCE.JPG Image:David Bowie at Madame Tussaud.jpg Image:SV400030.JPG Image:Samuel l jackson waxstatue.jpg Image:Mr T.jpg Image:Timothy Dalton as James Bond.jpg Image:Telly Savalas.jpg Image:Jane Seymour.jpg Image:Vincent van Gogh Wax Sculpture.jpg Image:Dalai Lama Wax.jpg Image:Sharon and Ozzy Osbourne Wax.jpg Image:Andrew Sachs.jpg Image:Hitchcock Tussaud.jpg Image:Grace Jones.jpg Image:Charles Dance.jpg Image:Honecker Wachs1.jpg Image:Hussein Schroeder Howard Chirac.jpg

• de:Wikipedia:Urheberrechtsfragen#Fotos_von_Wachsfiguren
• de:Wikipedia:Urheberrechtsfragen#Fotos von Wachsfiguren (Mme. Tussauds)
• de:Wikipedia:Löschkandidaten/Bilder/9. Juli 2006
• de:Wikipedia:Bildrechte#Gegenstände in geschlossenen Räumen

...Nicht erlaubt ist außerdem die Veröffentlichung von Fotos, auf denen Kunstwerke zu sehen sind, die noch urheberrechtlich geschützt sind. Diese Rechte verfallen jedoch 70 Jahre nach dem Tod des Künstlers (genauer: am 1. Januar des Jahres, das auf den 70. Todestag folgt, also für 1936 gestorbene Künstler am 1. Januar 2007).

Copyright infringement, because there is no permission of the sculptor - sculptures are copyrighted! --Tout ^(Diskussion) 19:59, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

In the UK at least, §62 of the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act, 1988, allows to take pictures of sculptures, buildings, and works of artistic craftsmanship that are permanently located in public places or premises open to the public, and to publish such pictures in any way. This basically applies to three-dimensional works only; it does not apply to two-dimensional works such as e.g. murals. Remains the question whether Tussaud's is a "premise open to the public"... Lupo 08:34, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

Es ist - das sollte Lupo besser als alle anderen wissen - ganz und gar irrelevant, was im UK gilt. Die EU kennt keine solche Ausnahme (schon gar nicht DE), also delete --Historiograf 15:44, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

Of course - in the same way like any Museum or church when there is actually no religious service and no "Photography prohibited"-Sign - and you have lots of Images, that are taken in Museums. --Kathe 11:51, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

Delete These wax figures are copyrighted sculptures, not permanently installed, not in a public place. Commons:Derivative works applies. --Fb78 06:43, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

• Take a look at Category:Wax figures... Lupo 08:18, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

Delete --Rtc 03:34, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

Delete Derivative works and really of very little wikimedia/encyclopaedic value. William Avery 01:37, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

• Note: Many of these images have not had request for deletion notices put on them. -- Infrogmation 21:14, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

--- All deleted while no one speaks for their retentions. If anyone has pursuasively valid reasons, it is still possible to appeal the deletion and the deleted images may now be restored.--Jusjih 10:13, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

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

[edit] Image:Wappen Rinteln.jpg

There is better file just uploaded by sb else as Image:Herb rinteln.jpg, there's no need to have both of them. Pilecka 19:52, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

I made it the other way round and overwrote this with the better version. Wappen Rinteln.jpg is the better filename. As both are new, it shouldn't make a further difference which I deleted. This kept, the other deleted. --::Slomox:: >< 13:02, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

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

[edit] Template:USPSstamp

I didn't think fair use isn't allowed on Commons. JYolkowski 23:58, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

Yep, fair use is not possible here. Template should not be deleted but redirected to fair use to prevent a recreation. --Denniss 01:19, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

 Delete fair use --ALE! 09:52, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, my mistake. --Evrik 14:50, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

I redirected it to {{Fair use}}, better than deleting this template. Every image copied from en wiki still using this template is now (and in future uploads) fair use and will be deleted. --Denniss 15:33, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

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

[edit] Uploads of User:Charles wessex

Around 90 per cent of this author's upload seems to be Copyvio. See: [20] --84.168.212.248 20:35, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

Hm, I already warned this user and they ignored me and reverted my no source tags. I reverted them back and blocked this account. --pfctdayelise (translate?) 05:07, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

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

[edit] Image:Form of government with Freedom House 3.png

The original image was apparently uploaded for the sole and exclusive purpose of propagating deliberately false and misleading information, and User:Dcornio hasn't had the courtesy to reply to the message I left on his talk page. I've uploaded a little null graphic to prevent misuse of the original image, but the the whole thing should be deleted. AnonMoos 00:56, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

A feeble attempt at spreading deliberate misinformation (i.e. listing Freedom house ratings for every country in the world, but changing the value for the US so it appears to be a dictatorship). The title claims that this is Freedom House ratings which is thus deliberately misleading. The result is completely unencyclopedic. Strong delete ASAP. Valentinian ^(talk) 08:44, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

deleted --pfctdayelise (translate?) 11:55, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

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

[edit] Image:Antoni gaudi.jpg

Tagged as "no source" since 21 December 2005. The image is used on 22 projects. So maybe it can be kept if someone prrofs it to be PD. --ALE! 15:44, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

• The BBC also has the full version of that image. Interestingly, they don't give any copyright or source indication, which is unusual—they usually give a source for all their images. Given the age of that image, there's indeed a fair chance that it is actually in the public domain by now. Lets see... got it now: according to the Gaudi and Barcelona Club, the photograph was taken on March 15, 1878, the day Gaudí received his title in architecture. Photographer was Pau Audouard (born 1857 in La Habana, Cuba, died 1918 in Barcelona, Spain). Therefore {{PD-old}}, and keep. Lupo 19:31, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

• Licence cleared, kept Shaqspeare 13:28, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

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

[edit] Image:Final Solution-chan.jpg

Lolicons (child-porn manga characters) are legally forbidden in some countries (like Canada and UK i think). Wikipedia should not promote this kind of cartoons. Code Binaire 15:19, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

That's just your POV, as well-intentioned as it is. The image does not depict any actual person, or any sexual activity, so it cannot be child porn. We're not promoting lolicons; we're giving an example of one in an encyclopedia article. — Erin (talk) 01:19, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

Exactly. This image was drawn with the explicit intention to use it to exemplify what lolicon can look like, without infringing on copyright or other laws. —Nightstallion (?) 07:30, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

 Keep as per Erin Silversmith and Nightstallion. TZM ^de:T/_{T C} 17:39, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

 Keep I have some doubt about the relevancy of this image on Commons. But I think the licence is ok and I don't see any problem about this picture. Shaqspeare 19:05, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

We need this picture on Commons so that it can be used on all Wikipedias (as opposed to a photo of a manga cover, which is legally ambiguous). Ashibaka 16:32, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

Kept. — Erin (talk) 11:00, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

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

[edit] Image:Cyfac Gothica bike.JPEG

REASON (This image is likely under copyright by VeloEuropa, Inc. See http://www.veloeuropa.com/.) --Mindfrieze 03:22, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

deleted --ALE! ¿…? 13:50, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

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

[edit] Image:RERParisVision2025.png

REASON: Includes logo of RATP which is copyrighted -- ♦ Pabix ^ℹ 10:36, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

Logos are almost never copyrighted. They are protected by trademark law. --Rtc 03:37, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

 Keep You can stop the deletion request. I've removed the RATP logo now.... --Chumwa 07:32, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

kept (I deleted the first upload with the logo) --ALE! ¿…? 21:53, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

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

[edit] Image:Tour de france 2005 21st stage sm 01.jpg

REASON: See discussion. Not GFDL but CC Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 2.0 --Jan Arkesteijn 09:21, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

Correct. However, it looks like the author would be willing to license it differently. Contact him again and point out that while the GFDL does allow commercial uses of the photo, such commercial stand-alone use of the image is unlikely to occur because the full text of the GFDL must be distributed with any re-publication. Lupo 10:01, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

Before me he sent me the mail which is copied to the discussion page, he wrote me this mail which seems clear to me:

"Hi -  I am unwilling to make my photo freely available for commercial
purposes and prefer to maintain the NonCommercial-ShareAlike  protection.
Sorry for the conflict -
Frank

I also asked him to remove the other images he mentioned on en.wikipedia himself. I don't have an account there, and he uploaded the images himself. Jan Arkesteijn 15:22, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

I still think it's worth a try. I've contacted him over at his talk page at the English Wikipedia. If he still wants the images gone, it's ok by me, but maybe the restrictions built into the GFDL are good enough for him. Lupo 16:22, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

•  Delete He didn't reply. Lupo 07:00, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

• Deleted / Fred Chess 07:55, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

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

[edit] Image:Zulfikar Ali Bhutto.jpg

For the Pakistan-PD licensing tag to be effective, Ali Bhutto would have to be at most 28 years old when the image was taken. Also see en:User talk:Chatni#Image Tagging Image:BhuttoZ.jpg --Phrood 18:29, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

• Delete - the same picture has also been deleted from English Wikipedia on the basis of inappropriate licencing info. --Lendu 18:48, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

• Deleted, orphaned on 4 projects. Cnyborg 21:29, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

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

[edit] Image:F1_template.gif

F1 Corporate Logo featured in image which is a Copyvio as it is a registered trademark (see [21]) --Alexj2002 22:30, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

• Keep The logo is not the main subject of the image and is partially overlaped by the F1 car. Also is the logo very small and not usable for other purposes. --ALE! 07:27, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
• Comment this was used for a template at EnWikipedia and it was removed since it was determined to be a violation of the fair use policies. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return fire)} 02:13, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Well, but it is still used on the Russian Wikipedia (29 pages). --ALE! 08:20, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
• Keep per ALE!--Jusjih 10:16, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

kept--Shizhao 11:21, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

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

[edit] Image:World cup 2006 final Cannavaro.jpg

Double of Image:Fabio cannavaro.jpg --Jacopo86 00:36, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

They should both be deleted unless one of the uploaders here has a written permission by the original uploader at Flickr, see COM:SXC --Denniss 01:22, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

Ups, my fault; mixing Flickr with SXC --Denniss 09:21, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

• Delete both. Volker Hartmann is a professional press photographer, see e.g. here. The uploader at Flickr, Beatrice Contardi, has no right to relicense this as CC-BY. It's a copyvio. Lupo 09:42, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

Deleted both as copyvio. NielsF 13:15, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

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

[edit] Bundesmonopolverwaltung für Branntwein

i have created this page, but it´s unnecessary (only one picture available) --GeorgHH 11:17, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Congress Centrum Hamburg

i have created this page, but it´s unnecessary (only one picture available)--GeorgHH 11:23, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

OK, I've deleted it because you are the creator and because with it being just a page, it is trivial to recreate it if anyone wants to. — Erin (talk) 11:37, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

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

[edit] Image:Adobepdfreader7 icon.png

Intended for use freely, but You may not alter the Adobe PDF file icon in any manner is non-derivative -- Platonides 14:47, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

deleted --pfctdayelise (translate?) 05:06, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

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

[edit] FIFA World cup photos

Image:Del piero01.jpg, Image:Fabio grosso.jpg, Image:Buffon01.jpg, Image:Lippi02.jpg. All copyvios of professional press photographers' works, distributed commercially by AP, AFP, and other news agencies. I had them all tagged as {{copyvio}}, but the uploader reverted. The copyvio already occurred on Flickr, where these images wrongly are labelled as CC-BY. Delete 'em all. Lupo 18:55, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

•  Delete If they're still around tomorrow I'll delete 'em, just to give some opportunity for those opposed to deletion I'll wait a bit. NielsF 00:27, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

• Grr Image:Lippi02.jpg is a copy of Image:Lippi01.jpg which I already deleted.  Delete --pfctdayelise (translate?) 00:26, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

• I actually saw some of these images on the official World Cup site, so as obvious copyvio's I didn't want to wait and deleted them. NielsF 00:40, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

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

[edit] Image:Ylitornio coat of arms.png

An unused duplicate of Ylitornion vaakuna.png. --Hautala 18:31, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

• Please tag with {{badname}} or {{duplicate}} instead of putting it here. NielsF 00:27, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

deleted --ALE! 23:55, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

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

[edit] Image:Web navigators.jpg

Although free image, it contains non-free logos (derivative work). I would mark it as speedy, but I want a second opinion --jynus (talk) 11:11, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

should be  Deleted since from stock.xchng, see COM:SXC, and, of course, your reason is also true. TZM ^de:T/_{T C} 11:27, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

deleted by User:UED77 --ALE! 22:06, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

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

[edit] Team Shanghai Alice

[22]内「Ｑ．攻略ページなどでスナップショットを使用したいのですが」によると、改変が制限された自由に使用できない画像。 (free modification was not permitted.)

1. Image:Satsujinn-Luna.png
2. Image:Tohouhou07 danmaku.png
3. Image:Touhou09 danmaku.png
4. Image:Thouhou08 danmaku.png
5. Image:Touhou 08 Logo.png
6. Image:STB-Thumb1.jpg
7. Image:Yougaku01 Logo.jpg
8. Image:Bouyuutoukaidou Logo.jpg
9. Image:Yumetagae.jpg
10. Image:Rendai Logo.jpeg
11. Image:Hourainingyou Logo.jpg
12. Image:Touhou 06 Logo2.PNG
13. Image:Touhou 08 Logo.png
14. Image:Shanghai Alice Circle Logo.png
15. Image:Touhou 07 Logo.jpeg
16. Image:Touhou 075 Logo.jpeg
17. Image:Touhou 09 Logo.jpeg
18. Image:Touhou 06 Logo.jpeg

--Kkkdc 04:19, 11 July 2006 (UTC) added. --Kkkdc 04:39, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

改変とは具体的に何を指すのですか？サイズの変更に関しては縦横比さえ変えなければOKとなっていますが。--Spail 04:51, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

「イメージを加工をしたかどうか分からないような加工を施さないで下さい」。自由な加工が許可されていません。--Kkkdc 04:54, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

•  Delete OK, If I understood that, the licence does not permit any type of modification at all. That's unfree. Delete. — Erin (talk) 08:53, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

•  Delete --GeorgHH 11:30, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
• Note: As far as I understand, the permission for modifying was given in between. Shaqspeare 09:13, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

deleted--Shizhao 12:22, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

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

[edit] Image:Penis size.jpg

This is a collection of images and there is no indication of any sources for any of the image(s). I suspect thet there is a very strong possibility that this is a copyright violation.--Clawed 09:52, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

Actually all contributions by this user[23] contain no sources.--Clawed 10:06, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

•  Delete --- gildemax 21:01, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

•  Delete--GeorgHH 11:30, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
•  Delete Shaqspeare 15:17, 15 July 2006 (UTC) Nothing makes me believe free images were compiled.

deleted--Shizhao 12:22, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

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

[edit] Image:Paltamo vaakuna.png

Unused and superseded by an SVG version. --Hautala 18:07, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

•  Keep. Why delete a perfectly good image? If it were a crappy version ok... Anyway, the colors are quite different, so which one is the truest to specifications (if they exist?). NielsF 02:57, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
•  Delete — Erin (talk) 04:02, 15 July 2006 (UTC)
•  Delete superseded --jed 12:00, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Image:Lapuan vaakuna.jpg

Unused and superseded by Lapua.vaakuna.svg. --Hautala 18:23, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

•  Neutral. Why delete a perfectly good image? If it were a crappy version ok... NielsF 00:27, 12 July 2006 (UTC)
  • It's not perfectly good, it has a poor resolution and an improper format even for raster images. Why keep an inferior duplicate? --Hautala 10:29, 12 July 2006 (UTC)
    • Yeah ok. Got a point there. NielsF 03:02, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
•  Delete — Erin (talk) 04:02, 15 July 2006 (UTC)
•  Delete superseded --jed 12:00, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Image:Coat of arms of Lestijärvi.png

Unused and superseded by Lestijärvi.vaakuna.svg. --Hautala 18:36, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

•  Keep. Why delete a perfectly good image? If it were a crappy version ok... NielsF 00:27, 12 July 2006 (UTC)
•  Delete — Erin (talk) 04:02, 15 July 2006 (UTC)
•  Delete superseded --jed 12:00, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Image:Vesilahti.jpg

Unused and superseded by Vesilahti vaakuna.png with transparent background. --Hautala 18:42, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

•  Keep. Why delete a perfectly good image? If it were a crappy version ok... NielsF 00:27, 12 July 2006 (UTC)
•  Delete — Erin (talk) 04:03, 15 July 2006 (UTC)
•  Delete superseded --jed 12:00, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Image:Malax vapen.png

Unused and superseded by Maalahti.vaakuna.svg. --Hautala 18:50, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

•  Keep. Why delete a perfectly good image? If it were a crappy version ok... NielsF 00:27, 12 July 2006 (UTC)
•  Delete — Erin (talk) 04:03, 15 July 2006 (UTC)
•  Delete superseded --jed 12:00, 16 July 2006 (UTC)
•  Delete does't look as clean as the SVG version --StuartBrady 14:52, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Image:Helsinki CoA.jpg

Unused, superseded by Helsinki.vaakuna.svg. --Hautala 18:57, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

•  Keep. Why delete a perfectly good image? If it were a crappy version ok... NielsF 00:27, 12 July 2006 (UTC)
•  Delete Superseded — Erin (talk) 00:53, 12 July 2006 (UTC)
•  Keep. The images are strongly different (gold versus yellow, silver versus white, thin line versus wide line etc.) Shaqspeare 12:36, 15 July 2006 (UTC)
•  Delete at Heraldry gold is the same as yellow and silver is white --jed 12:00, 16 July 2006 (UTC)
  • But it isn't only a heraldic diadram, but a graphic work as well. If we have two different pics of W. Bush, should we leave only one, because the other one shows the same person? Shaqspeare 18:09, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

deleted--Shizhao 14:50, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

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

[edit] Image:Red Star of David.png

superseded by Image:Red Star of David.svg, nominated by jed.

•  Delete --jed 16:41, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
•  Keep Why delete a perfectly good image? If it were a crappy version ok... NielsF 16:57, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
•  Delete Because this is exactly the sort of image that our policy says should be recreated as an SVG. The PNG is an orphan. My keepdelete vote applies to all the images for which you supplied the same comment. — Erin (talk) 02:59, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

  Comment: shouldn't that be a delete vote? Our policy also says A clear example which is never a duplicate would be a SVG replacement of an PNG file, so why delete it. NielsF 03:06, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

  What you are quoting is the policy regarding speedy deletion. An SVG version of a bitmap is not a 100% exact duplicate therefore it goes on this page for a while before being deleted instead of being instantly deleted. This is because the SVG version might conceivably be inferior. This is clearly not the case here, so delete. — Erin (talk) 03:40, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

  Got a point there, the quote wasn't completely appropriate. I however still not see the need to delete images of good quality just because they are orphaned or perceived to be in an "inferior" format. As the discussion in the Village Pump at the moment illustrates, the SVG format (and especially it's rendering in MediaWiki) still has some flaws. The SVG is indeed of the same quality as the PNG, but why should the PNG be deleted? Your argument that this is exactly the sort of image that our policy says should be recreated as an SVG is correct, I'm glad that an SVG version exists, but still I see no reason for deletion. The PNG is under a free license, is of a good quality, a contributor to Wikimedia projects has invested some time into it, so why delete? NielsF 01:03, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

  Redundancy (hey, this question was quite easy to answer) --jed 05:32, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

  Indeed, redundancy. NielsF's logic, taken to its logical conclusion, would lead us to keep unlimited redundant copies of the same image, perhaps in a variety of formats (GIF, JPEG, PNG, SVG...) on the basis of them all being "under a free license", "of good quality" and that we have nice big harddrives. Obviously, in a sane world there should only be one copy of each image... the highest-quality copy.

  Also, the idea that we are somehow throwing away the work of someone who has "invested some time into it" is incorrect. In most cases the SVG version is based on the bitmap up for deletion, which means that the fruit of the person's time and effort lives on in the new file. — Erin (talk) 07:53, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

Deleted — Erin (talk) 04:21, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

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

[edit] Template:PD-stamp

The text of this template is:

"This image of a postage stamp has been released into the public domain by the copyright holder, its copyright has expired, or it is ineligible for copyright. This applies worldwide."

This is in my opinion misleading, as a user could think, that this applies to all stamps in the world. Which in my opinion is not true or at least not for all countries. Therefore this template - which is currently used by 24 images - should be deleted and the affected images should be retagged or deleted. --ALE! 11:42, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

You are right. A licence template, which does not state the reason, why the image is free, is useless. Delete and retag the images. --::Slomox:: >< 12:22, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

Yes, delete, unless someone can explain why the fact of an image being of a stamp needs a template instead of simply being in a category. Jkelly 20:53, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

Ok, what do we do? I would suggest to remove all {{PD-stamp}} tags and to tag the images with {{subst:nld}} so the authors have chance to choose another license. --ALE! 08:37, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

 Delete the template and {{timebombdelete}} the stamps. Oh, MediaWiki can't do it? --Rtc 09:38, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

I have deleted the template and will tag all images with the following text:

{{PD-stamp}}

The template was deleted, because it did not show the reason for the images to be free.
Please add a new valid license and source. --ALE! 21:38, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

{{subst:nld}}

Please give me some time to get through all images that used this template and do not close the discussion yet. --ALE! 21:38, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

Next time please use a little more common sense - my images had perfectly valid tags before some anon loser came along and applied the bogus tag. I have to go through and fix my own images because nobody else can be bothered to take a moment to think. Stan Shebs 06:20, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

It is not my task to look through the change history of all images that used the template {{PD-stamp}}. The point is, that the template is useless and a new license has to be applied to all images. That is your task. --ALE! 07:15, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

template deleted and all images tagged with {{subst:nld}} --ALE! 08:40, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

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

[edit] Image:Circuitmap.png

It has been superseded by the SVG Image:US Court of Appeals and District Court map.svg, created from the same PDF source. I've already orphaned the image; the uploader has no page on Commons. -- Tintazul 09:07, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

Deleted. — Erin (talk) 11:57, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

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

[edit] Image:Kanji_satori.jpg

This is an ugly scan of a bit of Japanese written with a marker pen. Orphaned and horrible. — Erin (talk) 09:51, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

•  Delete — Erin (talk) 09:51, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

Deleted. — Erin (talk) 11:58, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

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

[edit] Image:COA Danish Royal Family Official.png

The current form of the coat of arms of Denmark's royal family was created in 1972. Danish coats of arms are (unfortunately) not public domain, and it is impossible for the artist to have been dead for 70 years. Delete --Valentinian ^(talk) 22:05, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Image:Coa royal denmark.png

This version of the coat of arms of Denmark's royal family was used circa 1944-1972. Danish coats of arms are (unfortunately) not public domain, and it is impossible for the artist to have been dead for 70 years. Delete --Valentinian ^(talk) 22:05, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Image:Denmark coa official.png

Much as I hate listing this image, the current version of the Danish national coat of arms was created in 1986, so too new and not public domain (alas). Delete Valentinian ^(talk) 22:05, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

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

[edit] Image:Krischbluetenfest-Hamburg.jpg

edited version of Image:Kirschbluetenfest Hamburg.png (water mark deleted). --GeorgHH 17:44, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

• Comment: why is the edited image a PNG? This sort of image should be stored in JPG-format I think. PNG is now 350 kb instead of 150 kb for the JPG. Furthermore I'm curious if there is a policy that says watermarks shouldn't be on pictures. NielsF 18:07, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
• No doubt the new version was saved as a PNG because quality is lost each time a JPEG is saved. However, I don't think that this image really loses anything. I have uploaded a watermark-free version over the top of the JPEG, so the images are now identical. I counsel the deletion of one of them, preferably the PNG. — Erin (talk) 12:05, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete Sorry, but in this case I really prefer the PNG. It is far better than the jpeg which really shows its limitation when it comes to fine structures. --ALE! ¿…? 12:45, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, I agree with ALE!, and as a bonus the png is the one with the correct name. Cnyborg 13:18, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

• Kept both, because the PNG is better, but it is derived from the JPG which should be kept for license reasons. / Fred Chess 10:16, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

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

[edit] Image:Europe belief in god.svg

REASON: I uploaded the file, but something went wrong and there's no image to be seen... Still trying to understand SVG files. (Maybe the map should be uploaded in PNG format anyway. --Leinad-Z 02:05, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

•  Keep No need to delete it. Just check your file and re-upload it (if you are using Inkscape, consider saving it as "plain SVG" instead of "Inkscape SVG"). There was probably a server error when you tried the first time. Then give it time. — Erin (talk) 02:55, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

  Oh god, I've just realised what you did. That is not a vector image file. You just opened a PNG in Inkscape and then saved it as SVG, which created an empty SVG with a link to the PNG on your harddrive (I can even see that it is drive J: on your computer) which is visible only if the SVG is opened on your computer. Please either create a real vector image file, or just stick to bitmap editors. — Erin (talk) 04:33, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

deleted by User:Erin Silversmith --ALE! 07:01, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

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

[edit] Image:SpiridonLouis.jpg

The same as Image:Spiridon louis.jpg --Ante Perkovic 19:42, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

• Deleted, please use {{duplicate}} in the future. NielsF 19:48, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

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

[edit] Image:Hamburg.Grossmarkthallen.jpg

Original image Image:Hamburg.Grossmarkthallen.wmt.jpg updated, it´s now a duplicate. Not in use. --GeorgHH 16:15, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

deleted (next time, please do *not* nominate such an image here. Putting the {{duplicate}} tag on the decription page of the image is enough. --ALE! 13:04, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

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

[edit] Image:Blick Hamburgerhafen.JPG

For Deletion marked on 20:41, 25. Mai 2006 by the author. --GeorgHH 13:33, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

deleted (by uploader request, not used) --ALE! 08:51, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

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

[edit] Kattwykbruecke Hamburg

I have created this page, but it´s unnecessary (only one picture available) --GeorgHH 16:39, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] HanseNet

I have created this page, but it´s unnecessary (only one picture available) --GeorgHH 16:39, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Nordwestdeutsche Klassenlotterie

I have created this page, but it´s unnecessary (only one picture available) --GeorgHH 16:39, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

deleted by User:Pfctdayelise --ALE! 22:09, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

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

[edit] Image:Leuenberger.jpg

I think this image shouldn't be under "PD-Switzerland-photo" but not sure, could someone checked it, please? Anna 01:35, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

Hello Anna, if you click on the mentioned source of the picture, you can read: «Copyright, Swiss federal authorities, 2005. Information on the federal authorities' websites is accessible to the public. Downloading or copying of texts, illustrations, photos or any other data does not entail any transfer of rights on the content. Copyright and any other rights relating to texts, illustrations, photos or any other data available on the Federal authorities' websites are the exclusive property of the federal authorities or of any other expressly mentioned owners. Any reproduction requires the prior written consent of the copyright holder. Federal Chancellery: webmaster@admin.ch» so, please just ask at the Federal Chanellery. I am sure, that they will send you a picture of every of the seven members of the Swiss gvernement for the commons CC-BY or other wiki-compatible license! --Eruedin 13:09, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

• Delete. {{PD-Switzerland-photo}} is a next to useless template. Based on a decision by the Swiss Supreme Court in one case some people like to argue that simple press conference shots such as this one were PD in Switzerland. Even if that might be so, it is a personal interpretation only, not backed by any reputable legal opinions, and the decision itself was rather heavily criticized. Furthermore, even if such photos might be PD in Switzerland, they'd be PD in Switzerland only. Such images do pass the threshold of originality in many other countries, the EU and the U.S. included. That's not good enough for Wikipedia. We even deleted for that reason the very image this whole case was about, namely Image:Christoph Meili 1997.jpg! That said, contacting the Federal Chancellery and asking for PD or GFDL images of all seven Bundesräte indeed is a good idea. Lupo 19:26, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

 Keep Until appropriate consent is given by the Swiss government. Thereby, we could upload other images from the federal council without hinderance. Booksworm 14:58, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

Huh? I don't understand the logic behind that... Lupo 07:38, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

• Deleted, no evidence of the required permission. -- Infrogmation 04:29, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

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

[edit] Image:Lumumba2.jpg

A drawing of Patrice Lumumba, PM of Congo 1960-1961. Uploader tagged this drawing from Congo's Mission to the UN as GFDL, although I can't find any mention of licensing there. Thuresson 02:58, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

I asked the MONUC about the source of the picture (on their homepage). I will tell you the answer as soon as they answer me. --Eruedin 13:35, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

Any answer? If not, we should delete the image soon. --ALE! 15:02, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

• Deleted no evidence nor reason to assume GFDL licence. -- Infrogmation 04:22, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

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

[edit] Image:Egyptian mural Thebes.png

Why is this image PD? Can't be PD-old (book is from 1977). --Kajk ✉ 06:35, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

 Keep The original mural is a two dimensional artwork eligible for PD-old, and the illustration in the book is a 'slavish copy' so w:Bridgeman_Art_Library_Ltd._v._Corel_Corporation applies and no new copyright has been created. The tag does need to be changed to PD-old or PD-art. William Avery 07:20, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

 Keep arguments see: Avery. --ALE! 07:24, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

Ok, thank you for clarification. Request withdrawn. --Kajk ✉ 20:11, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

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

[edit] Image:Franken-um-800.jpg

Only scanned in by the uploader, not created by him. --HAH 22:25, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Image:Grafschaft-Henneberg.jpg

Only scanned in by the uploader, not created by him. --HAH 22:49, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Image:Franken.jpg

Only scanned in by the uploader, not created by him. --HAH 22:49, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Image:Georg-Ernst-Fürst-zu-Henneberg 001.jpg

Only scanned in by the uploader, not created by him. --HAH 22:54, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Image:Graf-Wilhelm-4-von-Henneberg-Schleusingen.jpg

Sure the uploader did not paint this, so how can he be the autor? --HAH 22:58, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Image:Sachsen-Meiningen.jpg

Sure the uploader did not paint this, so how can he be the autor? --HAH 23:00, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Image:Henneberg Siegel.jpg

Sure the uploader did not paint this, so how can he be the autor? --HAH 23:02, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

Please tag all these images with {{nsd}} and notify the uploader. Tag is wrong, OK, but I think in almost all cases {{PD-old}} would be appropiate. NielsF 00:42, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

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

[edit] Image:A TransGender-Symbol Plain3.svg

Sorry, but MediaWiki SVG to PNG rendering is too buggy (for me at least). I've given up trying to find a way to get the “center-circle transparency” to work. Firefox renders SVG to PNG just fine, and because there's no preview of SVG to PNG rendering, it's a real drag to have to keep uploading a new version just to see that it won't work. -- ParaDox 04:00, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

I'll leave it for the devs to have a look at, so they're aware of the issue (bugzilla:6665). To save you tearing your hair out though, I suggest you use rsvg to check your SVGs, since this is what MediaWiki uses. According to w:Wikipedia:Preparing_images_for_upload#Use_SVG_over_PNG: Editors on Linux and other UNIX-like systems [...] can use rsvg-view to preview SVGs exactly as Mediawiki will render them. --pfctdayelise (translate?) 10:14, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

See also unix man command for rsvg-view. --pfctdayelise (translate?) 10:17, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

 Keep Don't be so hasty. I have tweaked the file in Inkscape and fixed it. — Erin (talk) 01:41, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

 Keep Thank you Erin :-)  Request withdrawn. -- ParaDox 03:40, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

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

[edit] Image_talk:Image:Cubitus.jpg

I followed a wrong link (speedy deletion request notice in my talk) and so created the wrong page --Cubitus 08:08, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

Speedily deleted. — Erin (talk) 03:54, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

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

[edit] Image:Neo.jpg

photo of a copyrighted object can't be put under a free licence --Schlendrian 17:37, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

•  Delete per nomination --ALE! 13:00, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
•  Delete copyvio Siebrand 15:04, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
•  Delete copyvio — Erin (talk) 01:36, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

deleted by User:Raymond de --ALE! 22:34, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

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

[edit] Image:Red Lion with Sun.png

superseded by Image:Red Lion with Sun.svg --jed 22:17, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

 Delete --jed 22:17, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

•  Keep superseeded is not a reason for deletion, especially if the .png version isn't bad. There's still a lot of issues with .svg, so why delete? We're here as a central repository for images for the Wikimedia community, why don't we leave the choice to them? You haven't even notified the original uploader, which would have been the civil thing to do. IMHO this is needless "pollution" of this page. NielsF 00:42, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
•  Delete redundant. — Erin (talk) 04:04, 15 July 2006 (UTC)
• Neutral. If there is some good technical reason why the PNG is better to use than the SVG for some applications, even under specific circumstances, then the PNG should be kept. On the other hand, I have no problem with deletion if there are no such reasons. --Uwe 13:12, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
•  Delete same reasons as for Image:Red Diamond.png below. Siebrand 15:03, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

3/4 majority for deletion. Deleted. — Erin (talk) 16:30, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

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

[edit] Image:Red Diamond.png

superseded by Image:Flag of the Red Crystal.svg --jed 22:28, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

•  Delete --jed 22:28, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
•  Keep superseeded is not a reason for deletion, especially if the .png version isn't bad. There's still a lot of issues with .svg, so why delete? We're here as a central repository for images for the Wikimedia community, why don't we leave the choice to them? You haven't even notified the original uploader, which would have been the civil thing to do. IMHO this is needless "pollution" of this page. NielsF 00:23, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
•  Delete Sigh. — Erin (talk) 03:46, 15 July 2006 (UTC)
  • I sigh as well... NielsF 03:13, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
•  Keep pngs are better to handle. Shaqspeare 12:45, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

  In what sense of the word? — Erin (talk) 09:20, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

•  Delete SVG files are quite easy to handle. --StuartBrady 14:36, 16 July 2006 (UTC)
• Neutral. If there is some good technical reason why the PNG is better to use than the SVG for some applications, even under specific circumstances, then the PNG should be kept. On the other hand, I have no problem with deletion if there are no such reasons. --Uwe 13:13, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
•  Delete SVG is a better alternative in most cases. Supporting 'duplicates' here will only slow down adoption of SVG. Take a chance now and then... Siebrand 15:01, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
  • That's the wrong way around I'd think. I'm all for SVG but why everyone is this eager I don't see, what's the point in pushing for SVG? Commons isn't here to promote file formats, just as Wikipedia isn't here to promote new views on things. The reality is SVG is starting to get accepted, this shouldn't be a reason to just delete other files, some backward compatibility should be offered. NielsF 03:13, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
    • Any backward compatibility issues are resolved by the automatic production of PNGs by the Mediawiki software. — Erin (talk) 12:04, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
      • Which is seriously flawed... But I think my stance is clear so let's not waste more time on this. NielsF 01:03, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

2/3 majority for deletion. Deleted. — Erin (talk) 16:26, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

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

[edit] Image:Logo-fpnl.png (and now also Image:Fpnl.jpg)

I don't understan nothing. You must see Image:Fpnl.jpg and you compare --Lmbuga ^{gl, pt, es: contacta comigo} 01:07, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

 Delete It seems to me that both images are of a copyrighted logo, so they should be deleted. On the other hand, if they really are public domain, an SVG version should be created, then they should be deleted. — Erin (talk) 03:51, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

 Comment These appear to be logos from http://www.ligafpnl.com/ , not related to the NFL (?). Keep? Siebrand 15:11, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

I was about to delete these as copyvios, but then I noticed that the PNG was uploaded by a certain User:Chuzo, and the website that it comes from is run by a certain chuzo@ligafpnl.com. This makes me think that he did indeed have a right to release it into the public domain. — Erin (talk) 00:13, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

These have now been superseded by a vector version (Image:FPNL logo.svg). Delete the lo-res PNG and the lossy JPEG. — Erin (talk) 08:57, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

Deleted — Erin (talk) 04:14, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

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

[edit] Image:Kirchnerpotsdamerplatz.jpg

Kirchner died in 1938. 2006-1938 is only 68 years -> not old enough for PD. and GPL it's surely not. --BLueFiSH ✉ 08:33, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

•  Delete Restore in 2 years... Siebrand 15:07, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

• Deleted. -Samulili 11:08, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

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

[edit] Image:Milk_thistle_pyr.jpg

wrong interpretation, I'm quite sure all the flowers are milk thistles. Vijverln 21:34, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

 Keep no reason to delete, edit the description perhaps --Astrokey44 13:30, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

• Kept. Description can be changed instead. -Samulili 11:04, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

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

[edit] Image:Abludomelita obtusata.png

superseded by Image:Abludomelita obtusata.jpg and replaced everywhere -- Lycaon 22:45, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

Don't forget your own userpages here and at en wiki. --Denniss 01:41, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

• Deleted. You can use {{Badname}} instead if you make the file an orphan first. -Samulili 11:02, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

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

[edit] Anthurium scheranum

invalid name - Lycaon 11:52, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

•  Delete --GeorgHH 13:29, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

You just needed to turn it into a redirect. — Erin (talk) 07:06, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

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

[edit] Image:The Ultimate Matrix Collection.JPG

photo of a copyrighted object can't be put under a free licence --Schlendrian 17:37, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

•  Delete per nomination --ALE! 13:00, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
•  Delete copyvio Siebrand 15:04, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

deleted--Shizhao 15:38, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

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

[edit] Image:Potsdamerplatz1.jpg

it is said that the image was taken in 1933 which is not old enough if the author is not known. and GPL it's surely not. --BLueFiSH ✉ 08:33, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

• If the author wasn't ever known, 70 years should be counted just from the date of publishing, so i would be PD since 2004. We aren't only sure, if the author is known but omitted by the uploader. Shaqspeare 17:09, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
•  Keep If author is not known, isn't it PD 70 years after publication? Siebrand 15:06, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Yes, but do you know, when it was first published? --ALE! ¿…? 07:54, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
• delete No author named on commons does not mean that this is an anonymous publication. For such cases we have the more than 100 years old rule.--Wiggum 20:05, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
• in doubt  Delete --ALE! ¿…? 14:13, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

deleted --ALE! ¿…? 08:52, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

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

[edit] Image:Panoz emblem.jpg

It's a photo of a car logo-thing. Seems like too close a crop and too simple a shot to gain any new copyright. -- pfctdayelise (translate?) 11:36, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

• Delete There's not much else besides the logo and to my understanding, shots such as this should be deleted. --Lumijaguaari (моє обговорення) 02:35, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
• Deleted as the uploader has never responded and no one has spoken for retention.--Jusjih 13:25, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

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

[edit] Image:NC 1811 Shield.PNG and Image:NC 1832 Shield.PNG

This style of sign is not used for four-digit routes. [24] shows the three styles of signs that are used. --SPUI 22:18, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

both deleted --ALE! 21:45, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

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

[edit] image:Heilbronn-gefallene-landwehr-inf-rgt-121.JPG

Upload by mistake. Better pic of the monument is already up here: image:Heilbronn-landwehr-inf-rgt-121.JPG. Please delete image:Heilbronn-gefallene-landwehr-inf-rgt-121.JPG. Thx.--Bufu 22:32, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

Deleted. Please just ask an administrator, when you upload something by mistake. Shaqspeare 12:23, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

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

[edit] Pseudotriton

REASON -- duplication with Pseudotriton montanus --Juiced lemon 21:08, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

deleted, please use {{duplicate}} next time --ALE! 07:45, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

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

[edit] Image:Hertie Logo001.jpg

REASON (it is a logo and is published with a public domain license without any permission. the user has already a delete request in his userpage) --LadyofHats 10:30, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

• ARGUMENTS (if needed to comment request)- -LadyofHats 10:30, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

Deleted as copyvio. — Erin (talk) 16:22, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

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

[edit] Image:Pfeil_unten.png

REASON -- superseded by Image:Pfeil_unten.svg, all links removed --Buschaot 14:54, 14 July 2006 (UTC)