Commons:Deletion requests/Archive/2007/06

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

[edit] Image:Cdsingles.png

Appears to be a bunch of copyrighted CD covers, so not GFDL as claimed. Probably not even fair use as it is used in en.Wikipedia, but that's another discussion. Mr.Z-man 02:13, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

•  Delete obvious copyvio Madmax32 03:54, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
•  Delete, has nothing to do on commons. Lucasbfr 06:29, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Deleted by D-Kuru: copyvio - albumcovers. WjBscribe 15:16, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

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

[edit] Image:Agnès_Sorel.jpg

not needed, there are several couloured versions of the painting -- Stullkowski 13:29, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

•  Keep - Not relevant for a deletion request. --FSHL 00:49, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
•  Delete as it is a b/w version --ALE! ¿…? 12:06, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
•  Keep I agree, not relevant for a deletion request. --Nolanus ✉ (C | E) 07:21, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

deleted, we don’t need “variations” of artworks due to technical limitations, we need high quality reproductions with original colours. --Polarlys 12:42, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

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

[edit] Image:Współpraca.JPG

The source indicates that everything is (c) by Thomas Reydal --Kameraad Pjotr 19:36, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

•  Delete Copyvio. Herr Kriss 23:18, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

deleted, --Polarlys 14:28, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

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

[edit] Image:Burg altendorf.jpg

The "Kriegerdenkmal", which is shown on the postcard, was built in 1934. The postcard (and so the scan) cannot be PD, unless the author's date of death is supplied. --Sir Gawain 19:39, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

deleted --ALE! ¿…? 12:09, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

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

[edit] Image:Two flowers rhs.jpg

lacking source info --Kameraad Pjotr 20:10, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

deleted --ALE! ¿…? 12:11, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

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

[edit] Image:Tut steps night.gif

lacking source info --Kameraad Pjotr 20:14, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

deleted, --Polarlys 12:50, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

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

[edit] Image:ManuelPuig.jpg

Scanning from a newspaper does not make something public domain. --Jkelly 20:30, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

•  Delete per nom --ALE! ¿…? 12:11, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Deleted as copyvio. WjBscribe 12:17, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

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

[edit] Image:Selftimer_skylight.jpg

Unused anywhere. Seems to be outside the project scope. -- howcheng {chat} 21:13, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

•  Keep - Not relevant for a deletion request. --FSHL 00:54, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
  • umm, yes it is. From Commons:Project scope: "Wikimedia Commons is not a web host for e.g. private party photos, self-created artwork without educational purpose and such." howcheng {chat} 22:12, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
•  Delete per nom and COM:SCOPE as unused and likely to not be useful in a Wikimedia project. Adambro 15:44, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
•  Keep I agree, not reason for deletion. --Nolanus ✉ (C | E) 07:25, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

deleted, COM:SCOPE --Polarlys 12:49, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

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

[edit] Image:Rorschach1.jpg

Current copyright by Hogrefe and Huber Publishers is still in effect, regardless of when Rorschach died. -- Ward3001 21:10, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

My english is poor so sorry for it. Please, you can explain me how it can be possible?

Please read w:Public_domain#Expiration first and, please, tell us how this at least 90 years old image can be copyrighted. --DracoRoboter 22:34, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Because the image you see was not created by Rorschach. See lengthy discussion at [1]. Hogrefe & Huber have a current copyright on the blots as they are with the current Rorschach test. Contact Hogrefe & Huber if you have any doubts. Don't assume the blots aren't copyrighted just because Rorschach died in 1922. Ward3001 23:13, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

mmmh, what a case... I've read your talk on en.wp, and I've read something else around.

If you are telling that someone else created it, we should understand not only who created it really, but also what makes it different from the original. However, at least there would be a wrong authorship indicated on the image. But I saw a psychologist, here, opposing his professional Ethical Standards on this image, so it should be really a true creation of Rorschach, or he wouldn't be considering it as something to care about: as far as I could read on the web, in fact, and given a detailed explaination we received from a psychologist on it.wiki, only the original blots are useful for the test, because they are the only patterns which psys can make their analysis upon. I believe that patterns cannot be different, for comparative and metric reasons I presume. But if they still are useful for the test, at the point that psys still oppose to their distribution, the eventual difference will be so narrow that no original addition would be of interest, so it wouldn't actually be a derivative work: it still would be a Rorschach's creation with unmeaningful additions.

Anyway, if it's not an original creation of Rorschach and someone else made it, why making a derivative work out of the original drawing? It cannot be different: it wouldn't be correct to insert it into the test in substitution of the original one, and perhaps it wouldn't be useful for clinical purposes. So why someone should manipulate the original blot? Original templates are still available today, not even a technical reason seems probable. No different authorship seems probable.

The company didn't get its economical rights from the originary work. The author wasn't working for them (they bougth them after his death), this excludes that they can say "that man created it for us as an employee of ours". Rorschach was an employee with Ernst Bircher [2], who could say so. So, if this is the case, and Rorschach created the test on the behalf of his employer (Bircher), if this is really what happened, Hogrefe & Huber only bought this kind of right, which in most jurisdictions is relevantly shorter than the death+70 term.

When editors published the test, they might have reserved rights on the test in its entirety, but if this test includes drawings (technically this is what they are), these still remain drawings and, as such, they follow their own copyright expiration terms, while the test might be patented as a composition of text and drawings or otherwise protected for different periods. This only in case that the composition of some text and some drawings can effectively be considered a medical instrument. But, we are only talking about the drawings. Which are only drawings.

For certain, they registered Rorschach's surname as a trademark, and Hogrefe & Huber enjoys royalties because the test is called this way. Therefore this is perhaps the only right they could ensure themselves, or we would have found (in the official websites), the (R) sign or other indications when the Rorschach test is mentioned; this also, and especially, because the word Rorschach is always tagged that way and we can read "Rorschach®-Test" instead of "Rorschach®-Test®" [3], or different indications. Had they registered, patented or however restricted the use of something else, they would have indicated it as well. But they didn't. Why should they be so precise in putting the ® sign wherever possible, even when talking about the person, and at the same time so self-confident not to put signs over other rights they could own?

Of course I do believe that WMF Projects are not meant to abide by psychologists' Ethical Standards: these may concern those professionals only. Also, the "secret" is not really that secret: the ten plates that served as printing templates are in a museum and can be seen by arrangement (no other restrictions evidenced).

So, in conclusion, I'm starting to consider that this drawing regularly entered the public domain, because too much unusual conditions should have had to come to existence to seriously exclude it is in the PD. This is certainly a sort of feeling about the matter, but also something more than that. So, if you know further arguments which could reveal helpful, please add them. It is an interesting image and it could be very interesting to have it in the projects. I wouldn't hurry up for its deletion, let's give it a chance to be brought to everybody, if allowed. --g 02:19, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

I am a psychologist and an expert on the Rorschach. I'm not trying to impress anyone with those credentials, but the insistence by unknowledgeable editors who are hellbent on displaying the image regardless of facts forces me to exert my expertise. Hermann Rorschach experimented with HUNDREDS of inkblots. Some of the achromatic blots in the test today are a result, in part, of a printing error. H. Rorschach died before the vast majority of psychologists began to use his technique; therefore almost all the psychometric properties of the test were researched AFTER he died. His death in 1922 occurred long before the test became a psychometrically valid instrument.

But let me suggest a very simple solution. Instead of extracting a Rorschach image from a website that also is ignorant of Hogrefe & Huber's rights, or scanning it from a copyrighted book, why not go directly to the Rorschach publishers? Contact Hogrefe & Huber and ask them to supply a copy of a Rorschach image. If they have no legal rights to the images, they should willingly oblige. But the reality is that they probably will inform you of your violation of the law. The Rorschach is near the top of the list of the most widely used psychological tests in the history of psychological testing. If Hogrefe & Huber have no rights, why aren't the images all over the internet? I have resisted contacting Hogrefe and Huber myself because of the respect I have for Wikipedia and the Wikipedia community. But if this nonsense continues I'll have to contact them myself. I invite anyone else to go ahead and contact them before I do. Ward3001 02:56, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

I contacted yesterday, by email, Hogrefe and Huber, to signal the copyright violation of Rorscharch images. I think that every psychologist or psychiatrist has the ethical duty to signal these violations, for their clinical relevance for future patients. —the preceding unsigned comment was added by 87.2.181.205 (talk • contribs) 11:53, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

Ok. Please send the response of your mail to OTRS, thank you. --DracoRoboter 14:21, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

The Commons Blot behind, the 50s' one in black above (badly aligned, I did that in hurry).

• Visual Rorschach Test is a trademark, but is expired.
• The word RORSCHACH is a trademark, and is live. A trademark is live for computer test, too, and another registration is expired.
  • NOTE: Don't be fooled by the word typed drawing used there, it just means "a word with standard latin letters", as you can see here. In a "typed drawing" The mark does not include a design element., so obviously the blots are not part of this trademark.

So, while the name Rorschach is protected, the rights on the drawings expired in 1997 1992. Even if the drawings were "slightly modified" this could be hardly called a creative work, and the fact that the copyright is extended by the "new version" of the image is arguable.

Moreover, this image is perfectly identical to the other original rorschach blots that can be found on Internet, and I can't spot any difference between them and an old blot from the 50s. They do not seem so "modified", after all.

Result: The image is perfectly legal and it is PD-Old due to copyright expiration after Rorschach's death. Condolences to Rorschach's widow.

Unfortunately, we don't give a damn about shrinks' Ethical Code, so condolences to them, too. --Jollyroger 20:41, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

And the source for the 1997 copyright expiration is ....????? Ward3001 16:32, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

It is 1992, actually

1922 (Mr. R's death) + 70 = 1992

Again, read this.

how can you discuss copyright if you don't even understand its basic (i.e. "it expires after some times")? --Jollyroger 17:02, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

why aren't the images all over the internet?

actually, they are. In institutions' and official websites, too. --Jollyroger 20:46, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Actually, on Google Images they are not real Rorschach Inkblots (only the first one is true): they are fake Inkblots used to provide a demostration, an idea about "what are a rorschach inkblots", but without showing the real ones (viewing the real images before taking the test in a clinical setting could alterate the results, with consequential CLINICAL ISSUES...). Showing the real inkblots it's not only a matter of PD; is a matter of clinical relevance ! I propose to substitute the Wikipedia "real image" with a very similar "Demo" Inkblot: the INFORMATIONAL value is the same, but this could provide more safety for clinical practice. —the preceding unsigned comment was added by 147.162.146.133 (talk • contribs) 15:08, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Repeat with me: we don't care about "clinical relevance".

Then repeat: only copyright matters, and it is OVER. --Jollyroger 15:24, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Repeat with me: "Why I want to care only about copyright issues, when many scientific societies all around the world ask - kindly and only - to use fake (but, I repeat, very similar) inkblots to avoid dangerous clinical issues, while mantaining for the general public the possibility to see what is like a Rorschach inkblot?". Simply, use a Demo Inkblot (the Web is plenty of them), and both the "universal right to know" and the "clinical safety issue" will be preserved. —the preceding unsigned comment was added by 87.4.184.24 (talk • contribs) 19:18, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

They will be fake, and it is not good. Sooo sorry for the scientific societies. Maybe it is time to move those brain cells and show up with a new test?

Because, again, Commons should not observe psycologist policies, "clinical safety issues" or *censorship*, just copyright laws. --Jollyroger 20:37, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

WMF Projects are meant to spread knowledge, not to hide it. Whatever the knowledge might be. However it is, not however you would like it to be. And in WMF Projects usually no POV is protected, not even a professional one. So please stop this campaigning, we are not judging what the blot means or what you think it means, we just leave our readers to choose whether they want to know it or not. If you are here to share your knowledge, you are welcome. If you are here only to try to change our rules, be honest and admit that no one from WMF came at your Society begging them to change their rules. You don't do it here please. We wouldn't be impressed but very badly. --g 01:16, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

OK, I've had enough. Now I'm contacting Hogrefe and Huber. Ward3001 03:04, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

A complaint regarding this image has been received at OTRS. Please hold deletion discussion until it has been resolved.Swatjester 23:26, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

Not done per the OTRS ticket. If it needs to be deleted per that discussion, it will be. Yonatan ^talk 19:07, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

I wish to reopen this, because there has not been a follow up since June. Huber owns the copyright for the Rorschach card. Also, Commons should be concerned with protecting the validity of the test, because psychological organizations can and have pursued legal action in these matters. I am not threatening legal action, I am just trying to underscore the importance of deleting these images as they are copyright violations. -- Psy guy 20:52, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

Not opened. No new arguments presented. Samulili 21:17, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

Let me ask for a different view on this: Copyright is one issue on that topic, and I agree entirely with the position that it is expired (I would even be happy if copyright expired much earlier - why should anyone profit from a work whose author died long ago?).

But there is another issue here that is not about scientific societies but about medical/psychological treatment. And I disagree with the idea that wikipedia would not be bound by ethical questions. As I know, the german wikipedia displays a note on health issues below everything that concerns health - not because of legal obligation, but to protect patients.

In this way I would appeal to respect the necessity to keep these images from the general public because it spoils the test. And inventing a new test would require to do all the work in evaluating it again, while there is already one that works well AFAIK.

I think the option to use an image not required for the test (a "fake" one) sounds a good option without losing too much information for wikipedia.

This is just an opinion I would ask you to consider. No legal threats for sure ... --88.134.110.25 11:40, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

Again: we are here to make informations available to anyone. What final users will do with them, cannot be a relevant concern against the principle of spreading free knowledge, which is the only ethical issue we can consider here around. I can trust you, and for sure I do believe that you really honestly consider it bad for patients to know the picture before the test. But you too might perhaps consider in turn that WMF projects are not meant to help preserving secrets in science. We are here for absolutely the contrary.

Besides, we actually didn't break the secret: the picture came out from somewhere long time ago, it was not any WMF user to make it available from inside the mistery, probably a psychologist broke this professional ethical code, however now it is available and it is something that has to be made available through Commons too. No reasonable objection was opposed against the conclusion that it is a PD image, it therefore is not a copyviol, it is a free image, and in case of legal action, I believe that your point about inventing a new test could be very interesting, since now it's time to make some more research in this discipline, after so much decades. Time to invent something new, like scientists do in every discipline day after day.

Sorry, but I can see no way to censor anything by any point of view. --g 00:43, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

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

[edit] Image:DeutschesSprachgebiet962.png

The image shows the German language area in the year 962, but this language area omits the areas later to be Dutch. In the year 962 there were no standard languages German and Dutch. The predecessor of Dutch, (Low) Frankish, was closely related to (Middle and Upper) Frankish in what is now the German language area. It's plain national bias and anachronistic to say in the year 962 it was possible to distinguish between Dutch and German. Therefore the map is inaccurate and should be deleted. --::Slomox:: >< 17:50, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

•  Keep - Not relevant for a deletion request. --FSHL 00:50, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
•  Keep not relevant for deletion. But you might comment your concerns on the talk page of the image. --ALE! ¿…? 07:25, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

kept --ALE! ¿…? 10:48, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

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

Eine verbesserte Version des Bildes ist verfügbar - There is a better version of the image -- Trinsath (talk) 21:46, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

closed - no reason for deletion --ALE! ¿…? 12:04, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

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

[edit] Image:PICT0094.JPG

I´ve forgotten to enter an approriate tile of the photograph. Therefore I added a second one with proper title. -- AHDG 21:06, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Where is it? The second image? As far as I see there's no image like Spielberg Castle... Put here a link to the second image, please, and I will delete this one. /odder 16:08, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

deleted (please tag with {{badname|name of new file}} next time) --ALE! ¿…? 10:52, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

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

[edit] Sonic the Hedgehog

• Image:Sonic game console.jpg
• Image:Sonicstatuephoto.jpg
• Image:Shadowfigure.jpg
• Image:Sonicstencil.jpg

Derivative works of Sonic the Hedgehog.--Kareha 15:41, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

• Delete derivative works of non-free copyright works = fair use, so they are not appropriate for Commons. --Iamunknown 17:06, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

deleted, --Polarlys 20:27, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Excuse me, but what about Freedom of Panorama? These statues were taken in Japan! And the gaming console has only elements from Sonic the Hedgehog, what about photos of collections of Star Wars stuff (Image:Swmovies.jpg)? And you deleted the images like an hour after the request! Come on! BeŻet 10:14, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

And what about such images: Image:CocaCola-001.jpg, Image:HK_KFC.JPG, Image:Native nikes.jpg... I don't get it, which images with copyrighted elements are good and which are bad. Commons' admins make no sense. BeŻet 18:38, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

Japan: “Japanese copyright law allows the reproduction of artistic works located permanently in open places accessible to the public, such as streets and parks, or at places easily seen by the public, such as the outer walls of buildings, only for non-commercial purposes.” Feel free to request the deletion of other files. --Polarlys 21:00, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

Ok, forgot about objects located permanently. BeŻet 16:52, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

And open places ;) --Polarlys 16:59, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

--Polarlys 12:43, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

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

[edit] List of 600 px association football flags

These are imho copyvio's because they are derivative works of football club logo's. I have tried to weed out PD-ineligible (simple ones) with help of Bryan (see the history of User:NielsF/voetbalvlaggen). NielsF talk/overleg/discussion/discussione 18:33, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

The following images on List of 600px association football flags are concerned:

• Aachen
• Aberdeen
• Anderlecht
• Arezzo
• Arsenal
• Aston Villa
• Atlético Madrid
• Austria Vienna
• Barcelona
• Bari
• Bayer Leverkusen
• Bayern München
• Benfica
• Besiktas
• Blackburn
• Boca Juniors
• Bologna
• Borussia Dortmund
• Cagliari
• Cardiff City
• Celta Vigo
• Celtic
• Charlton
• Chelsea
• Cork City
• Corinthians
• Derry City
• Dinamo Zagreb
• Drogheda United
• Dundee Utd
• Dynamo Kiyv
• Eintracht Frankfurt
• Estrela Amadora
• Estudiantes
• Everton
• Fenerbahce
• Feyenoord
• Finn Harps
• Fiorentina
• Flamengo
• Fulham
• Galatasaray
• Genoa
• Göteborg
• Hamburger Sv
• Hannover 96
• Heart
• Heracles Almelo
• Hibernian
• Inter
• Juventus
• Lecce
• Leeds Utd
• Leicester City
• Levante
• Liverpool
• Lucchese
• Manchester City
• Manchester United
• Marseille
• Messina
• Middlesborough
• Milan
• Motherwell
• NAC Breda
• Nancy
• NEC Nijmegen
• Nottingham Forest
• Novara
• Olympique Lyon
• Padova
• Panathinaikos
• Partizani Tirana
• Peñarol
• Perugia
• Portsmouth
• Portuguesa
• PSv
• Rangers
• Rangers
• Rapid Vienna
• Reading
• Real Zaragoza
• Red Star
• RKC Waalwijk
• Roda Jc
• Rotor Volgograd
• Sampdoria
• Sansovino
• Santos
• Schalke 04
• Sevilla
• Shamrock Rovers
• Sheffield Utd
• Slavia Prague
• Southampton
• Sparta Prague
• Sparta Rotterdam
• Sporting Cp
• Steaua Bucharest
• Stuttgart
• Torino
• Tottenham
• Toulouse
• Treviso
• Triestina
• Twente
• Udinese
• Utrecht
• Valencia
• Vancouver Whitecaps
• Vasco da Gama
• Vicenza
• Vitesse
• Vojvodina Novi Sad
• Watford
• West Ham
• Wigan Athletic
• Yokohama Marinos

•  Oppose, strongly oppose. In most of the cases, these are SVG elements in coloured flags made from scratch. If they are similar (as they are supposed to be) to football clubs colours, this doesn't matter. There are a lot of pics or images on Commons created to be similar to ones that are copyrighted or trademarks. Here we have only 600px flags made from scratch using GIMP or Photoshop with some colours and elements imported from cities' or states' coats of arms present on commons released in PD. Kanchelskis 23:22, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Checked some of them, by now there are these infrangiments: Bari, Estudiantes, West Ham, . The others are absolutely OK, IMHO. Kanchelskis 23:27, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
    • The whole f***ing point of this deletion request is that they are made to be similar to... Redrawing doesn't create new copyright most of the time and it sure as h*ll doesn't void any previous copyrights there are for an image. NielsF talk/overleg/discussion/discussione 05:18, 2 June 2007 (UTC)
      • Hey man, be calm and learn politeness! However, these, except for some with parts of original badges, are only compositions made with similar SVG objects found on Commons, they are NOT redrawings of the same artworks protected by copyright. This is for you a copyvio? It's the same thing, or worst. Kanchelskis
• Delete I dispute these were made from scratch, take a look at Image:600px_Anderlecht.png for example it is clearly resized from a smaller picture Madmax32 02:30, 2 June 2007 (UTC)
  • look at Image:600px_Colori_di_Volgograd.png as well, that is clearly a resized/resampled image, yet the author claims PD self, many of the others are quite obvious resample jobs Madmax32 02:40, 2 June 2007 (UTC)
    • Yeah, some of them contain parts of original badges and must be deleted, the others with only elements from SVG compositions or Photoshop's meshes and colours are ok. These don't contain any part of the original badge: Arsenal, Aston Villa, Atletico Madrid, Arezzo, Austria Vienna, Auxerre, Ascoli, AZ, Barcelona, Bayern Munchen, Benfica, Besiktas, Blackburn, Boca, Bologna, Bolton, Botafogo, Cagliari, Cardiff, Celta, Celtic, Charlton, Chelsea, Club Brugge, Cork City, Corinthians, Cruzeiro, Danubio, Derry City, Dinamo Zagreb, Djurgardens, Drogheda, Dundee Utd, Dynamo Kiyv, Estrela Amadora, Everton, Fenerbahce, Feyenoord, Finn Harps, Flamengo, Genoa, Goteborg, Heart, Heerenven, Hibernian, Juventus, Leeds, Liverpool, Lucchese, Manchester United, Middlesbrough, Marseille, Messina, Milan, Motherwell, Nancy, Napoli, Novara, Olympique Lyon, Padova, Panathinaikos, PSG, Parma, Partick Thistle, Partizani Tirana, Penarol, Perugia, Portsmouth, Portuguesa, PSV, Rangers, Rapid Vienna, Reading, Real Madrid, Real Zaragoza, Red Star, RKC, Sampdoria, Santos, Sevilla, Shamrock Rovers, Sheffield Utd, Slavia Prague, Southampton, Sparta Prague, Sporting CP, Steaua, Stuttgart, Sydney, Torino, Tottenham, Toulouse, Treviso, Triestina, Twente, Udinese, Utrecht, Valencia, Vancouver, Vasco da Gama, Vicenza, Vitesse, Vojvodina, Watfor, Werder, Willem II, Wrexham and Yokohama Marinos.

If you are going to delete them, consider to delete every coat of arms uploaded on Commons, because these images are made up with their (FREE) elements. Kanchelskis 08:48, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

• • None of these are SVG files, all are PNG, SVG means someone actually plotted it, PNG could just be a converted jpg Madmax32 09:28, 2 June 2007 (UTC)
    • OMG -__- PARTS of these files ARE FROM SVG elements. Kanchelskis 09:30, 2 June 2007 (UTC)
      • The difference between your common coat-of-arms and a football club logo in general is that the general design of coats-of-arms isn't copyrighted anymore, while the design of the logo's in most cases still is copyrighted. NielsF talk/overleg/discussion/discussione 01:17, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
•  Oppose, firmly oppose. I agree with Kanchelskis. Apart from obvious copyright violations like the flag of Anderlecht or NEC Nijmegen, the others are personal creations with material which should be free to edit. I will never understand why such images as Oscar icon.svg (quoted by Kanchelskis) can appear on Wikimedia Commons and our flags not. This is unfair. --Freddyballo 10:36, 2 June 2007 (UTC)
•  Oppose In most of the cases they're just flags that remind football teams' colours, it's not important how they're put on the flag (see Bologna, Milan, Barcelona). In other cases (see Göteborg) they're flags made with some elements taken from images that anyone can modify (see, for example, flag of Göteborg). I think that only a few flags are true copyviol, but the rest of them are just a personal interpretation of the colours and the style of the badges. --Frankie688 14:38, 2 June 2007 (UTC)
•  Oppose They are not derivative works. Stop. --Eddie619 15:41, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
•  Oppose Apart from clear copyright violation such as Anderlecht's or Nijmegen's flags, the other pictures are just a box with teams' colours and - in some cases - with their cities' coats of arms. No copyright infringment thus. Blackcat it 08:55, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Nijmegen's flag is not a copyright violation. The flag was created using Image:600px Rosso Verde e Nero.png for the background and the Copperplate Gothic font for the text. I'll just take it as a compliment that everyone thinks it's a pure copy-paste from the original logo. Luctor IV 11:11, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
•  Oppose If they are made from other free editable images I think it's not a copyright violation even if they are similar to teams' colors or badges (if they were different they'd be unuseful!). Only a few (which contain part of the original badge) probably are copyviol and should be deleted or replaced but not all! --Simo82 17:08, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
•  Oppose I agree with Kanchelskis and Freddyballo, only a few of this images are really a copyright violation. --Claudio Sanna 17:33, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
•  Oppose They aren't a copyviol in most of the cases Leo78 23:38, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
•  Oppose Agree. Some are perfect copies, some are innocent "fakes". Frank87 22:26, 10 June 2007 (UTC)
•  Oppose I agree with Kanchelskis! --Murray 16:14, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
•  Oppose --Lochness 00:14, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

Seriously, people, if elements that are by themselves maybe freely licensed are used to create a likeness of a copyrighted image, this ensures that the resulting image isn't copyrighted? So if I take 20 very simple elements (images), put them together and suddenly there I have a picture of the copyrighted Atomium, everything's alright? I very much doubt that. Just because the elements aren't copyrighted doesn't mean that the composition of those element wasn't an original idea in the first place, which still makes these images derivative works, and therefore copyvio's. NielsF talk/overleg/discussion/discussione 01:17, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

If you put the SAME objects in different ways you can say something like this. But you're saying that I cannot draw FROM SCRATCH a red flag with an SVG free derived eagle (that's not the same eagle!).. This is patetic and absurd. Everyone can draw and also sell a red flag with an eagle or a bull, if the objects are free! Kanchelskis

•  Oppose NielsF, can you explain why you consider this to be a copyviol of this while this is not a copyviol? Why the football badge isn't a copyviol of the coat of arms? Why you consider this as a derivative work of the football badge and not as a derivative work of the coat of arms? --Snowdog 06:51, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

As I've already said, I see an unfair interpretation of derivative work, which seems to be applicable to football flags only. I agree with Snowdog. What do you think? --Freddyballo 14:31, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

•  Oppose - as they are not similar to anything, especially not to the logos of the clubs in question, they just pretend to be similar, if you know what I mean. The second conclusion, however, is the fact that they shouldn't be used in articles about clubs. Airwolf 06:27, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

For the club pages there are the club logos. Ain't it much better? Frank87 19:15, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

No, it's not. Club logos are only permitted on the English Wikipedia and other wikis that use the fair use license. However, a large part of the wikipedias does not accept fair use. That's exactly the reason why these illustrations are created. Luctor IV 10:58, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

Oh, understood. Thanks. Anyway I repeat: save the football flags! Frank87 13:42, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

I couldn't agree more. Luctor IV 13:51, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

•  Oppose XiscoNL 10:03, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
• It has been more than a month since these pictures were nominated for deletion. Is there going to be a decision or not? By the way, some of the logos - such as the Eintracht Frankfurt or Dynamo Kyiv one - are PD and therefore no copyright violation. The other flags are inspired by, but not derived from the original logos. Nowhere has been tried to copy a logo, only to create an impression of the logo (or the home colours or the kit, which I doubt to be copyrighted) by using free elements. Therefore:  Oppose. Luctor IV 21:57, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

kept as per above, --Siebrand 12:36, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

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

[edit] Template:Military Insignia

As discussed on the English Wikipedia at [4], there is no assertion that military insignia, regardless of nation, is uncopyrightable. The only thing that I could find, insignia wise, in international law is that insignia must be worn and disgtinguished in the field of combat.[5]. However, the deletion of this template does not mean all military insignia will be deleted en mass. There are several countries that make military insignia public domain. Russia, Belarus, United States are the nations I can think of that make their insignia PD. (There is also another issue of lack of sources for the images, but that can be dealt with later). User:Zscout370 ^{(Return fire)} 09:42, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Most insignia can be tagged as PD-ineligible. I think this template should be kept but not used as a license template but as a warning template like the Nazi Symbol template. Even if the insignia is PD it still has non-copyright related restrictions. -- Cat ^chi? 11:32, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

I don't think most will. Even if the insignia is PD, many of these images do not have a source, so after this is over, there is a lot of image reviewing to do. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return fire)} 19:33, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

On what basis are insignia PD ineligible - some may be very simple (a combination of stars and stripes prob can't be covered by copyright) but some designs are more elaborate. In any event surely better to have these tagged as PD-ineligible than with a template that may not accurately reflect the copyright position. WjBscribe 18:48, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

Most of these are utilitarian articles. Any decorative appearance to them is actually utilitarian...a military member needs to be able to instantly recognize a person's rank (designs are similar across countries, usually) and country (individual design based usually on country's heraldic traditions). When I see an officer from another country I know to salute, even if I do not recognize the actual rank or country (the utilitarian aspect comes through even when the design is unknown). Any variation in the design serves merely to convey additional information. N 17:19, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

• Keep per Cat, N, and ^demon. Knowing whom to salute is always important. It would, however, be very helpful to specify which international law in the template.   — Jeff G. (talk|contribs) 15:12, 13 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Um...^demon didn't say anything at all in this debate. Anyways, the problem is we have looked many times for the international law and there is none that says military insignia are public domain. Some insignia are public domain, such as that from the US and several of the former Soviet Republics. We can just retag those for now and see what else we have left. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return fire)} 18:35, 13 August 2007 (UTC)
  • But that's precisely the problem - there is no one international law governing military insignia. In each case, we'd need to know the local law. The template would have to change so radically depending on which country was refered to that we may as well have individual templates for each country. WjBscribe 18:44, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

• Delete This template is misleading - there is no one international law that governs insignia. Any country can have its own law about insignia. Even where not subject to copyright, they are often subject to rules about use that are incompatible with the GFDL. This template should be replaced with templates for each country's insignia where we are able to indentify the relevant laws in those countries. WjBscribe 18:46, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

• This seems like a clear Delete to me, but it is used in hundreds of images... so what to do? pfctdayelise (说什么?) 13:11, 3 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Sort out the countries which PD their insignia and tag those as appropriately. Then, once we get the rest, delete them. There is some other cleanup too I wish to do with the insignia, but this is the first step. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return fire)} 18:13, 3 September 2007 (UTC)
    • Start by changing the template to disallow new uploads. /Lokal_Profil 18:38, 3 September 2007 (UTC)
      • Something along the lines of en:Template:Military-Insignia? User:Zscout370 ^{(Return fire)} 03:58, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
        • Something like that yes. You confused me there for a while, didin't notice the switch to en.wiki from Commons =) /Lokal_Profil 11:15, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
          • Sorry about that. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return fire)} 13:32, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
• Delete As shown in previous debate - there is no legal basis for this template's claim. Specific cases may be PD, but a blanket statement is simply false. DGtal 10:04, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
• Comment: I'd really support something more like how country flags were treated. -- Cat ^ちぃ？ 19:46, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
  • They are usually slapped with an insignia tag and a separate copyright notice. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return fire)} 02:09, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

• Changed to en-wiki style. Samulili 17:00, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

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

[edit] Image:Stmichaelsachrang.jpg

I am the author and uploader of this image and I want to delete this because its unused --~~Flo~~ 17:55, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

Now it is unused yet, but tomorrow could be used. No reason to delete. Julo 16:29, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

•  Keep - Not relevant for a deletion request. --FSHL 00:55, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
•  Keep per comment by FSHL and COM:SCOPE as it could potentially be of use to another project in the future. Adambro 15:47, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

I have copyright to this picture and would like that the picture am deleted. The picture is under no license. --~~Flo~~ 21:05, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

•  Keep This image is very good I like. I see no reason for deletion. --Nolanus ✉ (C | E) 07:27, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

kept, no reason for deletion. Used now on de.wp. Please stop deleting license information. --Polarlys 12:11, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

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

[edit] Image:Boucherphilippe.jpg

Image owner : en:Le Droit, a canadian newspaper. See : http://www.lapresseaffaires.com/article/20070517/CPACTUALITES/705170324/5891/LAINFORMER01 ("Archives, Le Droit" -- BeatrixBelibaste 04:38, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

Moved to speedy deletion --BeatrixBelibaste 13:09, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

• image was uploaded with no source or copyright info, it will be deleted Madmax32 07:17, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

Deleted by Polarlys: copyright violation. WjBscribe 00:45, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

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

[edit] Image:HolyFcku.jpg

uploader says he took it from band website, no evidence for Public Domain release -- Madmax32 04:42, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

• • 'Publicity photo' incompatible with commons licensing requirements Madmax32 04:43, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

deleted, --Polarlys 14:33, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

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

[edit] Image:Vglspace.jpg

Space Invaders (C) 1978 Taito Corp, unfree image -- Madmax32 04:48, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

The screen is barely visible and blurred, the photo shows the scene, not only the screen of the game. I always quote this image Image:Swmovies.jpg which still is on Commons and nobody deleted it. Keep. BeŻet 18:37, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

•  Keep Accidental inclusion. -- Bryan (talk to me) 09:27, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

kept, as per Bryan --Polarlys 14:35, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

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

[edit] Image:Alliance_royale.PNG

Copyrighted logo, en.wiki article [6] is using fair use image -- Madmax32 05:04, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

Deleted. According to the uploader, the image was a re-drawn copy of the official logo. The uploader also claimed to be the copyright holder of the work. However, a copyright violation is a copyright violation regardless of whether it was created manually or automatically. —LX (talk, contribs) 17:53, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

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

[edit] Image:2006.4.jpg

useless image, cannot think of a use for this within project -- Madmax32 05:07, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

•  Keep - Not relevant for a deletion request. --FSHL 01:04, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

 KeepAbsolutely not relevant for deletion. Keep. --Nolanus ✉ (C | E) 07:32, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

deleted, copied from the website, no permission. --Polarlys 14:38, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

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

[edit] Category:Hate demonstrations

POV category which is very subjective and ready for misuse --gren 05:24, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

• they allow pornography uploads here, so why is that bad? Madmax32 05:30, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

•  Keep - Not relevant for a deletion request. --FSHL 01:07, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

deleted, POV, the image inside shows a political party from Germany, whenever far-right --Polarlys 14:40, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

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

[edit] Image:Casa_Grande-Braga.jpg

There is a new and better photo os this house -- Joseolgon 08:06, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

Deleted. /odder 15:58, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

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

[edit] Image:Vordemberge No15.jpg

Vordemberge-Gildewart died 1962, copyright not yet expired --Ahellwig 09:04, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

deleted, --Polarlys 14:41, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

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

[edit] Image:Haifa Sail Tower.jpg

This picture and image:Haifatower [7] are Identical. I have uploaded the original to the hebrew Wiki in 2005, and someone uploaded it here in August 2006 without my noticing. yesterday I have uploaded it here, as part of my project to load all the pictures I have uploaded in the Heb Wiki to Commons. since "Haifatower" is used in the Hebrew Wiki in over 20 pages, I suggest this identical image will be deleted. I have already changed it to "Haiftower" in all the Wikipedias it was used. Almog 10:31, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

deleted as an unused duplicate --:Bdk: 20:05, 10 June 2007 (UTC) 

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

[edit] Image:Es1.jpg

Copyright violation of this link, and the original source web owner don't allow the sharing. -- Rico Shen ^contact... 17:12, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

I modified to speedy deletion due to exactly copyright violation.--Littleb 17:43, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

Deleted by Polarlys: Copyright violation. WjBscribe 04:48, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

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

[edit] Image:Amairi.jpg

personal picture --Moumou82 19:39, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

•  Keep - Not relevant for a deletion request. --FSHL 01:13, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
•  Keep - Keep if source and licensing details are added by the uploader. I note they have done this but since removed the details. Adambro 16:02, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

deleted, no source, no license --Polarlys 14:42, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

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

[edit] Image:Foxie_with_player.jpg

This image has no purpose, it is just porn. -- 68.36.85.106 04:00, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

Delete there are some legal requirements to hosting pornography in the US, even if Child Online Protection Act (COPA) was struck down, I strongly urge wikimedia org to delete all such instances of pornographic content, unless it is a historical artwork (this clearly is not) Madmax32 04:21, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

And these watermarked images are quite outside the project scope, unless commons is planning to provide hosting for adult websites Madmax32 04:32, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

Delete - I deleted this when it was uploaded and declined to undelete it - not Commons IMO --Herby ^{talk thyme} 07:09, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

• apparently User:SB Johnny thinks it has some 'educational potential' according to his undelete description, it just looks like explicit and potentially illegal material (depending on the jurisdiction). It has no other use than as sexual stimulation medium, it's pornography. Madmax32 07:15, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

• Keep - Not relevant for a deletion request. --FSHL 01:00, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

This is supposed to content hosting for encyclopedic and educational content, pornography doesn't have anything do to with that Madmax32 22:45, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

• Delete - This image should probably go into MediaWiki's "bad image" restriction list to limit inline use---if it's ever used on an article, and putting it on commons facilitate vandalism using this picture. Also we generally don't need pornography images in Wikimedia projects. Wooyi 17:06, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

Deleted as per discussion and Commons:Project scope. —LX (talk, contribs) 17:18, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Image:Foxie with player.jpg (Second nomination)

• Delete according to the law. Its pornographic-like image.--Berserkerus 00:33, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

  Please, let me know according to which country's law you want this image be deleted? Iran? If i ask it's author to put hijab on foxy then this image will lost its main purpose to serve as illustration of yiff. 82.199.102.55 10:21, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

  without flash-mob pls.--Berserkerus 16:53, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

• Oppose. Claims that this image is pornographic is unproven. 82.199.102.55 10:21, 28 October 2007 (UTC)
•  Comment Uh... I'm refraining from a delete vote only due to my ignorance about Furry fandom and as to if this is actually informative about some encyclopedic theme in that sub culture. I see that from image/deletion history that this is a modified version of the original image (as the artist first uploaded it, there were no panties); I guess such modifications should be noted if the image is kept. I also saw in Category:Furry this image: Image:Momochan ardilla color jpg.png which I think should probably go as well if this one is deleted (or maybe even if not). -- Infrogmation 17:28, 28 October 2007 (UTC)
• Keep It's illustrative of a particular type of sexual fantasy art. As such it is useful. The Wikipedia does document the various aspects of human sexuality. US law clearly allows blatantly pornographic images, so how does this rather odd cartoon become illegal? --Simonxag 23:26, 31 October 2007 (UTC)comment but I'm a lot less happy about the other image Infrogmation pointed to: if anything might be called kiddiporn, we had better be sure it's not! --Simonxag 12:16, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
• Keep Currently used in en:Furry fandom and the ru: version. Whether or not it's pornographic, it isn't illegal on en:. GreenReaper 19:03, 5 November 2007 (UTC)
• Keep It's enough good illustration to the article subject. It's legal and properly licensed. I don't see why it should be deleted. Dr Bug (Vladimir V. Medeyko) 17:13, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
• Keep.And I think you should have kept the previous version Dz2001 21:51, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
• Keep Cooncat

Closing as kept. -- Infrogmation 23:08, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

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

[edit] Image:Troia.jpg

Lacking source info -- Kameraad Pjotr 19:35, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

 Delete. Quick delete. Author is not the uploader, source is http://flickr.com/photos/jmuchaxo/55181748/ and licence (CC-by-ND) is not compatible with Commons. — Xavier, 00:00, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

Deleted by Lcarsdata: cc-by-nd

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

[edit] Image:Wolf-n-horsy.jpg

This image has no purpose, it is just porn. -- 68.36.85.106 04:01, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

 Delete Bestiality is illegal in many jurisdictions and there are also some legal requirements to hosting pornography in the US, even if Child Online Protection Act (COPA) was struck down, I strongly urge wikimedia org to delete all such instances of pornographic content, unless it is a historical artwork (this clearly is not) Madmax32 04:22, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

 Delete - I deleted this when it was uploaded and declined to undelete it - not Commons IMO --Herby ^{talk thyme} 07:09, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

•  Keep - Not relevant for a deletion request. --FSHL 01:02, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

•  Keep In use, Commons is not censored. -- Bryan (talk to me) 09:28, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

•  Delete. Clearly, the notion that Commons is not censored doesn't grant it a license to violate the law. This most certainly fails the Miller test and it's outside Commons:Project scope. —LX (talk, contribs) 17:34, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

 Delete Outside project scope. Samulili 17:53, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

 Delete Per the Foxie picture above, prone to vandal abuse. Wooyi 20:11, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

 Delete Outside of project scope. Majorly (talk) 21:28, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

Keep. It has value for the wikiprojects as much as everything in category Erotic art. Before Commons the image were used in Ru-wikipedia since 2005, which does not have censore. 82.199.102.55 14:56, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

Some might deem obscene images of children useful to illustrate articles on child pornography as well. That doesn't mean we should–or even could–host them. Cry censorship all you want, but it won't do you much good when Wikimedia's servers are shut down for hosting illegal animal porn. Then we can really talk about censorship. —LX (talk, contribs) 06:17, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

Deleted. I'm interpreting the general consensus as being in favour of deletion. Also see the related deletion request Commons:Deletion requests/Image:Foxie with player.jpg, which was appealed but upheld. —LX (talk, contribs) 06:17, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

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

[edit] Image:Scientology_Recruiter.jpg

copyrighted books depicted, cc-by-nc-sa license on flickr -- Madmax32 05:12, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

• Keep - The books themselves are blurry, even when the image is viewed at a large size. Smee 06:05, 2 June 2007 (UTC).
  • The image has to go unless there is evidence the creator allowed it to be used under a license other than the cc-by-nc-sa (non commercial - not allowed here) shown on flickr Madmax32 07:08, 2 June 2007 (UTC)
    • Has someone yet attempted to contact the original author of the image? Smee 07:54, 2 June 2007 (UTC).
      • The original uploader is a bot (User:FlickrLickr) and it was uploaded in 2005Madmax32 09:23, 2 June 2007 (UTC)
        • Oh. Thanks, I did not know the original uploader was a bot. I meant has anyone tried to contact the original Flickr author? Smee 09:55, 2 June 2007 (UTC).

According to User:Para/Flickr/Licensing changes, the image was originally licensed as Cc-by-2.0 and later changed to Cc-by-nc-sa-2.0. --88.134.44.255 15:59, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

 Keep. CC licenses are irrevocable and the inclusion of the book covers is de minimis. —LX (talk, contribs) 18:04, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

Kept, no consensus to delete. Quadell (talk) 04:15, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

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

[edit] Image:Chrysotoxum.JPG

Picture not good enough for determination --GlassOWater 09:11, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

•  Keep - Not relevant for a deletion request. --FSHL 01:09, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Kept, no consensus to delete. Quadell (talk) 04:17, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

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

[edit] Image:Eulophidae(U).JPG

Picture not good enough for determination --GlassOWater 09:16, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

•  Keep - Not relevant for a deletion request. --FSHL 01:09, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Kept, no consensus to delete. Quadell (talk) 04:17, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

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

[edit] Image:Ratonero_Andaluz.jpg

Wrong identification. I'm completely assured that the dog in the picture is not a Ratonero Bodeguero Andaluz. -- Brindis320 11:00, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

•  Keep - Not relevant for a deletion request. --FSHL 01:11, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Kept, no consensus to delete. Quadell (talk) 04:19, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

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

[edit] Image:Elvis presley.jpg

Frame from "Jailhouse rock" movie[8]. Was copyright really not renewed? --A.J. 21:46, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

• Also: Image:YoungElvisPresley.jpg. A.J. 21:50, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

•  Keep The movie trailers for those movies have also expired because the copyright was not renewed, also I quote from the library of congress website: New York World-Telegram & Sun Newspaper Photograph Collection, 'NYWT&S staff photographs are in the public domain per the instrument of gift. These photos can be recognized by such stamps as "World-Telegram photo" or "World-Telegram photo by Ed Palumbo.'Madmax32 01:53, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

Also you are wrong, it's a staff photograph by the New York World-Telegram & Sun Newspaper, not a movie frame Madmax32 01:57, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

Please update image description. It's sometimes described as a fragment of movie in some wikipedias. A.J. 07:07, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

•  Keep per above comments. A.J. 07:07, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

Kept. Jastrow (Λέγετε) 10:11, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

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

[edit] Image:T-Disc_tassimo.jpg

copyrighted items depicted -- Madmax32 05:02, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

deleted, --Polarlys 11:03, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

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

[edit] Image:Sioux.jpg

no in PD at all, it is "© 2006 New England Air Museum" Chanueting 09:18, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

Do they have any basis for their claim? // Liftarn

•  Keep - if its from a United States military badge, its in the PD. The fact that someone has claimed copyright afterwards isn't significant as a faithful reproduction of a 2 dimensional work would not attract copyright. This should only be deleted if (1) it is not from a US military badge or (2) the reproduction involved some creative process and is not therefore an exact replica of the original. WjBscribe 04:56, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

Kept / A.J. 10:15, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

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

[edit] Image:RetrogradeCatheter.gif

this is scanned, not created by the uploader -- Madmax32 05:00, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

• How do you get that idea? I'm not fully sure and it has transparency so there was obviously image editing. gren 05:27, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

• This is was created here at Transonic systems where I am webmaster and placed the information on behalf of the company. moraviaspy 09:14, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

• • Could you send a permission e-mail toCommons:OTRS? That would be great! And also I would propose that you change the license to some CC-license. --ALE! ¿…? 11:48, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

Deleted, insufficient evidence of permission. Why is this a tiny GIF and not an SVG or even PNG? It can be uploaded again when either a high-quality original is supplied, or some permission email to OTRS. pfctdayelise (说什么?) 13:14, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

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

[edit] Image:43106_Ivatt_4MT.jpg

source says © 2007 Jon Stubley - All rights reserved, no evidence for permission to release under GNU license indicated -- Madmax32 05:15, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

 Neutral as copyvio. Image is copyrighted. No evidence of GFDL compliant release. pending confirmation of valid GFDL permission. WjBscribe 13:13, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

• Keep -- GFDL licensed I have email permission. The © all rights reserved note is always present on fotopic sites; that's not my fault. Dunc|☺ 12:23, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
  • You need to forward a copy of that permission to permissions-commons@wikimedia.org. WjBscribe 13:13, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
    • Did the permission arrive? Otherwise the image has to be deleted. --ALE! ¿…? 11:49, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

deleted, OTRS ticket was never added --ALE! ¿…? 08:18, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

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

[edit] Image:Lorihen_utopia.jpg

Not under GNU -- Ffahm 00:22, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

'Deleted by D-Kuru: Copyvio - albumcover

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

[edit] Image:Lorihen_antes_de_tiempo.jpg

Not under GNU -- Ffahm 00:22, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

'Deleted by D-Kuru: Copyvio - albumcover

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

[edit] Image:Israel_zionism.png

I'm not sure if this is allowed -- D-Kuru 00:32, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

Delete -- serves no purpose except to vilify and advocate for the forceful destruction of the state of Israel, and to smear and slur all Jews in general. AnonMoos 00:46, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

•  Delete, the Wikimedia Commons is not the place for antisemitism. Kjetil r 11:34, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

Wikimedia commons is not described as a pornography host either, but you admins are allowing such uploads to stay. Madmax32 18:20, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

•  Keep - Not relevant for a deletion request. --FSHL 01:14, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

•  Delete provocative image. Yrithinnd 14:06, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

Deleted by D-Kuru: anti-Semitic image of the flag of israel

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

[edit] Image:BNCwallapaper.jpg

maybe a copyvio -- D-Kuru 00:49, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

deleted, just used for spamming. --Polarlys 01:10, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

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

[edit] Image:Kroaplakat3b_500.jpg

looks like copyvio - source is kroaibo.no -- D-Kuru 00:58, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

•  Delete it is useless here anyway, watermarked. Madmax32 01:46, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

Deleted. /odder 16:22, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

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

[edit] Image:Interiormac_-_frankstella.jpg

I deleted this because I don't believe freedom of panorama applies, since I didn't believe museums are considered public places or that the work is truly permanently located there. 201.6.179.194 contests this on my talk page, so I'm looking for second opinions. -- —LX (talk, contribs) 08:37, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

deleted by User:Zirland --ALE! ¿…? 07:26, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

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

[edit] Image:Notation-MM10.jpg

Image name has a typo so I uploaded a new version at Novation_MM10.jpg -- Malcohol 11:31, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

Next time use {{badname}} instead --D-Kuru 12:01, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

Deleted by D-Kuru: badname - now Image:Novation MM10.jpg

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

[edit] Image:Rihannaxbox.jpg

Copyrighted image previously deleted as Image:Rihanna.jpg. Flickr user is not the copyright owner and deletion log says the photo is from Getty Images. Spellcast 13:14, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

Too bad, because the photo is very good. BeŻet 15:58, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

 Delete Delete as it seems unlikely that the Flickr user is in a position to release the image under the licence. Image is by Scott Gries of Getty Images. According to the list of team members of GamerScoreBlog he is not part of this team. It is probably true that GamerScoreBlog have permission to use the image but I suspect it is unlikely they have permission to release it in this way. Adambro 16:41, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

deleted, --Polarlys 13:34, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

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

[edit] Image:TTVFLITS.gif

Copy from http://www.ttvflits.nl/themes/NukeNews/images/logo.gif --Multichill 15:22, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

Deleted. {{copyvio}}.

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

[edit] Image:Gabo.jpg

Orphan; low quality (bad aspect ratio)   — Jeff G. (talk|contribs) 19:07, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

•  Delete Since it's not used on wiki projects, i don't see point of having such image. Herr Kriss 22:16, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

•  Keep - Not relevant for a deletion request. --FSHL 01:20, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Hosting images that are not used by other projects is outside this project's scope.   — Jeff G. (talk|contribs) 16:19, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

deleted, --Polarlys 13:36, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

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

[edit] Image:Centre Bridge-Stockton Bridge-front view from Pennsylvania side.jpg

This image has already been uploaded Sunweb52 19:11, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

deleted by User:Zirland --ALE! ¿…? 07:27, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

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

[edit] Image:French_Fossil_Canyon.jpg

I'm nearly sure that "Diddy Kong Racing" is copyrighted -- D-Kuru 00:28, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

 Done, VIGNERON * ^discut. 09:23, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

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

[edit] Image:Glorioustime.jpg

looks like a movieposter or a bookcover -- D-Kuru 00:59, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

•  DeleteI doubt it is self made as uploader claims Madmax32 01:47, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

 Done, VIGNERON * ^discut. 09:29, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

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

[edit] Image:0831 tienda en.jpg

lacking source info --Kameraad Pjotr 17:25, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

Deleted no source. Please just use {{nsd}} in the future. MECU≈talk 16:50, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

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

[edit] Image:Indiou.jpg

Origin not clear. The same for other work from user Submental -- Ffahm 20:18, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

deleted --ALE! ¿…? 12:25, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

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

[edit] More German WWII images

All uploaded by Edgar Allan Poe (talk • contribs)...

• Image:Goebbels speaking in Berlin durning book burning.jpg
• Image:HitlerGovernment.jpg
• Image:GoebbelsSpeechCrop.jpg

These are not works of the U.S. Government. These images may have a special status in the U.S., but they are German works copyrighted in Germany and many other countries. Delete Lupo 20:18, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

• It depends, if your objection is to captured photographs only, these could well be non German news reel (it says still from movie) Germany wasn't at war with any country in 1933 for example British Pathe news agency has many newsreels of early nazi figures and Hitler prior to 1939, these are not the property of German citizens and never were. Madmax32 22:14, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

Ah, the Goebbels images are movie stills? So, do you have any evidence that this indeed was shot by a British crew present at the book burning on the Opernplatz in Berlin on May 10, 1933? I find it far more likely that it comes from a German Wochenschau (who were present). Transit GmbH claims copyright on lots of these news reels.[9]. Lupo 15:40, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

I never claimed it was shot by a non German camera crew, but it is indeed possible and I am not going to do any research for you, I was just correcting your false assumption that by its very nature it must be a German workMadmax32 20:39, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

Out of curiosity, I went to the British Pathe website and they have this same video that this still was obviously made from [10]entitled '"The Burning of the Books 10 May 1933" Berlin, German. (The Square outside Berlin University), and they claim copyright for themselves as with all their videos, in fact they are selling high res copies and even collecting licensing fees, isn't this a type of EU copyright violation, if they and Germany can both claim copyright to the same video?

Good, you have found evidence. That's much better. A pity British Pathé is claiming copyright on it. Lupo 21:53, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

Due to wartime asset seizure laws and other reasons, the copyrights may well be owned by different agencies in different countries. For example, Mein Kampf is effectively PD in the U.S., but the German state of Bavaria claims copyright in Germany (and the EU by extension). If all parties have legitimate claims it isn't a violation until the claims are adjudicated. My guess is nobody will bother and these images will eventually slip into PD. -N 01:31, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

The "Hitler government" photo is not a movie still. Again, is there any evidence that this was not shot by a German photographer? Lupo 15:40, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

I am adding only that you decide if the pictures are copyvio or not. If they are delete them, I will not complain. I think I've learned much stuff about commons and WWII images. :-) --Edgar Allan Poe 21:29, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

The Hitler government pic is took in 1933. The author is either unkonow or anonymous so I added the Anonymous-EU template beacuse of the age and the name of the author which is unknown.

deleted,copyvio, „Anonymous-EU“ is the wrong tag, the author is not unknown but not mentioned on one website. --Polarlys 14:49, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

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

[edit] Image:Xchat5.png

I think that icons on that screenshot are copyrighted, but i'm not sure. Delete or not? -- Herr Kriss 22:14, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

The source code is also released for free under the GPL license. http://www.xchat.org/about/. Are you a bit too paranoid? ;-)

I don't want to be considered rude, I am well aware of commons policy of allowing only GFDL content, but installer screenshots of GPL software which I made on my personal computer can hardly be considered as violating somebodies rights. Also, it is NOT screenshot of whole desktop, but only Xchat installer. I don't want that anybody sue wikipedia/wikimedia for violating some rights, but recently I heard of example of commons admin deleting pic which had proper GFDL license (not screenshot), and I'm really curious, where commons are going? I detest Orwell's Big brother kind of behaviour. Kind regards. SpeedyGonsales 01:08, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

Deleted. {{Copyvio}} because it contained non-free widgets of the proprietary Microsoft Windows operating system. See Commons:Licensing#Screenshots. —LX (talk, contribs) 14:13, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

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

[edit] Image:Liane de Pougy postcard.jpg

I uploaded this to the English Wikipedia and noticed that it had been transwikied. Since it is a non-US work (likely taken in France), the {{PD-US}} claim is valid on en but not here. The photographer is apparently not anonymous (initials in the lower right of the image), but I don't know his or her name or death date, so I don't see a way to use this image. --Celithemis 08:52, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

•  Keep 1886 should make it PD anywhere. -N 01:14, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

  I changed the tag to {{PD-old}}. -N 01:19, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

How do you figure? A photographer who was 30 in 1886 would only have to live to be 81 in order for his or her works to still be in copyright in Europe. Celithemis 02:13, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

Well I am relatively new to Commons. According to this, this operative date is 1 July 1909 in the U.S. for foreign published works. Do we have to go off French law? hmm. The author is unknown, so under French law it should be assumed as being 70 years from date of publication per Commons:Licensing#France. -N 02:59, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

It is undoubtedly public domain in the U.S., which qualifies it to be hosted on the English Wikipedia. To be on Commons, it must also be public domain in the source country, which is probably France or some other life-plus-70 country.

I don't know exactly how French law defines anonymous works, but surely we can't declare the author anonymous just because we don't happen to know who it was. As I pointed out originally, the image is initialed. Celithemis 04:09, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

Kept, no consensus to delete. Quadell (talk) 04:20, 5 July 2007 (UTC) My mistake. Delete. Quadell (talk) 13:21, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

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

[edit] Image:Simulated view of Naiad.jpg

Low quality. There is nearly nothing to see , even for an image of astronomy. No perceptibility, even in full size view. Augiasstallputzer 13:14, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

Maybe author can fix this problem making better image. Someone should ask him. Yarl ^{Talk • PL} 13:56, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

I tried to brighten it. I've adjusted brightness, contrast, gamma-value, colours, and others. Either it is too dark, or it is too grayed for usability. Sorry, but this image cannot be repaired. Only a new source image may be ok. Augiasstallputzer 16:02, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

I'll try to make time to replace the image. But my schedule is very tight at the moment. However, I don't understand why you have requested deletion before even asking me about it. Surely is is better to keep a low quality image than to have none at all? JiFish 13:40, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

I don't want, that images are included, when it is not sure, that there is a better source file uploaded in future. If you upload a better file "once a day" , you can upload it even if this file is deleted. If you upload it before, then this request will be irrelevant. Augiasstallputzer 20:42, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

•  Keep - Not relevant for a deletion request. --FSHL 01:18, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

This is crazy. Can be replaced at any time by a better image. In the meantime, there is absolutely no harm in keeping this version. JiFish 09:52, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Kept, no consensus to delete. Quadell (talk) 04:21, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

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

[edit] Image:NASA FACTS header.png

This image contains a logo copyrighted by NASA, whose image policy states that "This general permission does not include [the logos, which] may not be used by persons who are not NASA employees or on products (including web pages) that are not NASA sponsored". It is currently tagged with {{PD-USGov-NASA}}, which restates that "Use of NASA logos [...] is restricted". —Pathoschild 17:54:52, 03 June 2007 (UTC)

•  Keep NASA is retaining w:moral rights for their logo to not be used in a manner which would confusingly imply their endorsement of a third party. This doesn't affect the PD status of their works. N 21:17, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

• Also, someone has apparently uploaded a new version with a redacted logo. N 21:19, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

 Comment Would say the original version with the logo would not qualify for PD-USGov-NASA. But the new version does. Though it would be prettier just to crop the logo out.. --|EPO| 21:28, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

Kept, no consensus to delete. Quadell (talk) 04:22, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

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

[edit] Image:Tour Montparnasse, Paris.jpg

In France the architect of a notable building owns copyright over the representations of that building, including postcards and photographs. --Petrusbarbygere 10:43, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

I find Commons:Freedom of panorama#France very confusing. I wish someone would write it more clearly. Samulili 19:36, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

It's confusing for this kind of picture Image:Paris-Opera.Bastille-Column-01.jpg not for this one. Here there is only one one subject in the picture, the tower. It's copyrighted. Petrusbarbygere 05:21, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

•  Keep nothing suggests this is anything "notable". -N 01:26, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

  you'r never been on Paris ? The Montparnasse Tower is a notable building from Paris. Petrusbarbygere 21:56, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

  It's by far the second-to-highest building in Paris. (You guess what the first one is :-) Régis Lachaume 22:41, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

•  Neutral In France such an image is not free. Would it be in other countries (for instance Germany with its Landschaftsfreiheit), in other words does it apply to the place of the building or that of distribution ? Régis Lachaume 22:41, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
  • It applies where the picture is taken. If you a have freedom of panorama you take the picture and create a new copyright in the photo. If no such freedom exists, you are violating the existing copyright and you do not own the photo you have taken (the copyright holder retains his rights in the intellectual property). If indeed this photo is unfree in France it cannot be used on Commons. -N 18:54, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
•  Delete : no FOP in France. The whole content of Category:Opéra Bastille shoulf be deleted as well. I agree with Samulili that Commons:Freedom of panorama#France should be rewritten: the case law about monuments is more restrictive than that. Jastrow (Λέγετε) 21:02, 26 June 2007 (UTC)
•  Keep : last trials cited in Commons:Freedom_of_panorama#France show a nearly positive issue. Maybe replace this photo with a sunny day one to avoid abnormal disturbance ;) Greudin 15:15, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Er, what? The notion of "abnormal disturbance" pertains to the owner of the building. We are here concerned by the copyright holder, viz. the architect. Jastrow (Λέγετε) 15:49, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

Vu, ma 2e phrase est ironique (ya un smiley). Greudin 20:05, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

Dans ce cas-là je comprends encore moins ton intervention, vu que ni la jurisprudence Terreaux, ni celle de l'hôtel de Girancourt ne s'appliquent. Jastrow (Λέγετε) 20:34, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

Deleted. Jastrow (Λέγετε) 10:14, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

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

[edit] Categories with Icelandic name graphs

• Category:Icelandic name graphs (day)
• Category:Icelandic name graphs (month)
• Category:Icelandic name graphs (year)

10.275 images in total

These graphs show the frequency distribution of all legal Icelandic first names by day of month. This is not informative in any way as all names are randomly distributed in this respect (or, at least, no-one has tried to demonstrate that they are not). Note that many of the graphs are empty since many legal names are not in use. Also note that many names are only used by a single person so the data here combined with the data in Category:Icelandic name graphs (month) and Category:Icelandic name graphs (year) and articles such as is:Elínheiður can be used to find out the birthdays of particular people. The matter has been discussed at the Icelandic Wikipedia and I think we have a rough consensus there to remove these graphs. Haukurth 19:52, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

• Given the uselessness of these graphs and the consensus in is.wp, I support deleting these images. Samulili 21:52, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
• Only delete if no one is able to demonstrate a useful purpose for these images. Siebrand 22:52, 3 June 2007 (UTC)  Comment I'd like this deletion request to be mentioned in the Village Pump of is.wp. Could someone please mention it there, preferably in Icelandic, and post the link here? I think it is wise that in case we would go for delete here, we wait at least two weeks after this being posted on is.wp before actually deleting anything. Siebrand 23:44, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

  The year graphs are arguably slightly informative in that they sometimes show changes in popularity of names over time. I would still like to delete them for various reasons (for starters many of them are empty or show a very unreadable flat graph which represents a name occurring every now and then, take a look and you'll see what I mean) but I don't believe there is a consensus at the Icelandic Wikipedia for doing so. Haukurth 23:16, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

  Certainly. We had already had a fairly long discussion on the Village Pump where I mentioned I'd make this nomination. I've now posted an explicit link to this page.[11] Haukurth 00:05, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

 Comment - if absolutely needed these graphs can be created using wikitables and a template. If the info is available there isn't really any reason to have an image when it can be done using a table, which is more editable and fixable than an image. -- Editor at Large • talk 01:25, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

Actually they look like perfect candidates for creation using m:EasyTimeline. But I think Commons should leave this decision entirely up to the Icelandic community. If they find them useful, we should keep them. If they agree they're not needed, then delete. --pfctdayelise (说什么?) 02:18, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

• Delete Being one of the two instigators to their creation I sadly must admit that they are flawed and a large number of them are empty. The EasyTimeline looks like an interesting alternative. However it would be good, but not vital, if we could hang on to the years until alternatives have been found (as can be seen here). --Stalfur 02:39, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
  • If the raw data has a free license, would it be a possibility to place the data on wikisource? It might have a tutorial on the talk page explaining how to create and EasyTimeline graph on part of the data... Siebrand 05:56, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
    • The raw data is extracted from the National register, however I don't think it is hindered by any copyright or such, and so once a new harvest is ready, with more recent and more accurate data (including now deceased people) hosting it on Wikisource sounds good. --Stalfur 13:05, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
      • Raw data and info how to create a graph from it sounds nice. I do not think these images belong here. /Daniel78 10:26, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

• Do Commons delete images just because they are no longer used? That will break page histories by creating red image links. If the images were in use for any significant period of time, that demonstrates that the images were inside of Wikimedia scope. So if there is no license problem and the images were used, I say you should keep them. /82.212.68.183 17:49, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

  I think the problem with red image links in page histories of bot-generated articles is miniscule and smaller than the problem of these uninformative images coming up when people hit "Random file". Haukurth 20:09, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

  This is not a valid reason. We are talking about 10k images on 1500k (a chance of 10/1500 = 0.67% chance of hitting an image from this collection where n=1). Siebrand 22:38, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

  Which means that for every 300 clicks on the 'random file' button a couple of people are getting one of these babies. Surely there are more than 300 clicks on that button a day so a lot of people really are seeing these images. This is not a huge problem but I still think it detracts from Commons as a library of useful and interesting material. The problem of red links (instead of uninformative graphs) in historical versions of little-read articles is even smaller, in my opinion, and that's what I was comparing this against. Haukurth 23:34, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

  With EasyTimeline coming to the rescue these charts are now obsolete and the year charts, only ones being displayed on is.wiki currently, about to be removed from articles in favour of a TimeLine solution, they are no longer required. However as for keeping them as a historical record, I'm neutral about it. --Stalfur 01:46, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

  Stalfur, would you like the images to remain until they have been replaced on is.wp, or would you like us to proceed deleting them if consensus could be established here after the 14 days waiting period I indicated earlier? Would you like to have any prerequisites, like the source data being available on wiki source and/or a tutorial for creating an easy timeline with the data? Cheers!

  Most of them have been replaced by Timeline in is.wikipedia, the rest will be replaced over the coming days. A week from now it should be safe to delete them. The source will be added to Wikisource along with directions at a later date. --Stalfur 16:21, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

  All graphs have now been delinked from is.wikipedia pages. --Stalfur 22:40, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

Files will be deleted. I'll try and set a bot to work on the deletions asap. Siebrand 23:07, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

 Done (or almost) Siebrand 00:17, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

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

[edit] Image:Romans d'Isonzo-Stemma.png

This coat of arms is not correct. The right one is Image:Romans_d'Isonzo-Stemma.jpg MayBug 23:40, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

•  Keep - Not relevant for a deletion request. --FSHL 01:25, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

kept --ALE! ¿…? 11:50, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

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

[edit] Image:Ukr announcement.jpg

This photoedited image obviously violates the Right of Publicity of the lady depicted here --Wojsyl 19:25, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

im not so sure, he has another image here [12] of the same woman Madmax32 22:33, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

• • The lady is unrecognazible and the image depicts the announcement. But I made a black strip so everybody could enjoy this chauvinistic announcement without more tales --Russianname 10:44, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
    • 1st - She is easily recognisable, and the 2nd - that was not a shauvinistic announcemen--Redsunrising 03:42, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
      • Not really, the first photo is too dark to be used in a malicious manner and the other one her face is partially obscured. In any case, anyone who violates anyones publicity rights is liable, not unnecessarily the uploader (his photograph is not used in a libelous manner regarding the woman).Madmax32 05:50, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
    • 1st she is not recognizable, 2nd - the announcement in Ukrianian is clearly chauvinistic, nationalist and xenophobic because it aimed against non-Ukrainian speakers in Ukraine, who supposed to be "guests, slaves or occupants". So the main idea of this tagging is clearly anti-Russian too. --Russianname 06:26, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Oppose - The image is good in the sense that it shows the kindness and tolerance of the European Western Ukrainians to the linguistic minorities. If necessary the woman's face can be blurred by simple photoshop to hide her privacy, or simply having the image cropped and removing her would be enough. --Kuban kazak 11:38, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

 KeepI think it is unnecessary to make any alterations to the photograph Madmax32 23:18, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

•  Keep but probably alternation is needed. Is that a famous clinic? Wooyi 00:39, 9 June 2007 (UTC)
• Comment. The image is an edit of two different photos. Why is the lady needed here in the first place ? The text in Ukrainian is cropped and pasted from another image. Wojsyl 09:09, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

Keep. Image edited, the woman is unrecognazible. Yann 21:34, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

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

[edit] Image:Borssom A Garden Scene with Waterfowl.jpg

This image has a copyright note from the National Gallery (bottom), there is a new Image:Anthonie van Borssom - A Garden Scene with Waterfowl.jpg. Both images were uploaded by me. only users of the picture were the article Anthonie_van_Borssom on german wiki and the userpage of Rlbberlin on commons. Both sides use now the new picture. Rlbberlin 20:42, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

deleted --ALE! ¿…? 14:43, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

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

[edit] Image:Niall Iain Domhnallach.jpg

Heard back: The user who uploaded the file to gd wiki just took it off the BBC website. So, from what I understand about recent changes in our fair use criteria, this should probably be deleted. Oh, Niall-Iain has been found and is alive and presumably ok. --Kathryn NicDhàna 02:18, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

•  Delete fair use is not allowed on commons Madmax32 05:04, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

deleted, --Polarlys 10:56, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

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

[edit] Image:Mrchuk.jpg

does not meet COM:SCOPE, unencyclopedic, personal pic -- MECU≈talk 14:40, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

•  Keep - Not relevant for a deletion request. --FSHL 01:36, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
•  Keep - In use in article Mathew Chuk on English Wikipedia. Needs source information though. riana_dzasta 01:19, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

deleted, no source. --Polarlys 13:32, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

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

[edit] Image:Irene Dunne.jpg

the source website appears to be a fansite and collection of images from various sources. I can find nothing to suggest that the image is in the public domain --Rossrs 14:40, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

deleted, --Polarlys 13:31, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

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

[edit] Image:Asgarth 2.jpg

--Mikani 14:43, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

deleted, --Polarlys 13:30, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

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

[edit] Image:Artist_Josue_Fred.pdf

Out of project scope. Spam and possibly copyvio -- EugeneZelenko 14:45, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

deleted, --Polarlys 13:30, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

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

[edit] Image:Dipak_Mehta.JPG

The file is not potentially usable by any current or future Wikimedia project (subject of vanity deletes on w:en). 731 wikis searched. Dipak_Mehta.JPG is not used anywhere! -- Wizzard2k 14:57, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

• Delete, used to spam multiple pages (see w:Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Micromultimedia. --Iamunknown 19:45, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
• Delete, not likely to be used for anything useful, and currently only being used for spam. N 20:17, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

deleted, --Polarlys 13:29, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

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

[edit] Image:Thatchercloseup.JPG

picture of a (baseball-style) card which is likely unfree, though it may be a work of the US Federal Government -- MECU≈talk 15:27, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

 Delete. We have no reasonable evidence to support an assumption that the original photograph was taken by an officer or employee of the US federal government, and no indication that the original photographer has agreed to the CC-by-sa license. If it was indeed created by the US government, it is in the public domain and must not be distributed under a CC-by-sa license. Attempting to issue licenses to faithful copies of public domain works is a criminal offense under United States Code 17-506(c). —LX (talk, contribs) 17:35, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

deleted, --Polarlys 13:29, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

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

[edit] Image:Tiny_utecht.jpg

"Uploaded by the artist itself. Please ask permission before to use this image outside of wikipedia or if you want to manipulate it." on page along with CC-BY-2.0 license which would imply CC-BY-ND-2.0 -- MECU≈talk 15:34, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

 Delete, {{permission}}. Attaching additional requirements to CC-by contradicts section 8 (e) of the license itself. —LX (talk, contribs) 16:49, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

 Delete - clearly an unfree license. WjBscribe 01:16, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

 Delete Unfree. riana_dzasta 08:19, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

deleted, --Polarlys 13:28, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

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

[edit] Image:Pieter_Bruegel_d._Ä._075.jpg

Ido not want it -- 74.233.88.129 15:39, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

Speedily kept: not a reason for deletion. Lupo 15:56, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

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

[edit] Image:HTGF LOGO.jpg

wrong license type Htgf 20:39, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

{{logo}} --D-Kuru 00:07, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Deleted by D-Kuru: logo

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

[edit] Image:Screenshot_InDesign.jpg

I don't know if Apple is GP. If it's not{{screenshot}} someone shpuld change the licence, because it isn't {{PD-sel}} even the quadrate is self made -- D-Kuru 23:06, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

Deleted by Bryan, reason: screenshot. Adambro 18:14, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

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

[edit] Wikipe-tan lolicon (2007-01-04)

Actual Wikipe-tan

• Image:LoliWikipetan.jpg
• Image:LoliWikipetan2.jpg
• Image:LoliWikipetan3.jpg
• Image:Loligirl.jpg

Potential GFDL vio, may be considered as original work since it isn't exactly a look alike. To be on the safe side, images should be retagged under GFDL (since GFDL requires it) unless the image is considered to be "original work" then it's PD tag would be fine. -- Cat ^chi? 01:09, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

Clarification: Since several people seems confused, I will clarify several issues.

1. [Free] "Porn" is more than welcome on commons as for example it can be used to illustrate (*drum roll*) porn. Commons is a free image repository. Anything within our project scope is more than welcome. It is neither filtered for minors nor is it censored.
2. You cannot really {{agree}} or {{oppose}} this nom. Correct template to use would be {{vk}} or {{vd}}. Votes (they really are comments) without a rationale may be ignored. Comments without a valid rationale may also be ignored.

-- Cat ^chi? 03:26, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

WTF?-Then why is it,in "Deletion requests"?In all cases we don't delete. --Pixel ;-) 01:22, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

I feel it is necessary to clarify the status of it. I can't think of a better median than COM:DEL for the discussion. -- Cat ^chi? 01:32, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

we if there is a problem nothing to stop use from relicening to GFDL. However going by practice with tux there may not be a problem.Geni 01:38, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

from Kasuga "I think Kohikki can remove his/her si:gnature from the image and reupload under GFDL and/or CC. Perhaps, it's the quickest solution for the first problem. Whether to use it is another problem."So we just need to remove the signature, and re tag it under... GFDL,i supose(or CC,according to Kasuga),since the author of the derivative put his part of the work in PD.--Pixel ;-) 01:43, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

The signature itself doesn't seem like any sort of problem to me, I removed it as a part of our standard no-watermarks procedures. -- Cat ^chi? 01:50, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

old 112,119 bytes,new 33,678 bytes.Are you sure that you didn't make a little mistake?I can't download it,network problem.--Pixel ;-) 01:57, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

I better compressed it somehow. I merely opened it in paint and "cut" the sigs off. -- Cat ^chi? 02:18, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

 Agree with deletion. Wikipe-tan being a cute and curious girl about ten years old, I don't really like such deviations.

I also encourage the true drawer of Wikipetan to put on Wikipetan the same license that we have on wikipedia logo : "work copyrighted, freely usable by the wikimedia fundation (only)". --Yug (talk) 02:10, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

That is not possible, GFDL is non-revokeable. We on Wikimedia Commons are a "free image" repository. We wouldn't be a free image repository if we promoted full-copyright over free licenses. Wikipedia commons currently does not accept images to be used exclusively by the foundation. Image will be kept unless a compelling reason for delete is given. -- Cat ^chi? 02:18, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

It has been settled for good [15].--Pixel ;-) 02:23, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

The reason why I deleted the image the first time around is that 1, the image had no source (which turned out to be 4chan, where pretty much copyrights are ignored), 2, the uploader was a throwaway account, 3, the image had licensing concerns on en.wikipedia. If they are even bothered by license concerns on English Wikipedia, then why have the image here. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return fire)} 02:42, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

We require sources to help establish copyrights. Source claim seems to be self, which is acceptable. Derivative works of free material are still required to be comply with GFDL so I do not see any real problem copyright wise on this specific case. "Concerns on English wikipedia" is not a valid criteria for speedy deletion. From the looks of it, the matter is becoming controversial making a speedy delete less apropirate. I believe the images should not be deleted until this discussion concludes - tho I have no intention of a wheel war. -- Cat ^chi? 02:56, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

I'd like to point something out, I do not consider Zscout370's deletion out of line, I merely feel COM:DEL would be a better way to find a solution. -- Cat ^chi? 03:23, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

There is a deletion review, we should have gone there. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return fire)} 05:29, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

You are perhaps right, I'll keep in in mind in the future. -- Cat ^chi? 14:12, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Given the lack of moral rights under US law the treatment of the work isn't too critical.Geni 00:04, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Question: So the licensing issue is settled now, correct? --tjstrf talk 07:55, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

I don't understand the legal aspects here. From Kasuga's talk page: "That image is not my work. However, I think your(Zscout's) act was not wrong. Kohikki's work seems obviously a derivation work of Wikipe-tan. Kohikki should have uploaded it under GFDL or CC, or used a girl who is not Wikipe-tan. --Kasuga 03:15, 4 June 2007 (UTC)" Does the license of this image comply with this? -74.245.90.227 18:01, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

 Delete. The pic was uploaded under a throw away ID, and later claimed by someone with a different ID and only one two previous edits. Kohiki showed up on the Lolicon talk page around the same time as three different brand new anons. Conversations around this are obviously taking place somewhere off-site, thus there's a lack of transparency which is fundamental to the Wikipedia project. Something just doesn't feel right about this whole thing. Regarding the Wiki symbols, the issue isn't censorship, it's endorsement. -74.245.90.227 19:35, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

The user ID was probably discarded by the author because it was a bad choice of user ID with negative connotations. The image does not have any more problems GFDL- and trademark-wise than all the other Wikipe-tan images. If you want it removed, you need to make a different argument.--129.241.216.43 21:28, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

 Agree We do not want Wikipe-tan in a kiddie cheescake pose. We do not want the Foundation's trademarked puzzle pieces used in kiddie cheescake pictures. Period. This is just a bad business, c'mon people. If the artist or another artist removes the puzzle pieces, that'll be different. Herostratus 18:13, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

I'm puzzled here. If Wikipe-tan is truly GFDL, then there can be no trademark restrictions for this image any more than the other Wikipe-tan images, which also have puzzle pieces, though no actual Wikipedia logo. How is the uncyclopedia logo any less a derivative of the Wikipedia logo? Also, Wikipedia is not censored - see the Mohammed Cartoon controversy article. --129.241.215.163 18:27, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

The personal opinion of one people shouldn't be a reason to delete anything. If you don't like it, it's not an excuse to delete something. Kohikki spent time to work on this image so it could be used in the article about Lolicon, and now you are saying "DELETE THIS BECAUSE I DON'T LIKE THIS"? That's not right. --Anonyymi 19:39, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

You are just a rude snob.Request for deletion all of Wikipetan images then,if they are trademarked.Why not sued unencyclopedia too,there logo is a potato with puzzle pieces,resembling wikipedia logo.--Pixel ;-) 20:38, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

 Oppose And now that I made an account for myself, I oppose this deletion. --Anonyymi 19:57, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

 KeepThe copyright issue was setled.The uploader had put it under PD by ignorance.For short ,in all cases the image falls under a free liscence compatible with The commons.Your oppinions on the content are irelevent,it's not illegal,wikipedia is not censored,in my nolege ther's no prosses for deleting images simply because you feel like it,the closing admin will simply discount your votes(we are not a democracy).--Pixel ;-) 20:26, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

 Oppose deletion. I'm seeing a lot of IDONTLIKEIT votes here, but the facts are pretty clear: the image is properly and freely licensed (what Commons cares about), encyclopedic, and representative of its subject (what Wikipedia cares about). There is therefore no reason for deleting it or not using it. --tjstrf talk 20:42, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

 Oppose My questions about the image have been answered by the creator. And trademark issues should be forwarded to the Foundation for consideration. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return fire)} 20:55, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

 Delete as fast as possible: Even the uploader is the copyrighholder, BUT there is really no need for hentai hentailike pictures on commons. From my point of view especially no wikipe-tan lolicon loliconlike or hentai hentailike pictuers --D-Kuru 21:57, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

In what rule are you based exactly?--Pixel ;-) 22:09, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

Except that this isn't hentai, genius. Hentai is porn, and this certainly isn't porn. Sure, it might be suggestive, b:ut that isn't enough for this image to qualify as hentai. --Anonyymi 22:21, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

@ Anonyymi: Thanks, I know what hentai is. However, I changed every "hentai" or "lolicon" to "henati-" or "loliconlike" pictures to make it more acceptable for you

Now better?

@ Pixel: I don't think that there is a rule for that, but I also think that such pictures aren't compatible with the project scope. Maybe the next pictures of wikipe-tan are toddlercon(like) pictures... So I think that it's better not to allow that pictures from the very first instead of creating a long deletion request where the question "why did you allow it four month ago?" turnes up more often than there are copyviopictures a day.

--D-Kuru 22:48, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

"Wikimedia Commons is a common central media repository of all Wikimedia projects" there are currently 17 wikipedias with articles on lolicon.Geni 02:19, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

And what about Image:Final Solution-chan.jpg? Isn't that loliconlike enough?

--D-Kuru 11:48, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

It is fairly common for commons to have multiple pictures on the same theme. See all out cat pics and the like.Geni 20:38, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

 Oppose all censorship. Here's hoping for wikipe-tan toddlercon~ :) Oven Fresh 23:41, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

 Keep - Arguments are not relevant for a deletion request. --FSHL 01:31, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

comment The complication is due to character rights. However since the authour of Wikipe-tan lolicon has released all rights it should be posible to use the images under GFDL or the relivant CC.Geni 02:56, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

If the original Wikipe-tan is released under GFDL and CC it should be okay for others to do artwork of her, right? This isn't the first Wikipe-tan art by other people, there's a whole gallery for "Wikipe-tan by others" in the Wikipe-tan page. And some of that art is in use for other Wikipedia pages (in fact, the Wikipe-tan image in the Japanese article for Lolicon is not done by Kasuga). --Anonyymi 07:13, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Question:This is a Renaissance fresco.A boy masturbates an other one.Isn't this at least,as scandalous as loliwikipetan?Isn't, this real porn?Or is it art?--Pixel ;-) 08:28, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

I'd say that's art, but since we're talking about Lolicon here (as a category of hentai), that image wouldn't be accurate. --Anonyymi 09:38, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Maybe that picture would be accurate if it got drawn today (or at least after the second world war). Julius III. died in 1555 so I think there is no link to today excapt the topic of that picture.

--D-Kuru 11:40, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

'Comment. There is no reason to have the Foundation's trademarked puzzle pieces in this softcore kiddie porn image. I have asked the artist to simply remove the puzzle pieces. I have not received the courtesy of a reply. In my opinion, this is deliberate trollery and/or point-making at the expense of the project, and some of the comments here reinforce that belief. I call on the closing admin to consider that rejecting what might well be trollery intended to embarrass the project supercedes all other considerations, arguments, and numbers. Herostratus 00:18, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

foundation holds trademark on the name wikipedia and the globe. I haven't run across any claims on puzzel pices.Geni 01:04, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

 Delete Strongly agree with deletion of an image that is Child Pornography (albeit soft), and re its use inLolicon on the en wikipedia, SqueakBox 00:43, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Not child porn under even the UK legal system (obscene publication maybe child porn no).Geni 01:04, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

 DeleteWhether it is legally defined as porn in the UK, Honduras or elsewhere isnt releavnt to me. I dont make the laws but if I can have an influence here delete is to me a mo-brainer. Its use on Lolicon is an important factor, SqueakBox 01:25, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Your argument is that it is child porn. Since no children are involved the use of the term is incorrect.Geni 01:48, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

By attacking the other users, you simply show that you have no valid argument.If you believe that there's a trademark issue,you should propose all wikipetans for deletion and sue Unencyclopedia for their logo(a potato instead of a sphere).--Pixel ;-) 19:05, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Uncyclopedia Logo

 Oppose Not even porn. - 24.190.75.169 01:07, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

 Agree to  Delete. We do not want to associate Foundation related images with lolicon images. FloNight 02:04, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

pic is not related to the wikimedia foundation.Geni 02:13, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

I don't think so. "Wikipe-tan is one of the personifications of Wikipedia." If I'm right Wikipedia is a project of Wikimedia. SO it's not directly related, but in one or another way --D-Kuru 05:38, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

"Wikipe-tan is one of the personifications of Wikipedia." not officialy.Geni 07:25, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

 Delete, per Yug, Herostratus and FloNight. If the article needs an illustration, better one that doesn't pimp the Wikipedia mascot. It's not NPOV to imply that WP supports child porn. IMHO the image is porny not because of presence or lack of clothing, but because of her vulnerable position and frightened look. The presence of WP symbols on her pigtails implies she's part of WP. Kathryn NicDhàna 03:21, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

 Keep (therefore opposing deletion) as per tjstrf, Geni, Anonyymi and Pixel. It's obvious to me that this deletion proposal is driven by personal opinions regarding what the removers like/dislike. Why else would they still bother to try and delete a legal (I don't see how any court can find this to be actual child porn, or ANY porn at all) and RELEVANT image, even after copyright issues were settled? Grgspunk 04:30, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Even though we are not censored, it would not be a bad idea to keep both Wikipedia's image and Wikipe-tan's image in mind. Since this is under the GFDL, would anyone object to editing the picture to not being Wikipe-tan? (not that it actually looks like her anyways, besides the puzzle pieces). -- Ned Scott 05:23, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

You are welcome to upload an alternate version to be used in articles. This unique work shouldn't be overwritten. -- Cat ^chi? 22:32, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

 Agree with the deletion. Using elements of the copyrighed Wikimedia logo and mascot in a picture in which adult sexuality is projected onto a pubescent girl serves to bring disrepute on the project. It certainly doesn't help the project. Will Beback 05:58, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

 Delete I checked usage to see what educational use this image was being put to and found that an anonymous user had recently placed in at the top of every single project page on lolicon, including the Hanja Korean one in the Incubator. It's clearly created for trolling and it should be deleted as such. - BanyanTree 06:07, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

If that is what you think why are you riseing to the troll bait.Geni 07:25, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

You find continuously ignoring troll bait to take less effort than deleting it right off? I suppose it takes all kinds to make the wiki work. - BanyanTree 08:26, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

So basically, if someone else not related to the artist puts an image to other pages then the artist made the image for "trolling"? So, if I would spam some articles with images would that make the image artists "trolls"? I don't think so. --Anonyymi 07:30, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

This is a well-made point. The uploader of the images doesn't have a contribution history that would allow me to make any sort of declaration that s/he and 87.64.23.34, who added the images to the articles, are the same person. In fact, the conversant English of 4lolicon in the uploads and what appears to be French skills by the anon may suggest that they are not. Apologies to 4lolicon if I have mistakenly combined two people. However, I still hold that the only significant use appears to be yanking people's chains and the "it's GFDL compliant" legalistic argument has failed when the purpose and nature of the image itself becomes controversial, e.g. autofellatio, cumshot woman, and bare-shouldered woman in front of the Quran, for those who remember some old debates. - BanyanTree 08:26, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Controversial images are more than welcome on commons. We have plenty of images banned in some countries such as the Nazi flag for example. -- Cat ^chi? 14:12, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

If the main concern is about the puzzle pieces, I can try (reluctantly) to remove them. The left piece will be easy to remove, but the right piece, not so much. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return fire)} 06:08, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

There are no copyright issues with releation to the puzzle pieces. —the preceding unsigned comment is by Geni (talk • contribs) 07:25, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

I know, but I am taking some hints from above and trying it out (Geni, if you want my real response, please either email me or pm me on IRC). User:Zscout370 ^{(Return fire)} 10:19, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

The symbols on the puzzle peices do not even show on the globe version. I do not understand the fuss about it. -- Cat ^chi? 14:03, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

The puzzle pieces and Wikipi-tan are not copyrighted but are trademarks of the Foundation. They do not have to be registered to (legally) be considered marks of the Foundation. Herostratus 15:32, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Are you speaking behalf of the foundation? Are you a board member? Only board members can make such a comment. Take it to the board and if they feel a trademark vio is the case all wikipe-tan images would need to be deleted. I'll personally delete them myself if thats the case. -- Cat ^chi? 15:59, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

The difference between the globe an puzzel pieces is such that I can't see the foundation haveing much of a claim. wikipedia is not the only wiki to use a form of puzzel as part of it's logo.Geni 16:08, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

If ther's relly a trademark issue,doesn't that mean that all images of wikipetan have to be deleted?Why only this one?It does not compute ...--Pixel ;-) 17:44, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

I added them to thies articles,i do that some times since you don't really knead language skills,i find it helpful especially for small wikipedias,with less contributors.If i'm not mistaken i added them before all this nonsense started ,and the images wherent considered for deletion(if you read the deletion summary).For me this equates to the scandal with Jackson's breast.A quick look,and i don't see any one complaining about it,in the other languages,just see the old one in the Russian wikipedia.The other projects are not aware of the controversy,the commons isn't a subsite of the en-wikipedia.You American's are a bunch of "coincer du cul".--Pixel ;-) 17:41, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Lets keep the discussion/dispute at one place and not needlessly spread it. -- Cat ^chi? 20:00, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Comment on altering image - It seems to me that if the Lolicon article (as all WP articles) is about documenting the phenomenon, any image used should be one that has been produced for that purpose, by the groups or individuals being documented. Creating a new image of !child !porn for the purpose seems to miss the point, and again brings us into the territory of Wikipedia somehow sanctioning or even producing !child !porn. Kathryn NicDhàna 18:59, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

It is amoung other things an art style. Since it hasn't been around long enough to be PD due ot age we have to try other aproaches.Geni 19:22, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

How do you expect to document a phenomenon without providing an example to it? -- Cat ^chi? 20:00, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

You take a real example of the phenomenon and use it with a fair use rationale. Or you wait 70 years p.m.a. This is what we do with cubism: there may be no free Picassos out there, but that is no reason to make a cubistic version of Wikipe-tan in order to document a phenomenon. Samulili 20:30, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

We could try the approach of not creating an image for the article. We could provide a link to already-existing images on the net if readers really want to see an example. The argument is often made that articles are "better" with pictures. I believe this is not just because images, well, illustrate the topic, but because they make the page more visually appealing. This argument doesn't necessarily work when you have an image that many find repulsive. Kathryn NicDhàna 20:29, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Or we could hide Wikipe-tan under a burka for all practical purposes</sarcasm>. Seriously though... how is what you are suggesting not in conflict with our copyright policies. This does fall under the spirit of wikipedia is not censored... -- Cat ^chi? 22:19, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Keep, this image has educational/informational value and proper license, and Commons, as Wikipedia, isn't censored, is it? AndyVolykhov 19:06, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

And what about Image:Final Solution-chan.jpg? Isn't that informational enough?

Do Lolicon "fans" really need Wikipe-tan lolicon pictures to jerk off? (Also an issue some of you don't agree with, but that's what I think about this)

--D-Kuru 19:51, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

I have heard of people who "jerk off" looking at pictures of Saturn. "jerk off"ability is not a deletion criteria. We have plenty of pictures of genitals on commons. -- Cat ^chi? 20:00, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Delete Its very simple, this picture will be deleted AFTER the wikipedia child porn scandle breaks in the news media, why not save us unneeded problems and bad press and get rid of this picture NOW. wikimedia editor hypnosadist86.53.57.148 20:12, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

She isn't even semi-naked, how the heck can it be porn? (actually do not answer to that, I really do not want to know). Also this is wikimedia commons an image repository not a Wikipedia (encyclopedia) -- Cat ^chi? 22:29, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Agreed. Kathryn NicDhàna 20:29, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Fully  Agree --D-Kuru 20:44, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Agreed. Wikipedia already has an image problem regarding pedophilia and child porn. [16] Perverted justice has a lot of influence. Another example. [17] I'm not advocating what these links say--just saying this attitude about Wikipedia exists. I'm not even saying the picture is obscene. I'm just saying that it isn't smart to have stuff that is associated with the foundation on this image. I can guarantee you the foundation isn't happy about this kind of accusation and certainly doesn't want more ammunition. Some folks volunteer a lot of time to change this perception and fix the underlying causes. Why risk further damage to Wikipedia's reputation, cause trouble for a lot of people, and put the wonderful Wikipe-tan project in jeopardy, over this? -74.245.90.227 21:24, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Excuse me, since when do we ever actually put "Wikipedia's image" into consideration when editing an article? I see no rule or restriction regarding that. The only thing we SHOULD be concerned about is being as accurate, cited and NPOV (meaning we DON'T edit to promote/condemn the merits of the subject). The possiblilty of negative press is NOT grounds for censorship/POV posts. Grgspunk

If we are considered as a bunch of pedophiles because of this,i'm saying that this is witch hunt and an attempt of intimidation,Are you planning to list all the users that are/will vote keep?--Pixel ;-) 21:45, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Please pixel you misunderstand me i did not mean to threaten you or label you a pedophile, if you thought that for one second i am sorry. While we civilised human beings are having a rational debate, many in the media would not. They would happily destroy wikipedia to sell a few more papers or advert time. I see real risk for wikipedia's name in this image, there are anti-wikipedia sites out there that would use this to do a lot of damage to the project we ALL work so hard to make. hypnosadist from wikipedia. —the preceding unsigned comment was added by 86.53.57.148 (talk • contribs)

"Any society that would give up a little liberty to gain a little security will deserve neither and lose both." The moment we are intimidated to the point of compromising from free speech for the sake of a little security, it will be the end of the project. This definitely CANNOT be a rationale. -- Cat ^chi? 22:29, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

WTF! What do these icons of free speach say? Oh yes that wikipedia wants to be associated with pseudo-images of child porn. If you want to have the freedom to say that message go ahead just don't bitch and cry when this is in the press. The safty of the wikimedia projects must come before anything else. hypnosadist. 86.53.57.148 22:40, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

 Delete Private art, not within project's scope. Ceterum censeo, it's not child porn but it's still stupid from a PR/image point of view.

It has a use on wikipedias therfor it is within project scope.Geni 22:18, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

She's not Wikipetan, if the images stay, they should be renamed. Say it's a Wikipetan's cousin if you want, but it's not THE Wikipetan. This is modifying the perception of Wikipetan, which -as said- is "one of the personifications of Wikipedia". Platonides 22:01, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

I do not understand the concern... -- Cat ^chi? 22:23, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

 Delete as fast as possible This is inappropriate and unnecessary....Pedophilia in nature. It has not place here. DPeterson 22:40, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

 Keep I do not see how this is any way pedophillic. It is simply a cartoon, nothing more. The deletion request was not for the image to be deleted in the first place, it was simply to check whether the license was correct. Lcarsdata 14:41, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

 Delete The fact that Wikipe-tan isn't an official foundation image doesn't really help. Its a amiage widely associated with Wikipedia and promoted as such. To link a prominent symbol of Wikipedia with a child in an overtly sexual context is inappropriate. It shows a young girl with her legs open and a distressed expression. To associate Wikipedia in people's minds which such an image is problematic - this image should not be used in any Wikimedia project and therefore lies outside the commons scope. WjBscribe 21:13, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

It is well within the scope to illustrate articles related to Lolicon at the very least. Wikipe-tan is not a prominent symbol of Wikipedia. It isn't even a symbol of wikipedia as a whole. It is merely the mascot of anime wikiproject. -- Cat ^chi? 03:21, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Arbitrary edit point

 Comment There is no copyright issue surrounding this image. If the puzzle pieces are allowed in a normal Wikipe-tan, then they're allowed in derivatives of Wikipe-tan. Any debate therefore should not take copyright into consideration, only other issues such as scope, censorship, and quality. Cary Bass ^demandez 14:45, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

Argh, it is not copyright but trademark at issue here. Company mascots etc are trademarks. Hey, why don't we make a lolicon picture of the Campbell's Soup kids? Think Campbell's'd be OK with that? Then why should do we do a similar diservice to ourselves? Herostratus 15:42, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

Do you realise that what your proposing means,that ALL wikipetan images have invalid copyrights?If you can't make derivatives then the GFDL copyright is emptied from it's substence.Should we delete all of them?And what about the uncyclopedia logo(the potato image on this page),should sue them too.--Pixel ;-) 17:09, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

Another red herring to eat, the uncyclopedia logo is parody as protected under 1st amendment of the US constitution (where i think both sets of servers are based). 86.53.57.148 17:24, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

Ok, this is probably true, but what about the other wikipetans? What's the rational in keeping them? Isn't a trademark violation too? Surely it's not parody. Then what's the meaning of the GFDL on them? --Pixel ;-) 17:33, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

 CommentCloser, please note: this is a trademark issue, although not a copyright one. Wikipi-tan and the puzzle pieces are trademarks. They just are, is all. That they are not registered (^TM not ®) is of minor imporant. Look: if an enemy entity -- say Wikipedia Review or a competing encyclopedia -- hijacked Wikipedia-tan for their own (non-parody, non-fair-use) purposes, that would certainly be actionable. It's just... amazing that you would countenance misusing Foundation trademarks. This amounts to Commons attacking the Foundation... why on earth do you want to open that can of worms? Herostratus 15:43, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

Wikipe-tan is in no way a trademark of Wikipedia/Wikimedia. It is a completely unofficial mascot. Fair-use is not in any way welcome on commons. -- Cat ^chi? 17:37, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

What you are saying is that if Big Ed's Fabulous Encyclopedia decided to make a competing encyclopedia they could use Wikipe-tan as their mascot since it's not a trademark. That's obviously untrue. Wikipe-tan is a de facto tradmark and nothing you say can change that. Herostratus 02:17, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

Yes they are more than welcome to use Wikipe-tan as their official mascot. They won't be able to claim trademark rights as can't wikimedia foundation since the author did not restrict such a right. Since image is a freely licensed under GFDL it can be used for any purpose. The license also allows commercial usage and derivative works. Nothing you say will change the fact that image is licensed under GFDL. Tux is licensed under GFDL and I am more than allowed to use it as such. I can make it my company logo if I desire provided I comply with GFDL (aka post the entire license with my logo) which would be rather inconvenient. -- Cat ^chi? 03:21, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

 Comment"First rationale was the question of weather or not wikipe-tan images violate trademark laws of the foundation. The median to answer that is the board, not COM:DEL"... wow. No, the median to answer that is right here: Wikipi-tan IS a trademark of the Foundation. She just IS; no one can deny that for this reason: it is true. If you are unable to understand this I can't help you, except to say: trust me, I know what I'm talking about. Anyway, no one or almost no one has even made the argument that Wikipi-tan is not a trademark (she is); many people have noted that she is not copyrighted, which is true, and irrelevant. Herostratus 15:54, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

Wikipe-tan is in no way a trademark of Wikipedia/Wikimedia. Your insistence to the contrary will not change this fact. It is being used mostly to avoid trademark and copyright concerns actually. You demonstrate a lack of understanding of wikimedias copyrights and trademarks with this very post, I do not feel comfortable "trusting" you with such matters at this point. -- Cat ^chi? 17:37, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

Herostratus,if wikipetan violates a trademark,don't you think that all wikipetan images are deletable?If the foundation can forbid certain derivatives works,then their GFDL license is radius to a joke.Ι mean it would be equivalent to a copyright of the foundation.--Pixel ;-) 04:18, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

 Comment "...hurting Wikipedias reputation". Even if [this] is valid, that is no reason for us to delete the images." Wow, is one of us crazy? Protecting the Wikipedia's reputation no longer forms a basis for administrator actions? I guess I didn't get the memo... that is just scary. (The following passage about the Nazi flags is an irrelevant red herring.) Herostratus 16:03, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

"Protecting Wikipedia's reputation" is completely irrelevant for commons Administrators. This is NOT Wikipedia, it is commons. Domestic local affairs on other wikis is of no concern to us as is our domestic affairs no concern to those wikis. Having said that, of course we will delete vandalism only uploads on sight. Vandalism is also not welcome here. -- Cat ^chi? 17:37, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

"Protecting Wikipedia's reputation" is completely irrelevant for commons Administrators; good to know we are all working together productively, oh wait. 86.53.57.148 17:53, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

Why have you bothered re-opening? You personally have made up your mind that wikipedia should create, store and deceminate child porn on the grounds of "free speach". You have been warned of the inevitable outcome of this, i'll just make sure that you and pixel get the hate mail delivered, shame you won't be able to fix the damage you are about to do.86.53.57.148 17:34, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

I'll gladly take the hate mail from cartoon characters that are raped over a non-nude photo drawing of wikipe-tan. -- Cat ^chi? 17:40, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

Yes this is all fun and games to you isn't it, as i say youve made you decision so just close this "debate"!86.53.57.148 17:51, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

Actually I am taking this quite seriously just like any administrative decision I make. I am the nominator of this and I had made up my mind before nominating it. I have had some concerns about the licensing of the images as a potential GFDL-vio which were answered. I have raised these concerns to the uploader a few hours after the upload to commons and decided to go for COM:DEL when the uploader did not respond. Beyond that, no one to this moment has provided a compelling deletion rationale inline with deletion criteria/policy. -- Cat ^chi? 17:59, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

Youve been warned of the damage this could cause, and you don't care, youve made that very clear. As i say youve made you decision so just close this "debate". 86.53.57.148 18:08, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

You seem awfully familiar with commons policies and guidelines while only making edits to this page raining accusations. -- Cat ^chi? 18:12, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

 Comment The second image is used nowhere. The first image, like the second, isn't very good quality, and isn't even a good example of Lolicon (someone mentioned an image that seems more appropriate - final-solution-chan? - with an even worse name!). It also strikes me as trolling and in poor taste. If someone made cartoons of wikipe-tan or commons-tan being scared, humiliated, beaten, shot, eaten by lions, melted in Dip by flickr-tan, cloned in a vat by citizend-tan, I would want to see them used in a hilarious satire or deleted; if we don't protect our mascots' honor, who will? I hope the community agrees. (On the other hand, if someone can suggest a use for these images on the projects that can't possible be better served by a better-drawn and less insulting image, please share!) While it is tempting to take this [as with any controversial topic] as an opportunity for devil's and other advocates to showcase their debate skills, I would like to see the images deleted and not caught in the middle of perennial censorship/propriety/policy debates. +sj + 02:29, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

I do not believe mascots have a sense of honor. You are welcome to draw alternatives. Wikipe-tan is as official as any other image on commons not licensed by the wikimedia foundation. So long as images are freely licensed and are within our project scope, we should NOT delete them. -- Cat ^chi? 03:21, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Footer

Please do not make any edits to this section.

Keep. Copyright issues sorted. Commons not censored, we don't delete images becuase of the filename either. -- Drini 22:38, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Reopened. Deletion requests stay open for at least one week. Also, the reasons for a decision should address the issues raised, which Drini's decision didn't. Samulili 04:34, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

Reclosed. There is no rule to keep a deletion request open for a week - the discussion here is no longer about copyright laws or commons scope but peoples ethics. Some of the issues raised has nothing to do with commons.

• First rationale was the question of weather or not wikipe-tan images violate trademark laws of the foundation. The median to answer that is the board, not COM:DEL.
• Second rationale was weather or not the images may lead to a "child pornography case on media hurting Wikipedias reputation". Even if the second rationale is valid, that is no reason for us to delete the images. We have plenty of controversial images on commons such as flags with Nazi symbol which is explicitly banned in Germany. Any Nazi symbol can lead to a similar problem at least on the German media. Wikipedia is not censored.
• If there is still a need for deletion people can bring it up in 1 or 2 weeks. I do not want to have a case until the nonsense leaking from en.wikipedia ceases.

-- Cat ^chi? 14:22, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

Reopened. On a second thought, lets give it a full week. (I know I will probably regret his) -- Cat ^chi? 14:34, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

Addressing concerns: Unfortunately, this is not a vote, so the proportion of !votes is irrelevant. So, arguments were weighed. The original concern (copyright) was moot as it was solved. The problems about pornography, were moot, since commons is not censored (see Penis). Wikipetan is not officially related to wikipedia, is not an official logo, is not an official mascot, is not an official anything. So, except for those who want to believe wikipetan represents wikipedia, there's no association at all. The image fell under project scope as it was used to illustrate articles. So... weighing the arguments (and not vote counting), the request was closed as keep. --Drini 18:13, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

So, the arguments that gave origin to this deletion reqeust are adressed. If there are others, then feel free to start a new one using that rationale. And IDONTLIKEIT THINKOFTHECHILDREM OMGWTFBBQ rationales are not valid commons arguments.

Now, closign again.

Keep. with expanded rationale on the decision. -- Drini 18:13, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

Drini later reopened the case. -- Cat ^chi? 03:21, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

Deleted by Jimbo Wales: pedophilic sexualization of a community mascot? No. - email me if you have questions —the preceding unsigned comment was added by D-Kuru (talk • contribs)

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

[edit] Image:Medved hnedy europsky.jpg

pls delete image, duplicate of Image:Brown Bear Bojnice Zoo.jpg

tagged as a duplicate --ALE! ¿…? 12:27, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

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

[edit] Image:1984 fictious world map.png

Derivative work, clearly intended to be modeled after the text of Nineteen Eighty-Four. Not free. hbdragon88 05:32, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

Not sure what you mean by that. Both the image and its derivative are released under the GNU and public domain licenses, respectively. I see no reason to delete this. --Stux 21:18, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Neither am I. I think we must keep this image because it's very essential for the articles about the novel "1984" --Spy-jones 15:51, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

Let's see...it was based on the Harry Potter fan art request, but apparently most of that survived the deletion request. The "Brief legal review" part at the end is giving me mixed signals – MichaelMaggs declared no, while rtc disagreed. hbdragon88 21:44, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

Commons:Derivative_works was good reading. Under the "Casebook" section, "Images of characters/objects/scenes in books" is explicitly disallowed. Ironically, it says that a drawing of Albus Dumbledore is a derivative work and not allowed, yet the HP Fan Art deletion requestion did inlcude a picture of Dumbledore, which was kept. This map depicts the state of the world, drawn from the descriptions in the book. hbdragon88 04:57, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

• Don't deleted, because

User:Hbdragon88 wrong! Image:BlankMap-World.png This work is public domain. So this derivative work also public domain. --Starscream 02:25, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

•  Keep it's not scanned from the book, but made from scratch using the blankworld map --Andersmusician $ 04:47, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
  •  Keep I don't think Orwell's role in naming and placing the superpower's on his speculative but fictious world quite passes the threshold of originality. Sadly I have not read the magnum opus but based on the image I can easily define Orwell's powers as follows: Eurasia = EU + Russia - UK (= united continental Europe), Oceania = USA + Latin America + UK + South Africa + Australia (= the US/UK "commonwealth"), and last but not least Eastasia representing the Chinese or Japanese sphere of influence. Not very imaginative as such, dare I say, because these "empires" (federations, supercultures, you name it) partially existed already in Orwell's day like the US and UK exerting their interests on their colonies, and/or can be considered rehashings of processes and outcomes of WW II (the empire-building of Russia, Germany and Japan in particular). Due to these reasons, in my opinion the image can not be considered a scene from the book but a mere representation of a few facts from the speculative back story. If the map was even moderately detailed — say on the level of countries, cities and geographical features — I would be otherwise inclined, but this is a rather generic coloring of Image:BlankMap-World.png — not far from a simple layout from a strategic board game like Risk. --jibun_{≈παντα ρει≈} (keskustele!) 05:40, 16 June 2007 (UTC)
•  Keep only shows factual information, where the places are located in the real world. It would be different if it were a fictional world, such as Narnia, Middle earth etc --Astrokey44 05:19, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

Kept. Copyright only covers works, not ideas. Orwell didn't write a map, did he? If someone drew a picture of Winston based on Orwell's description, that's not a derivative work, is it? [If anyone seriously thinks it is and has some examples cases for that, please contact me, because it's really far out from my understanding of what copyright can protect.] --pfctdayelise (说什么?) 09:58, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

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

[edit] Image:Grafton.GIF

Picture is of very poor quality, in GIF format (inadequate for a photograph), has errors when rescaled and does not show any source. -- le Korrigan →bla 18:21, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

 Delete. However, if a source is provided to show that the photographer's name has never been published or to credit them and show that they died within 28 years of having taken the photo, the image could be uploaded in a more appropriate format after being retouched to remove the artifacts. —LX (talk, contribs) 19:31, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

Deleted by Quadell: listed on COM:DR for over 7 days. Copyright problems

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

[edit] Image:Girlyrougflower.jpg

looks like a copyvio -- D-Kuru 22:58, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

 Delete - Seems to be a copy of an advertisement given the logos (which are also no doubt covered by copyright) and the source given by the uploader is "Mon Ordinateur" (my computer) though he also claims to be the author. Uploading this file has been his only contribution to Commons. WjBscribe 01:23, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Deleted by Quadell: listed on COM:DR for over 7 days. Copyright problems

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

[edit] Image:Alphamap.gif

The image does not match the one on En.wikipedia.com and needs to be updated. --Sawblade05 05:15, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

 Keep No need to delete this image. Just upload updated image, and new image will override the old one. I have just uploaded new one, thus the image has been updated. Yassie 13:52, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

Kept. (→O - RLY?) 22:16, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

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

[edit] Image:Diagram_of_a_human_mitochondrion.svg

Bad picture, it's wrong, because that is'nt a "human" mitokondrium it's an animal! -- 85.166.255.0 18:26, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

This image should not be deleted but renamed rather. --Snek01 23:51, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

•  Keep - Not relevant for a deletion request. --FSHL 01:41, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

This image is perfectly ok. human mitochondrion means that it is found in a human cell, mitochondria themselves have their own dna and could be called endosymbionts (animals). but also true is that human cells are animal cells (in the sense of no plant nor mineral.. dont come with religion here!)so the title is appropiate in all senses. if at much you can add a note on the description of the image.-LadyofHats 07:50, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

 Keep Absolute nonsense to delete such a great picture. A brief explanation in the image description can clear up that it's a typical illustration of any mitochondrion. And a thumbs up for the excellent work LadyofHats does here! PatríciaR ^msg 01:33, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

•  Keep Same remark, the image does not merit deletion, and even its name is good enough (even if it is not specific to humans, but to any animal, it conforms to Commons policy that want specific names). Remember: humans are animals ! Good quality image. Thumbs up! Verdy p 16:07, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

Excellent image - keep as is!

Kept. (→O - RLY?) 22:19, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

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

[edit] Image:Ptaminasgerais.jpg

Image is of ridiculously small size and better pictures of the same ship are already available. -- le Korrigan →bla 18:30, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

•  Keep - Not relevant for a deletion request. --FSHL 01:41, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

• What's more, picture has very poor colours and the image is almost useless as you can't distinguish any details on the ship. Even recongnising it s a challenge :-) le Korrigan →bla 05:21, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

•  Comment - It's the Brazilian Minas Gerais a sister ship of HMS Triumph, French Arromanches and Argentinian Veinticinco de Mayo - Colossus class aircraft carrier... --FSHL 10:06, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

kept --ALE! ¿…? 11:54, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

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

[edit] Image:Jian-8.svg

PLEASE CHECK THIS AUTHOR, HE UPLOADS PSUEDO-SVG's CONVERTED FROM SOME NON-VECTOR IMAGES ! -- Ntrno 09:29, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

•  Keep - There ain't no such thing as a pseudo-SVG, there ain't also no such thing as a conversion from non-vector images into SVGs and finally this deletion requests didn't fulfill the deletion guidelines - a simple statement is definitively not a proof and vectorizing isn't obviously a copyright violation, especially if it's from an own work. This is not a derivative work. In case of doubt it's simply inspired. Threshold of originality is given. --FSHL 23:08, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

•  Comment - Ntrno has no right to edit my opinion about this deletion request - edit therefore deleted. And BTW: »The Wikimedia Commons Deletion Requests page is not for voting; rather, it is intended to collect arguments in favor of and opposing deletion.«¹ --FSHL 18:38, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

The deletion guidelines lists five cases where images can be deleted, including "Redundant/bad quality". Nominator seem to argue that this is such a case. Thuresson 01:00, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

•  Comment - So-called quality judgements/valuations are as well known always relative and in this case he has to give appropriate explanations why this particular file is in his opinion inferior compared to other ones – but he didn't. And if he BTW really seems »to argue that this is such a case« is IMHO just another question... --FSHL 04:14, 7 June 2007 (UTC)