Commons:Deletion requests/Archive/2007/09

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

[edit] Image:Mapa_30_de_marzo.jpg

It was copy without authorization from http://www.jmarcano.com/mipais/historia/batallas/guerra1e.html 66.98.78.117 18:17, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

• Delete copyvio Finn Rindahl 18:46, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

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

[edit] Image:Monumento_azua.jpg

Photo taken without authorization from http://www.jmarcano.com/mipais/historia/batallas/guerra1b.html 66.98.78.239 21:23, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

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

[edit] Image:De Lorean BTTF.jpg

Source is en:User:DBCaravan on en:Wikipedia who has made many uploads on en:Wikipedia with false claims of creation or ownership but which have been shown to have been copyviols yoinked from other websites. I haven't identified the source of this one, but have no reason to trust the supposed originator. (I have left a note at their en:Wikipedia talk page.) --Infrogmation 18:32, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

Apparent source found: [1], full image at [2], clearly labeled "© 2007 Vidi-TO d.o.o. Sva prava pridržana. / All rights reserved." -- Infrogmation 22:14, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

•  Delete seems to be a copyvio all right. Finn Rindahl 23:03, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

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

[edit] Image:Käfer_sjoehest.jpg

new version with correct name: Image:Aromia moschata.jpg Sjoehest 19:00, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

• Delete Image:Käfer_sjoehest.jpg (no longer) used in any projects. Finn Rindahl 19:44, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

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

[edit] Image:Monumento_azua.jpg

Photo taken without authorization from http://www.jmarcano.com/mipais/historia/batallas/guerra1b.html 66.98.78.239 21:23, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

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

[edit] Image:Stasi 2.0.JPG

Dieses Bild stellt eine massive Beleidigung in Verbing mit Verunglimpfung einer lebenden Person dar. Die Assoziierung des Herrn Schäuble mit Mördern, Folterern und generell Schwerstverbrechern halte ich für unangebracht für eine Enzyklopädie. Ich bitte daher diese Geschmacklosigkeit zu entsorgen. Weissbier 09:47, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

Weissbier says it was libelling a living person (German politician Wolfgang Schäuble). This deletion request also covers the following derivate works of this image:

• Image:Stasi 2.0.png
• Image:Stasi 2.0.svg

Lupo 11:17, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

It's a logo used in a current civil rights campaign and can be seen printed on thousands of shirts and posters in the public in Germany. So if Mr. Schäuble himself or the Ministry of the Interior don't object to the usage of this logo, why should we delete it? --91.65.124.74 16:19, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

I'm pretty sure that this association of the german secretary of the interior with the former GDR secret police Stasi is covered by freedom of art and therefore irrelevant. But this picture seems to be a derivative work though since there is no feasible reason for assuming the uploader being the creator of the artwork itself. Finally, i think it has to be deleted since the CC licensing is not credible. (It might be true for the photographic reproduction but this isn't enough). --Wiggum 21:38, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

Why should it not be credible? The license is cc-by-sa - Creative Commons Attribution Share Alike - and that is perfectly credible for Wikipedia/Wikimedia. The license itself is included in the PNG image at the bottom. The uploader is not the creator, true, but has a permission from the creator, which can also be read in general form in clear text (German though) on the source web page, which is also referred to. Please explain what is wrong or what is missing here. --W-sky 22:45, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

Oh i didn't see the png picture. The licence is fine, Keep.--Wiggum 09:21, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

•  Oppose This picture is a legal form of political protest sign against the very straight form of some ideas the described german secretary of the interior stands for. The license is cc-by-sa and absolutely correct. --Herrick 08:39, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

Keep, the license is OK. --Dezidor 09:27, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

• delete die Lizenz der Quelle auf Flickr ist cc-by-nc und das ist inkompatibel. --Marcela 10:11, 14 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Ich seh da nirgendwo flickr. Oder hast du dich mit dem Link beim Tagging Anfang des Monats vertan?--Wiggum 11:26, 14 September 2007 (UTC)
    • Ich hab da im Chat nen Link bekommen, ich glaube von Smial - und dasw war eindeutig nc Ob es Flickr war - bin ich nicht mehr sicher. Beim Taggen hab ich mich vertan, richtig. --Marcela 14:51, 16 September 2007 (UTC)
  • The images are not from flickr. The original source is denoted. What might have lead to your confusion Marcela, is that the license was recently changed by the author. It was cc-by-nc before. --W-sky 12:07, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

• Keep. This a a campaign against the article that uses this image. The article should be deletet and has now been restored. Its the second attempt to do delete this image. The license is cc 3.0 (because the older license was the reaseon for the first Deletion Request). The picture is part of an civil right campaign in germany and covered by freedom of speech. Best Regards Stefan.

• The licence of the picture is ok, and the picture is covered by the civil rights. So we should keep it. --87.123.115.204 21:44, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

Es ist ein Armutszeugnis diese Verunglimpfung eines Behinderten hier zu verbreiten. Man muß mit dem Mann nicht einer Meinung sein, aber man kann es wenigstens mit Würde tun. Weissbier 12:00, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

• Keep. Wolfgang Schäuble muss hier vor keiner angeblichen "Beleidigung" geschützt werden, das Bild ist einfach nur ein Dokument. 84.159.38.181 18:56, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

• Keep Wikimedia Commons has also images that are offensive to a person or a group of people, for educational purposes. Offensive content is no reason for deletion. See Category:Antisemitism if you want any examples of wikimedia commons images that are offensive. --Church of emacs 14:59, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

• Keep the picture is widely used in general public demonstrations and is known to a broad mass of people, even outside germany. Wikipedia/Wikimedia even has a liability to provide information to the public, it can't close its eyes to actual political happening. Furthermore, there is no license violation as mentioned. --js 15:44, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

• Keep: These pictures are covered by the Freedom of expression (Article 19 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and Article 10 of the European Convention on Human Rights) and by the Freedom of the press (esp. for Wikipedia). --Liberal Freemason (talk) 16:01, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

• Strong keep. Everything Weissbier has written on this page is utter nonsense. "Verunglimpfung eines Behinderten" (Denigration of a handicapped person)? Come on. Mr. Schäuble is indeed handicapped (he needs a wheelchair since he was attacked several years ago), but this picture does in no way mention this fact, allude to it or show it. It does allude to Schäuble's political positions, which are questionable. --Rosenzweig 19:12, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

Concerning the license: The picture was not taken from flickr or any other platform, but was shot by myself. So the license information (also given by myself) should be correct :-) ---Nicor 13:35, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

• keep the user Weissbier was also using this argument to delete the article "stasi 2.0", but did fail in the last instance. Elvis 11:34, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

• keep It's a correct description of the political problem. Also like Rosenzweig. -- Sozi 14:04, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

• i just saw the following: http://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Commons:Deletion_requests/Image:Stasi_2.0.JPG&diff=prev&oldid=7511387 this edit strikes me as quite strange. is ist allowed to delete a former deletion discussion without pointing to the old version? 194.76.29.2 15:06, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

• • Most certainly not. I guess the only thing that should be deleted here is Weissbier's user account. I don't know how to handle his changes now. Anyway, the discussion seems to lead to the clear conclusion that none of the images must be deleted. The photograph was uploaded and/or licensed by the photographer, the others have suitable licenses too and do not contradict any lawful issues. Request for EOD... --W-sky 15:32, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
    • deleting him may be a bit harsh, but on de, he does nothing more than starting deletion requests and is "well loved" for it. 194.76.29.2 15:36, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

• KEEP the image is not free because of freedom of panorama. It was placed under CC-BY-SA 3.0 after being under CC-BY-NC-SA for some time [3]. It's also not inappropriate for Wikipedia according to my views, maybe cynical but it shouldn't be deleted because it doesn't fit in the actual political landscape of germany. --Yamavu 15:55, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

• keep Ich wüsste keinen Grund warum man dieses Bild löschen sollte, meiner Meinung nach fällt es unter die "Redefreiheit".

• delete So einen Schwachsinn zu einem Artikel zu machen schaffen nur WIKIANDER! 84.153.72.118 18:59, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

• Was sind Wikiander? :) --Church of emacs 19:37, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

• delete

1. An offense is not defused by the fact that the insulted one does not undertake anything against it. Politicians don't want poor publicity.
2. Last week a student was arrested, who has that sticker on his car. A newspaper summarizes: "Damit könnte die Anzeige [...] zu einem Fall werden, der Tausende von Webseitenbetreibern zu potentiellen Straftätern werden lässt."
3. Not only Schäuble becomes insulted, but also the Stasi victims. Alauda 21:31, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

1. I don't deny the fact that the picture is an offense. I just say that commons does not censor pictures which are offensive. If there is a rule that states, that no offensive pictures shall be uploaded, show it to me. But then, we'll have to delete all images in Category:Antisemitism, too.

2. Wikimedia Commons is in the USA, so German law doesn't apply there. If it is illegal in Germany, only the domain wikipedia.de (which is under control of the German Wikimedia Deutschland e.V.) can be blocked. However I don't think it is illegal to show the image for educational purposes, not even in Germany. See Image:Flag of Germany 1933.svg, it is not ok to use the flag to advocate 3. Reich, but it is ok to show it "for the purposes of education and information."

3. See 1. --Church of emacs 13:35, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

• keep I think the Picture is no violation againt the Person Ich finde die persönlichkeitsrechte werden hier NICHt verletzt also behalten --84.136.3.85 21:32, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
• keep das ist eine zulässige Karikatur. In jedem Karnevalsumzug finden sich schlimmere "Beleidigungen". Außerdem erinnert vieles, was Schäuble fordert, tatsächlich an die Stasi.
• keep Personen die zeitgeschichtlich so relevant sind dürfen karikiert werden. Damit müssen die betroffenen Personen leben; Kohl war auch eine Birne. Politiker sind immer im Fadenkreuz der Karikaturisten/Satiriker/politischen Gegner. Ganz abgesehen vom Lemma „Stasi 2.0“ verstößt das Bild gegen keine Urheberrechte - höchstens gegen den guten Geschmack, welcher wiederum subjektiv ist. --Poupée de chaussette 22:03, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
• keep Dieses Bild ist allein schon wegen der hitzigen Diskussion in und um die Wikipedia ein wichtiges Zeitdokument. So wie es als Symbol für die Angst vor dem Überwachungsstaat steht, so ist es Sinnbild der hiesigen Kultur des Miteinander, des Lösung-Findens, der Wikipediademokratie. Abgesehen davon hat es in Magazinen wie der Titanic weit verletzendere Karrikaturen von Politikern und anderen Personen des öffentlichen Lebens gegeben (z.B. gegen den Papst) die sämtlich - sofern es überhaupt zu einem Prozess kam - nicht verboten wurden.

Kept, no persuasive reason. --Avatar 00:05, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

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

[edit] Image:IMG_4029.jpg

I have uploaded the same image with another name (Kostel sv. Vavřince v Teplicích nad Metují.jpg). Koroner 17:08, 1 September 2007 (UTC) Delete case of bad name, same uploader Finn Rindahl 17:53, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

Deleted by Siebrand: Dupe of Image:Kostel sv. Vavřince v Teplicích nad Metují.jpg

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

[edit] Image:19 de marzo.jpg

• Taken from http://www.jmarcano.com/mipais/historia/batallas/guerra1b.html —the preceding unsigned comment was added by 66.98.78.117 (talk • contribs)

Deleted by Infrogmation: cv

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

[edit] Image:1995-SAT-vs-Income-Education.png

Images uploaded in 2005, not used in any projects, appears to be corrupted. Finn Rindahl 18:58, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

• Delete, corrupt. Wizardman 23:58, 2 September 2007 (UTC)
• Delete - Corrupt. --Boricuaeddie 03:04, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

Works with higher resolution. --Polarlys 19:19, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

• Keep Downscaling the image somewhat (3556 pixels at 72dpi is ridiculous anyway) solved the problem. Lupo 09:07, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
• Keep Problem solved ;) Finn Rindahl 09:09, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

Kept. Lupo 09:27, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

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

[edit] Image:Silvio-rodriguez-dominguez.jpg

Source says nothing about cc-by-sa-2.5 --201.53.23.207 18:52, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

• Delete Website is under Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivs 2.5, and I am assuming so is the image. --Digon3 ^talk 01:25, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

deleted, --Polarlys 11:56, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

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

[edit] Image:Institut_fuer_Waldorf-Pädagogik.jpg

all user contributions are copy violations from http://www.wittenannen.net/. JD {æ} 09:35, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

This also applies to:

• Image:Garten_02.JPG
• Image:Im_Unterricht_1.jpg
• Image:Musik.jpg
• Image:Studium_2.jpg
• Image:Im Unterricht 2.jpg
• Image:Eurythmie.jpg
• Image:WittenAnnen Logo.jpg
• Image:Nachgebaute Tuer Studentenhaus.jpg

(Merged into one request by ALE! ¿…? 10:43, 4 September 2007 (UTC))

deleted, copyvio--Polarlys 11:57, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

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

[edit] Image:Press_Conference_on_Hatlestad_Slide.jpg

It is not from a decision or a statement by an authority or a public body, but from a government web site. PD Norway Gov does not apply here. Finn Rindahl 10:13, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

deleted, as per Finnrind --Polarlys 11:59, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

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

[edit] Image:Bueste Bernhard Schnackenburg.jpg

I posted it yesterday. But it should be deleted quickly. Date of date of death of artist is unknown! --Atomiccocktail 10:46, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

deleted, sculptor unknown, still alive or not dead for 70 years yet. --Polarlys 12:00, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

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

[edit] Image:50centpic.jpg

This is almost certainly a copyvio because the Flickr user has licensed several obvious copyvios under Creative Commons. --Spellcast 14:55, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

• Delete - Looks copyvio Imo too. so im with delete. --Football97 —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 81.216.183.206 (talk • contribs) at 12:03, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

Yep, it is: http://www.femalefirst.co.uk/celebrity_interviews/50+Cent-13462.html. Spellcast 19:12, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

• Delete per nom. http://flickr.com/photos/7802918@N03/ should be renamed "copyvio city".  :)   — Jeff G. (talk|contribs|Administrator nom) 05:34, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

deleted, --Polarlys 12:05, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

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

[edit] Image:IQ-70to130-ColorBars.png

not used i articles, large .png file that does not show on screen og thumbsize. Finn Rindahl 11:19, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

Deleted, not used, unencyclopedic Kameraad Pjotr 12:29, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

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

[edit] Palazzata di Messina (Autore, Leone, Samonà and Viola)

(reason for deletion) --Michele Bassi 16:49, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

There is no need for this page because there is a better specified duplicates:Palazzata di Messina (Camillo Autore, Raffaele Leone, Giuseppe Samonà and Guido Viola)--Michele Bassi 11:16, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

• Delete speedy... This, and the other images just requested for deletion by Michele Bassi should have been tagged {{bad name}} Finn Rindahl 18:38, 31 August 2007 (UTC) Sorry, moved to fast on that one, at first glance it seemed all pictures and galleries where created/uploaded by the user requesting deletion. Now I see there is at least one other user involved, I have no opinion so as to what would be the best name for these files. Finn Rindahl 18:42, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

I am Maria lo sposo, and also I think that the name with the architects and the whole name of the palaces is better --Maria lo sposo 20:32, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

I'm not sure I'm following the problem here... these titles are now redirects, are the new titles the good ones and these redirects can be deleted, is that it? PatríciaR ^msg 15:07, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

This problem is apparantly solved, the del. req. was posted before this page was changed into a redirect.Finn Rindahl 16:15, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

Er, then we keep the redirect for now, I guess. PatríciaR ^msg 21:04, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

Kept. PatríciaR ^msg 21:04, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

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

[edit] Image:Disambig_arabic.gif

BadGIF, there is Image:Disambig RTL.svg OsamaK 21:09, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

All instances of Image:Disambig_arabic.gif must be replaced with Image:Disambig RTL.svg, then Image:Disambig_arabic.gif can be tagged as {{duplicate}}. This is not a case for deletion requests. So the disambiguation templates including this image should be corrected before (using Checkusage, I see it's only on ar.wiki). So for now I close this keeping the image. PatríciaR ^msg 21:15, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

Kept. PatríciaR ^msg 21:15, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

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

[edit] Image:Gkrellm_logo.png

No evidence that the GKrellM logo itself is released under GFDL (or GPL) Fred J 15:21, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

Delete until further clearing. I sent an e-mail to try to clear this issue up (and asking if it's possible to release the logo under a free license, just in case it is copyrighted... ;)). PatríciaR ^msg 14:56, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

I got a reply!

This image was donated to me without any copyright claim or any
explicit assignment of copyright.  However, it was placed on my web
page with the understanding that I was free to use it as I wished.
So while I don't think under the current circumstances that I could claim
copyright, I did receive the image at least under the condition of the
freedom of public domain use.

So, keepers? PatríciaR ^msg 20:48, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

Deleted by Polarlys: In category Unknown as of 1 September 2007; no permission

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

[edit] Image:Hayden Christensen 05-2005.jpg

copyright violation from:
http://flickr.com/photos/marcokraus/page11/

—the preceding unsigned comment was added by Secar one (talk • contribs)

• sorrie about that, i don`t have that much experience with these kind of work, secar one 12:09, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

I don't understant what's the problem with this photo. I uploaded this photo from the deutch wikipedia where the photo was originally uploaded by the the user MarcoKraus : it's the same pseudonym that on the flicker's page so it is likely they are the same person. Sayan 10:09, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

Checking the de user page, it certainly seems to be the same person, and he's uploaded other images from the same event that he also has on flickr. You could suggest to him that he add a note to his flickr pages about the GFDL licensing. --Davepape 14:14, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

Judging from the user's contributions on de.wiki, we can't expect a fast clering on this subject. Also, judging from this edit on his talk page, he has been informed about the meaning of releasing images under free licenses such as the GFDL. Since the picture is still copyrighted on Flickr and there was no Flickr review when it was uploaded on Commons, I think we can't assume that the user wants it under a free license. So I'm inclined to Delete.

Secar one, when you nominate a page for deletion, please don't remove the page content or leave comments of this type (or at least use the discussion page). In a collaborative, voluntary project, we all do our best and many times it's not enough, unfortunately. Regards, PatríciaR ^msg 15:28, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

Kept Image was originally uploaded by the same user name as the flickr one. All uploads on de.wiki by this user was from the flickr site and licensed as GFDL on wikipedia, but All rights reserved on flickr. I've checked the user page links on de.wiki, flickr and his homepage, I've found no indication that the files was made by another person or that it is a copyvio. It seems to be his work and he released the image on wikipedia under GFDL. --GeorgHH • talk   20:57, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. Template:Ifd top Deleted. Quadell (talk) 11:53, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Image:A-10.png

This nomination includes all PNG Autoroute shields in Category:Road signs in Québec.

The stylized overpass is copyrighted, since the design was first used in the 1960s. I've made an SVG replacement without the overpass. NE2 03:00, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

 Comment It would be nice to see if there is some source for the claim that the overpass came into use in the 1960s, to make it clear (not that I don't believe in you ;)). PatríciaR ^msg 14:44, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

I have filled an official form at www.droitauteur.gouv.qc.ca to get permission and or clarification on that matter. J'ai rempli un formulaire auprès de l'éditeur officiel du Québec (www.droitauteur.gouv.qc.ca) afin d'obtenir des clarification sur le sujet et possiblement une permission plus large. Yanik Crépeau 2007-11-12

• Any updates? I think we can go ahead and delete the PNGs as superceded. Quadell (talk) 12:17, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

Template:Ifd bottom

Deleted by Quadell: Commons:Deletion requests/Image:A-10.png

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

[edit] Image:2007_09010018.JPG

uploaded with wrong name, right name is Su-7-JH02.jpg Hrd10 17:22, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

Please use {{badname}} for those requests. I changed image to badname. --Denniss 11:49, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

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

[edit] Image:Ipswitch_ma_highlight.png

Superseded by the correctly spelled Image:Ipswich_ma_highlight.png File Upload Bot (Petros63) 22:20, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

• I've changed the category from delete to bad name as suggested. Since it is now listed for speedy deletion, please close this request with no action. Petros63 02:07, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

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

[edit] Image:Manchester_By-The-Sea_ma_highlight.png

Superseded by Image:Manchester-by-the-Sea_ma_highlight.png (corrected town name) Petros63 22:23, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

• I've changed the category from delete to bad name as suggested. Since it is now listed for speedy deletion, please close this request with no action. Petros63 02:07, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

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

[edit] Image:Budde-grosz.jpg

I made an uploading mistake. Rhomylos 13:15, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

Delete Image does not have license and is probably not forthcoming if user marks it as an uploading mistake. Deadstar 14:00, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

Deleted /mistake uploaded， deletion apply by uploader--Fanghong 03:09, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

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

[edit] Image:Reynard_The_Fox.jpg

same as Image:Reynard-the-fox.jpg, but less info in the Summary Jonas kork 13:41, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

Deleted /redundant， less discription and only one used.--Fanghong 03:24, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

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

[edit] Image:Metro_Lille_Train_Interior.jpg

This image, which was originally posted to Flickr, was reviewed on 2006.10.17 by the administrator or trusted user Bastique, who found that it was currently available on Flickr under the license © All rights reserved. It seems to me that this is incompatible with Commons. Am I wrong? Lucasbfr 11:37, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

It's clearly incompatible with GFDL!--Londoneye 12:10, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

Well, the same template informs you of that "...which isn't compatible with the Commons." I'm afraid this happens often, and yes, the image should be deleted. Such images go into Category:Possibly unfree Flickr images, which has a deleting backlog. PatríciaR ^msg 21:31, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

Deleted. PatríciaR ^msg 21:31, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

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

[edit] Image:Gafsacentre.jpg

Bad quality and no particular subject --Moumou82 12:49, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

Quality is usually avery bad reason for deletion. If the image is used it should be kept (checkusage does not work at the moment). --ALE! ¿…? 08:34, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

Is the better photo free that I have of the center of Gafsa. Was take from bus and is low quality but we can see perfectly as is the center of Gafsa I believe and this is a particular subject because I created pages for all the tunisian delegations (263) that surely momou82 never heard before that exist.--jolle 02:57, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

It is used at http://ca.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gafsa --jolle 02:58, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

Kept, image is used. PatríciaR ^msg 21:36, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

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

[edit] Category:Works

This whole category tree is empty and redundant --Tony Wills 09:38, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

Info: this includes Category:Works by license, Category:PD-UN, Category:Public domain in the United States, Category:PD-US-no-notice --Tony Wills 09:48, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

deleted --ALE! ¿…? 10:03, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

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

[edit] Image:Baden_AG.jpg

because it is superseded by similar image of superior quality and resolution Monk 14:21, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

no valid reason for deletion --ALE! ¿…? 10:05, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

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

[edit] Image:Baden_old_town.JPG

because it is superseded by similar image of superior quality and resolution Monk 14:25, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

no valid reason for deletion --ALE! ¿…? 10:06, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

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

[edit] Image:Blueaz.png

ugly blue map, only used on commons Arizona Michiel1972 14:27, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

deleted --ALE! ¿…? 10:07, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

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

[edit] Image:BlueHole_TiefenZeitDiagramm.png

doppelt Usellermann 16:29, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

Deleted by ALE!: duplicate or a scaled down version of Image:TiefenZeitDiagramm-BlueHole.png

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

[edit] Image:Rogesa-BF5.jpeg, Image:Slab-caster.jpeg and Image:Georgsmarienhutte-EF.jpeg

There is doubt if this source stahl-online.de allows for derivative and commercial use. See preliminary discussion on my User talk. Finn Rindahl 11:29, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

no free license at all: http://www.stahl-online.de/english/legal_notes/legal_notes.asp --Polarlys 12:10, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

deleted, --Polarlys 13:21, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

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

[edit] Image:Y-NL400b.gif

licensed {{cc-by-nc}} at source, see [4] ˉ^anetode╦╩ 08:48, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

• The above en.wikipedia link could be accessed by en.wikipedia admins only... --Moonian 13:43, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

Deleted. No free license. --Siebrand 11:49, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

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

[edit] Image:Eunis hor large.png

license unclear --Conny 16:57, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

Delete As far as I can perceive this, it's a copyvio. Material from the European Energy Agency is mostly in public domain but parts can be copyrighted, and EUNIS is such a part, unfortunately. PatríciaR ^msg 22:07, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

Deleted. No permission --Siebrand 11:49, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

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

[edit] Image:Serbia1941 1944.png

An amateur's map, which, according to the Wikipedia's No Original Research shall not be used in Wikipedia's articles. Use maps of the occupied Europe seen in the valid and verifiable sources. Moreover, this map is just a misinterpretation of the historic facts. The previous unsigned comment was made on 2 September 2007 by User:4.249.0.58

Template fix Deadstar 07:57, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

Keep used in several articles on various Wikipedias (English, Spanish, Polish anyhow ...) Images are given wide bearth on English Wikipedia to include "minimal" original research - basically every user-produced image has some. Source data would be nice, but it's being used and is on an encyclopaedic topic. WilyD 20:37, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

Delete This map is just a misinterpretation of the historic facts - compare the map of Serbia as seen in Encyclopedia of the Holocaust, Israel Gutman, Editor in Chief, Vol. 3, Macmillan, New York - London, 1990 entry Serbia, page 1342.

Also, see

• The Destruction of the European Jews by Raul Hilberg Holmes & Meier 1985 entry Serbia, pages 725-738
• Karl-Heinz Schlarp, Wirtschaft and Besetzung, Serbien 1941-1944 (Wiesbaden and Stuttgart 1986)

Author of this (proposed for deletion) 'map' tried to sell an idea about 'autonomy' of Banat, then about 'region' ruled by German minority. The references above have no clue about Banat as an 'autonomy' or 'regon ruled by German minority'. See simply the 'map' description changes. Very bad thing is that this false map is posted on so many places - one reason more for speedy delete. --4.249.6.183 00:11, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

Delete No point in having misleading maps.--Londoneye 12:12, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

Delete The 'map' author falsely claims that the references 1. The "Times" History of Europe by Mark Almond and 2. The Times History of the 20th Century by Richard Overy support his 'map'--Standshown 14:11, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

Keep It's used and has acceptable licensing. Simple as that. Common is for more than just Wikipedia and doesn't have an OR policy. We make no guarantee over the accuracy of the images we host. We simply host them. Rocket000 19:14, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

Kept No one must use a misinterpreted or incorrect described file, but this is not a reason to delete it. You are free to use the image talk page to leave a notice about what you think is wrong with the image. --GeorgHH • talk   21:18, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

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

[edit] Image:Zeitschriften.JPG

Originally put in speedy deletion for the reason of "copyvio of magazine covers". Also in discussion on Commons:Village_pump#About_derivative_works. So, should we see this as a photo of magazine booth or a collection of magazine cover? Stewart~惡龍 14:58, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

Keep: while the magazine covers are clearly not incidental to the photo, being its main object, no single magazine cover, or picture to be found on it, is central to the photo. Therefore, even if freedom of panorama cannot be applied here, I think that the photo can be kept. See this. --rimshot^talk 15:11, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

Kept / A.J. 13:05, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

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

[edit] Image:BOCHK passbooks cards.jpg

Same as above. Originally put in speedy deletion for the reason of "easily reaches the threshold for copyrightability - indeed, even the pictorial logo down the right side of two of the cards does that". Also in discussion on Commons:Village_pump#About_derivative_works. Stewart~惡龍 16:18, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

It seems like the threshold of originality isn't very high in China [5]. Therefore, I think that the above statement about copyrightability is correct, and that this image should be deleted. --rimshot^talk 15:23, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

Deleted per nom. -- Cecil 12:53, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

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

[edit] Camtek images uploaded by Kipflur (talk • contribs)

I found that Image:Camtek wafer-to-board flow.jpg was very similar to one found in this pdf document (page 7). It is possible that Kipflur took all his uploaded material from a source at Camtek. It is in my opinion unlikely that Kipflur is the copyright owner of the material he uploaded, as he claims. In any case, there is no evidence.

Other uploads include

• Image:Camtek Pegasus.jpg
• Image:Camtek Falcon 520.png

etc. Where are these material from, and how are they "self-made"? Surely not self-photographed?

--Fred J 14:51, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

I got a message on my talk page related to this discussion: [6]. But still not clear what the permission for the images are, and if the uploader/copyright holder understood our meaning of "free use".

Fred J 19:38, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

Deleted. Uploader was told on September 3, 2007 to comment here (see also [7]), but didn't do so. No evidence of free license. Lupo 12:40, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

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

[edit] Image:Archivio_Prospero_Gianferrari_-_DSCN5145.JPG

I uploaded the same image with a better name Vincenzo Gianferrari Pini 16:23, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

Deleted. Jastrow (Λέγετε) 12:11, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

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

[edit] Image:Caledonian Sleeper branding.png

this image is clearly fair use, it's a logo. Fair use images are not allowed on commons --ACBest 21:59, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

Deleted by Lestath: Copyright violation

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

[edit] Image:Allpeers screenshot.png

Screenshot of copyrighted, non-free web site. Licensing not suitable for the Commons. —Remember the dot ^(talk) 17:44, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

Deleted Copyright violation. Yann 15:16, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

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

[edit] Image:Robert_Fischer_-_March_2005.jpg

Copyvio of AP picture here Carcharoth (Commons) 03:25, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

Is there a chance AP used the free flickr image (and tagged its AP as it does with everything it touches)? I wish this was true. Should we contact the flickr user? --Abu badali 14:54, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

Dunno. What do you think? Anyone want to contact the Flickr user? Carcharoth (Commons) 03:06, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

• Delete copyvio. Largest size available at Flickr is 289×384 pixels. IMO that means that it's highly likely that the Flickr user just copied this off the web somewhere. Lupo 08:36, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Good point. --Abu badali 05:03, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

deleted, copyvio. --Polarlys 12:11, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

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

[edit] Image:Aaron Kosminski.jpg

not a photograph so tag is wrong, not from URL given, not a historical image, copyright violation of modern artist's work. 31 August 2007 User:71.203.223.65

Deletion fix Deadstar 13:28, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

• First, I don't see that image at the stated source. Second, a cropped version, together with many other images in the same style is here. That site doesn't give any indication where these drawings come from. Hence: no source, and therefore Delete. Lupo 15:15, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
• Delete per Lupo.   — Jeff G. (talk|contribs|Administrator nom) 16:41, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
• Delete Image may be allowable if we had accurate sourcing information as the original is most likely old and in PD. But agree that the information is not accurate and seems unlikely that accurate information can be obtained. FloNight♥♥♥ 18:58, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

Oringinal most certainly is not old/PD, it's from a modern work. Late 20th century. Forget which one.

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

[edit] Image:Karte Gemeinde Naefels.png

Durch Karte Image:Karte Gemeinde Näfels.png ersetzt. 2 September 2007 User:Tschubby

Deletion fix. Deadstar 12:55, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

Now tagged as Badname. --Digon3 ^talk 22:16, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

Deleted by Cecil: Dupe of Image:Karte Gemeinde Näfels.png

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

[edit] Image:Karte Gemeinde Schwaendi.png

Durch Karte Image:Karte Gemeinde Schwändi.png ersetzt -- 2 September 2007 User:Tschubby

Deletion fix Deadstar 12:56, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

Deleted by Cecil: Dupe of Image:Karte Gemeinde Schwändi.png

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

[edit] Image:DSC01184.JPG

Out of scope. No description given and looks like personal photo. --Deadstar 09:24, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

• Delete Out of scope, no desription, author, or date. --Digon3 ^talk 23:26, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

deleted --ALE! ¿…? 10:13, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

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

[edit] Image:Вog_monument,_back_view,_Togliatti,_Russia.JPG

Bad file name ShinePhantom 10:31, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

• Please tag this as {{badname|image:"correct image name".jpg} }. --Digon3 ^talk 16:33, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

{{badname|image:Dog_monument,_back_view,_Togliatti,_Russia.JPG.jpg}}

image was tagged with {{rename image}} --ALE! ¿…? 12:29, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

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

[edit] Image:Karte Gemeinde Unterboezberg.png

Durch Image:Karte_Gemeinde_Unterbözberg.png ersetzt. 20 July 2007 User:Tschubby

Deletion fix Deadstar 12:59, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

deleted (please use {{duplicate}} or {{bad name}}) --ALE! ¿…? 10:15, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

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

[edit] Image:Ukami Matome final mission.jpg

bad name. New name Ugaki Matome final mission.jpg uploaded --MChew 15:34, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

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

[edit] Image:Opencd-v40-2-main.png

Claimed to be gfdl-self, but it's actually a software's screenshot. The software may be free, but this image contains non-free elements like the Firefox logo and the MS Window's windon's decorations. --Abu badali 16:04, 3 September 2007 (UTC) Delete Contains clearly copyright elements.--Londoneye 12:24, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

Deleted. copyvio --Siebrand 11:55, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

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

[edit] Image:S5001232.JPG

Unclear what is pictured in the image, a black shadow obscures half the view, the image is not taken straight on, and there is no description. To me that makes it out of scope and should be deleted. --Deadstar 09:37, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

• Delete Not used, not useful without description, out of scope. Finn Rindahl 19:52, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

Deleted. Unusable --Siebrand 11:55, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

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

[edit] Image:Joerg_Ritzerfeld_2005.jpg

The image description page says GFDL, but does not name the author, which in itself is a copyvio. The pl: listed as the only source has deleted the image as a copyright violation. Mormegil 12:58, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

Deleted. No source/author --Siebrand 11:50, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

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

[edit] Image:Aspa.jpg

Superseeded by Image:Asapa.svg and retired in all wikis. --] (discusión) 14:30, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

Kept. Use {{superseded}} --Siebrand 11:50, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

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

[edit] Image:Banderavalladolid.png

This file has been superseded by Image:Bandera valladolid.svg and retired in every wiki. --] (discusión) 15:18, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

Kept. Use {{superseded}} --Siebrand 11:50, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

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

[edit] Image:1963_Olmpiada_azjatycka_Djakarta_zwyciestwo_wyscigu_indywidualnego.JPG

The own work claim is disputed per edit history, so comments are hereby requested as to whether to delete. Jusjih 13:56, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

• Delete Since the uploader used many different author names for his uploads, agree that it is questionable that he holds the copyright for this image (or any of them). So delete unless accurate lic with permission is obtained. FloNight♥♥♥ 19:11, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

Deleted. No clear license/permission/source. --Siebrand 11:50, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

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

[edit] Image:Kusaya no himono.jpg

Copyvio of picture in this document, cropped and horizontal-reversed.--202.177.115.128 14:32, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

oops sorry that was a simple image-on-file confusion. please go ahead and delet it. WTCA 06:28, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

Deleted. copyvio --Siebrand 11:55, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

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

[edit] Image:1,2-dichloro-1-fluoroethane.png

error in name JeanMi 17:43, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

Kept. Use {{bad name}} or {tl|duplicate}} --Siebrand 11:50, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

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

[edit] Image:DaCruz.JPG

Someone who apears there asked me to Mhpoars 21:18, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

• What about blurring the faces? --Abu badali 21:23, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

Kept. Personality rights not relevant. Correct license and used. --Siebrand 11:50, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

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

[edit] Image:Pat Nixon.jpg

This image looks better cropped, and I have just uploaded one that is cropped, therefore this one is no longer nessecary. --Happyme22 22:07, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

• Keep I think there is no harm keeping both. Where is the new BTW? Yann 15:12, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

Kept. Use {{bad name}} or {{duplicate}} --Siebrand 11:55, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

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

[edit] Image:50°Stormo-Patch.png

No more used, the image is equivalent to Image:50°Stormo-Patch.svg --F l a n k e r 23:43, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

• Keep Superseded PNGs are to be replaced but not deleted. --Digon3 ^talk 14:07, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
• Is a no more used duplicate. --F l a n k e r 00:06, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

Kept. Use {{bad name}} or {tl|duplicate}} --Siebrand 11:50, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

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

[edit] Image:Rosenau Stadionplan.JPG

Es wird behauptet, dieses Bild sei "selbst gemacht", aber offenbar handelt es dabei nur um das Abfotografieren eines gedruckten Exemplars. Das Bild (ohne die Gebrauchsspuren vor dem Abfotografieren) findet sich z.B. auch bei auf der Seite des Stadions --87.180.174.140 13:32, 3 September 2007 (UTC) --87.180.174.140 13:35, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

I couldn't find the image at the stadium's homepage, but at the ticket service. It is a pretty clear copyvio, unless it was photographed from a permanent public display of the plan. I have just asked the user at deWP, but if no answer is forthcoming, this will have to be deleted. --rimshot^talk 16:31, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

The original foto is on [8] (Click on "Tipps für Gäste") --195.93.60.98 21:13, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

Deleted. Invalid claim of own work. (falsche Angabe, da eindeutig nicht selbst gemacht). -- Cecil 12:58, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

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

[edit] Image:1956_Mistrz_Polski_na_100km.JPG

The own work claim is disputed per edit history. Jusjih 13:58, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

Deleted per nom. [9] uploader does not know the author, an IP added the "own work" information; no licence tag. -- Cecil 13:02, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

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

[edit] Image:1959_WDPolski_zwyciestwo_wyscigu.JPG

Questionable own work claim. Jusjih 14:05, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

Deleted per nom (see Commons:Deletion requests/Image:1956 Mistrz Polski na 100km.JPG too). Also missing licence tag. -- Cecil 13:04, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

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

[edit] Image:1960_WPokoju_start_w_Lodzi_Fornalczyk_pompuje_kolo_red_Smarzewski.JPG

Questionable own work claim. Jusjih 14:05, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

Deleted per nom (see Commons:Deletion requests/Image:1956 Mistrz Polski na 100km.JPG too). Also missing licence tag. -- Cecil 13:04, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

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

[edit] Image:Haselburg_Modell_1.jpg

Objection agains speedy deletion: Is this a piece of art? Copyrightable? lets have a discussion before eventual deletion h-stt !? 21:47, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

Following a part of the discussion for the candidature to worth reading artikels Römische Villa Haselburg:

• Ist das Bild vom Modell lizenzkonform? Marcus Cyron in memoriam Volkmar Fritz 11:32, 2. Sep. 2007 (CEST)

Warum nicht? Das Modell steht dauerhaft seit ca. 10 Jahren in freier Natur für jeden zugänglich ohne Zaun drumherum. Und als Kunstwerk kann man es wohl auch nicht bezeichnen, eher als Sichtbarmachen archäologischer Forschung.--presse03 12:44, 2. Sep. 2007 (CEST)

Leider ist das nicht die Rechtsauffassung in Deutschland. Marcus Cyron in memoriam Volkmar Fritz 19:10, 2. Sep. 2007 (CEST)

Ich habe das Bild durch ein anderes ersetzt und auf commons einen LA gestellt.--presse03 00:29, 3. Sep. 2007 (CEST)

Danke. Leider ist das wohl die beste Wahl. Marcus Cyron in memoriam Volkmar Fritz 12:54, 3. Sep. 2007 (CEST)

So far so bad. In my opinion this model is not a piece of art and therefore copyrightable. How do you think about it? Does there really exist a problem under german rights?--Presse03 07:12, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

Even if this were a "work" and thus copyrightable, why would freedom of panorama not apply in Germany? Besides, even if this model were seen as a "work of architecture", would it be original? After all, it's intended to show as closely as possible how the ancient Roman building had looked like. I'm inclined to keep this. Lupo 08:24, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

Kept, per Lupo MichaelMaggs 19:24, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

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

[edit] Image:OEPNVMuseumPrag003.jpg

copyright of pictures in the hall not really clear, I want to avoid problems. 2 September 2007 User:Netopyr

User had put speedydelete template on it, I reverted as this is not a clear case of copyvio or other speedy reason. Deadstar 07:52, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

Keep Why delete? If it's your picture, the original license was OK - but you should add "own picture" to the description. Theres no copyrighted item to be seen in this picture! --Herbert Ortner 20:39, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

The pic is from inside the museum. Done by me and redone by me on the computer. That part of the copyright is obvious. It is with me alone. But I am really not sure, whether the content of the pic may be copyrighted. I contacted the museum, but didn't get an answer until now. So I ask again to delete the pic to avoid copyright infringement. I think I was too speedy in uploading because I liked that museum very much. If I cannot find a way to have my own pic deleted, the only consequence for me were not to make any other contribution to W-Commons in the future.

Another Q for me is why there is still discussion about this and my other pics of this museum over weeks despite I refused to put a copyright information to the pics. They should have been deleted already.User:Netopyr

Sometimes it takes some time, maybe they just don't see any reason to hurry (and imho there isn't any)...The content of the pictures is not copyrighted. There is no contemporary art but there are just some old tramcars. There's no copyright to them. You're obviously worrying about something completely different - the property rights inside the museum. You seem to speak german, so maybe you want to a take a closer look to this quite helpful page on de.wikipedia: [10]. Some in german wikipedia see it that way: There's nothing like a right to the image of one's property (as long as it's not protected by the artist's copyright). As long as taking pictures wasn't forbidden there, I wouldn't see any problems. (Besides that: Who would find some "Netopyr" when searching the phonebook?) By my own experience with some smaller railway museums in Austria and other places I think it's perfectly safe, museums like those are usually happy to get a bit more attention, they depend on each single visitor and pictures published might add some more. --Herbert Ortner 23:18, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

Keep Original photo of some trams is not derivative of any copyrighted work. Unless there is some indication that ALL photography is prohibited in the museum or some similar rule broken, I don't see a problem. -- Infrogmation 03:16, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

Kept. Lupo 11:59, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

I am quite disappointed. Within almost a whole year it was not possible to delete the pictures? They are still available to the public. They got even a copyright I never granted. I worked through the discussion[11] Herbert Ortner linked me to. There it seems quite obvious that according to German law the publication of these two fotos (002 and 003) from within the Czech museum is not allowed without the strict permission of the museum. Therefore these two pictures have to be deleted. User:Netopyr 19:39, 5 September 2008

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

[edit] Image:OEPNVMuseumPrag003.jpg

copyright infringement netopyr 17:45, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

• Keep. How is it an infringement? I see no issue here, and even if they did prohibit photography, we do not care since it doesn't effect the copyright status. Also, Trams are utilitarian objects, so they're exempt from copyright law. ViperSnake151 (talk) 19:53, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Kept Tried to delete it once for a silly reason, and now again. --ShakataGaNai ^{^_^} 07:10, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

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

[edit] Image:OEPNVMuseumPrag002.jpg

copyright of pictures in the hall not really clear, I want to avoid problems. 2 September 2007 User:Netopyr

User had put speedydelete template on it, I reverted as this is not a clear case of copyvio or other speedy reason. Deadstar 07:55, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

• Keep This is really silly. The fact that there are pictures sitting around, illegible, is not significant for copyright purposes. You can't even see what they are, let alone use this photo to reproduce them in any way at all. Lewis Collard! (talk, contribs, en.wp) 11:10, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment I'm not sure what Collard means. The pictures are clear enough. It's their copyright status that seems murky.--Londoneye 12:26, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
    • My point, rephrased, was that the amount of copyrighted material in this is no more a derivative work of these pictures than a photo of a street with litter sitting around is a derivative work of the design of that packaging. Lewis Collard! (talk, contribs, en.wp) 15:18, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

The pic is from inside the museum. Done by me and redone by me on the computer. That part of the copyright is obvious. It is with me alone. But I am really not sure, whether the content of the pic may be copyrighted. I contacted the museum, but didn't get an answer until now. So I ask again to delete the pic to avoid copyright infringement. I think I was too speedy in uploading because I liked that museum very much. If I cannot find a way to have my own pic deleted, the only consequence for me were not to make any other contribution to W-Commons in the future.

Another Q for me is why there is still discussion about this and my other pics of this museum over weeks despite I refused to put a copyright information to the pics. They should have been deleted already.User:Netopyr

Kept per Commons:Deletion requests/Image:OEPNVMuseumPrag003.jpg. Lupo 12:00, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

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

[edit] Image:Nikolai_Bobrikov_1839-1904.jpg

not used and duplicate of http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Image:Nikolai_Bobrikov.jpg Zache 00:21, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

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

[edit] Image:Nuvola Scotish flag.svg

Name is misspelt, superseded by Image:Nuvola Scottish flag.svg. --Orzetto 07:05, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

OK My mistake, I didn't verify the name. :) Min's - 愛 13:13, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

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

[edit] Image:Archivio_Prospero_Gianferrari_-_Piloti_Alfa_Romeo_1.JPG

{{Bad name|Piloti Alfa Romeo 1.JPG}} [[User:Vincenzo Gianferrari Pini|Vincenzo Gianferrari Pini]] 08:35, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

There is not need to list this here. Please use the {{rename image}} tag. --ALE! ¿…? 09:49, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

Deleted by Jastrow: duplicate of Image:Piloti Alfa Romeo 1.JPG

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

[edit] Image:Archivio_Prospero_Gianferrari_-_Piloti_Alfa_Romeo_2.JPG

{{Bad name|Image:Piloti Alfa Romeo 2.JPG}} 83.103.20.56 09:05, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

There is not need to list this here. Please use the {{rename image}} tag. --ALE! ¿…? 09:50, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

Deleted by Jastrow: duplicate of Image:Piloti Alfa Romeo 2.JPG

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

[edit] Image:Genji_Matsuda_and_Yoshio_Kodama_en_route_to_Hayama_1935.jpg

Request from the uploader. Reason: bad name. WTCA 10:09, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

Deleted by Jastrow: duplicate of Image:Genji Matsuda and Hideo Kodama en route to Hayama 1935.jpg

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

[edit] Image:Archivio_Prospero_Gianferrari_-_Piloti_Alfa_Romeo_3.JPG

{{Bad name|Image:Piloti_Alfa_Romeo_3.JPG}} Vincenzo Gianferrari Pini 10:58, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

Deleted. Jastrow (Λέγετε) 11:59, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

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

[edit] Image:IMGP1438.jpg

Duplicate(I have uploaded it again under a more meaningfull name) Yair-haklai 18:06, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

 Comment: Use {{Duplicate}}. --Dezidor 12:02, 5 September 2007 (UTC) Thanks Yair-haklai 17:41, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

deleted, duplicate from Image:Antonio Canova-Orpheus-Hermitage.jpg Pimke 19:43, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

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

[edit] Image:Alejandro_Ramírez_Álvarez.jpg

Unencyclopedic unused OsamaK 12:28, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

• Keep - used on de:Alejandro Ramírez, even though CheckUsage fails to report this. --Davepape 13:44, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
• Keep If he is a noted chess player, image is encyclopedic. Deadstar 13:51, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

Kept. Lupo 11:24, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

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

[edit] Image:Adolf_Hitler.jpg

No evidence for PD. Who is the photographer who has been dead for over seventy years? William Avery 06:55, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

Delete A search here (search for "hitler", direct link to search result page wouldn't last long enough because it uses session IDs) shows that the image was taken by en:Heinrich Hoffmann who died in 1957. So his photos become PD on January 1st 2028. --91.65.124.74 00:52, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

Keep There is no need for "evidence". The picture, is clearly an image from the 1920's, because it's a young Hitler. That means, it qualifies as PD. But if you want "evidence", do some Google search and try to find more information on this picture. Until then, this is clearly abuse of deletion requests. — EliasAlucard|Talk 19:01 07 Sept, 2007 (UTC)

*ugh*... clearly an image from the 1920's, because it's a young Hitler. That means, it qualifies as PD. No it doesn't! Images only become PD 70 years after the author's death in Germany. And it seems you haven't read my comment above, which clearly states the author of the image, his date of death and the reason why this image can't be PD according to copyright law. --91.65.124.74 20:00, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

Reply Can't find any proof of your claims. — EliasAlucard|Talk 14:48 08 Sept, 2007 (UTC)

Okay. Go to this site, enter "Hitler, Adolf" in the search field, select "Fotoarchiv Hoffmann" as the database on the right side of the page, click search, wait for the search results, then go to the page with images #201-250. Click on the photo and you will see that this image was taken by Heinrich Hoffmann. This is the page, but I don't know if the link will work for everybody due to the use of session IDs. --91.65.124.74 14:15, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

No, the link does not work anymore, but i redid the search and found the image as described. --Rotkraut 18:48, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

I still see no proof of this being a copyvio. It sure seems to be more like speculations than actual copyvio. — EliasAlucard|Talk 15:44 09 Sept, 2007 (UTC)

Then I would really suggest reading a bit about (international) copyright laws before you continue to contribute to this project. Author is not yet dead for 70 years → photo is therefore not in the public domain → we don't have any permission from his heirs → claiming this photo is PD = copyright violation. --91.65.124.74 22:01, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

No, I don't think you get. I still cannot see that this picture is taken by _someone_ and that it's not available as PD. I couldn't find anything when I searched that site you provided. I see no case of copyvio so far. — EliasAlucard|Talk 05:38 10 Sept, 2007 (UTC)

Delete Copyvio per 91.65.124.74 --Rotkraut 18:48, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

Deleted. Yes, it is a Heinrich Hoffmann image. German postcard.[12] Following the instructions given above, it's the 232nd image in the search results using the advanced search on the Hoffmann collection. Searching for "Reichskanzler Adolf Hitler", it's the ninth result. Lupo 08:45, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

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

[edit] Image:Adolf_Hitler.jpg

As the tag on the source image at en points out, "This image is in the public domain in the United States but is NOT PUBLIC DOMAIN IN ITS COUNTRY OF ORIGIN." William Avery 12:25, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

Delete per nom --Simonxag 14:36, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

• Delete again. We definitely need a PD-US-only tag over at en-WP. It needs to say in big capital bold flashing letters (and accompanied by a police officer-type voice speaking the text) "Do not copy this file to the Commons before 70 years since the author's death have passed." Lupo 15:15, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
• Delete is this a bad joke?--WerWil 19:12, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

deleted --ALE! ¿…? 22:41, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

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

[edit] Image:AdolfHitler.jpg

Not PD in Germany, its country of origin. William Avery 12:29, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

I don't know what's the normal proceeding in this situation so I'll let the people with more experience to deal with it. --Alex:D 20:44, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

Delete --Historiograf 20:48, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

Keep Can you actually prove that this image is not PD in Germany? If not, this entire AfD debate is pointless. The image is old enough to qualify as PD in Germany. And even if it isn't, it's PD in the US, and it's uploaded on a US server. Worst case scenario, this image should be available on Commons as GFDL. — EliasAlucard|Talk 18:52 07 Sept, 2007 (UTC)

Delete --Fb78 08:22, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

Deleted. Heinrich Hoffmann photos are still copyrighted in Germany (until the end of 2027). As seized property, they may be PD in the U.S., but that's it. That doesn't make them PD in their source country. Lupo 08:27, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

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

[edit] Image:Sekesoy.JPG

Macuarros de Durango Alx 91 23:56, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

• Delete - the image appears to be a photo of paper ads for a Russian language computer training firm compcenter.fizmatclass.ru on a bulletin board with no apparent encyclopedic value, while the information template appears to be Spanish language information on who should live and who should die.   — Jeff G. (talk|contribs|Administrator nom) 23:59, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
• Delete speedy -- per above note the supposed image info is a vanity prank, and the nominator for deletion is the image uploader. -- Infrogmation 12:48, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
• Delete Since nominator is the uploader and the image does not appear to meet the mission and scope of the project. FloNight♥♥♥ 19:02, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

Deleted by Infrogmation: Speedy per deletion requests discussion

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

[edit] Image:Zusammenhangsmaße.png

replaced by a table in de:Zusammenhangsmaß, thus not required anymore. --Head 00:27, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

• Delete--OsamaK 12:20, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

Deleted -Aude (talk | contribs) 00:14, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

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

[edit] Image:Ajfeeleyphoto.JPG

Unencyclopedic unused OsamaK 12:26, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

• Delete Seems rather useless, without any description about who this is. Further, apparently the source photo har been deleted from Flickr since upload here. Finn Rindahl 22:08, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
• Delete Agree, without any description of the subject it does not fit the mission and scope of the project. And since the image has been deleted from Flickr and it is likely an image of a living person, I think we need to be extra cautious about keeping it and should delete promptly. FloNight♥♥♥ 17:20, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
• Delete per FloNight.--Londoneye 14:38, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

Deleted -Aude (talk | contribs) 00:15, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

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

[edit] Category:Rest in peace

There is a Category:Graves already. Does a Category:Rest in peace make any sense? --S^[1] 17:27, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

Delete Not needed + hard to define (whose grave would be allowed in this cat etc...) Deadstar 08:52, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

Delete Trying to think of how this category might be used within the scope of the project. Categorization of graves by inscription does not seem meaningful to me. I'm open to changing my mind if others can think of a use. FloNight♥♥♥ 19:48, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

Delete Makes no sense to me.--Londoneye 14:50, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

Deleted -Aude (talk | contribs) 00:21, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

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

[edit] Image:Frituurpan-gesloten.jpg

Advertising: name of company visible. 4 September 2007 User:82.157.230.183

Deletion fix Deadstar 13:29, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

• Keep This is not a reason for deletion. The logo of Tefal is not the main subject of the image and the image is licensed correctly. Siebrand 14:10, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
• Keep - Not a valid reason for deletion. --Boricuaeddie 03:02, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
• Delete - No valid reason? It's forbidden! Fair use is not permitted! 82.157.230.183 15:11, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
• Keep It's GFDL; fair use is irrelevant.--Londoneye 14:41, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

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

[edit] Image:Belchior.jpg

Unencyclopedic unuesd OsamaK 13:19, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

Keep Image used on pt wiki to illustrate Belchior article (a Brazilian singer), so both reasons given for deletion not valid. Deadstar 13:53, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

Keep - funny nomination! Dantadd✉ 08:51, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

lol, ok Kept--OsamaK 16:19, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

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

[edit] Image:Gozen-kaiji_14_August_1945.jpg

Request by the uploader. Reason: bad name. WTCA 10:43, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

Deleted by User:Jastrow as duplicate of Image:Gozen-kaigi 14 August 1945.jpg.

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

[edit] Image:Diane-merrick-logo-100.jpg

Apparently a copyvio. This is a store logo, taken from a copyrighted webpage, by a mostly-single-use account that does not appear to speak for the copyright owner, but who nevertheless asserts it is free to use for all purposes. Somehow I doubt that. The image was only used on enwiki for advertising. Radiant! 12:14, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

Delete per nom.--Londoneye 14:36, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

Delete has potential to qualify under a different license, but surely not pd. Komdori 17:36, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

Deleted -Aude (talk | contribs) 00:11, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

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

[edit] Image:S abolhasan alasfhani irq5.jpg, Image:Swa.jpg and Image:يؤم المسلمين في النجف.jpg

suspect copyvio, the image has a watermark, and the website http://www.alyageen.org/ has a copyrighted sign on it. --Deadstar 12:54, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
Delete Seems to be copyvio.--Londoneye 14:43, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

• حذف (deleted) -Aude (talk | contribs) 00:18, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

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

[edit] Image:Necromouse.jpg

Copyvio. See http://twub.blogspot.com/2006_12_01_archive.html, Copyright © 1999 – 2007 Google, see intellectual property rights under http://www.blogger.com/terms.g. Also, no indication of GFDL on page, no indication of creative comments, etc. Also see http://www.flickr.com/photos/lob2k/10292401/ Night Ranger 02:52, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

•  Keep flickr and blogger images were uploaded after the Wikipedia image was first uploaded in Feb 2005. / Fred J 07:55, 16 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Correct, those came out after my initial upload, and use the same filename as my original upload. Alkivar 23:57, 1 September 2007 (UTC)
•  Delete this looks like something useless and low resolution Madmax32 11:26, 16 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Why useless? It is used on necrophilia articles on four wikipedias, including en:Necrophilia / Fred J 23:03, 16 June 2007 (UTC)
    • That's because there are stupid people who insert it into those articles. #1 no evidence the mouse it is dead or it is engaging in sexual contact (for all we know this was staged) #2 necrophilia refers to a human sexual fascination with corpses, mice are not people. This is okay on a joke website but not on an encyclopedia Madmax32 03:09, 17 June 2007 (UTC)
      • Please: we are not the moral guide of Wikipedia, we are their image provider. The image has been there since 2005 and has been discussed (en:Talk:Necrophilia#Mouse_Photograph) with consensus for it to stay. It makes no sense to delete it from here. / Fred J 16:44, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

• • If you read the necrophilia page it would have told you that necrophilia was the "love of corpses". It does not refer to singularly human behavior, we are just egotistic and assume that it can only refer to people in the act. However this picture does at least prove a point; that animals are culprits of the act of necrophilia as well. Staged or not this picture should not be removed just because someone doubts its athenticity.
    • OK, other animals have sometimes exhibited necrophilia. Noted. That discussion is not particularly relevent to this deletion requests-- it is an image of dubious source at dreadful low resolution that we don't know if it depicts what it claims. I disagree that there is any "consensus" about use of the image on en:Wikipedia, but in any case source and licencing requirements are somewhat looser there then here. Lousy low res possibly faked dubiously sourced image? Not for Commons. -- Infrogmation 20:09, 1 September 2007 (UTC)
•  Delete like Madmax32. Yann 22:32, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Nothing seems to be going on here. This image is unencyclopedic, awful quality and adds nothing to the project. It isn't even verifiable that these mice are real or they're engaging in the "activity" they're supposedly engaging in. Night Ranger 19:42, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
    • Its only awful quality because someone came in and compressed the ever living shit out of it. I've reverted back to the original which is MUCH clearer. Alkivar 23:53, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

•  Keep not that anyone will give any weight to my !vote as i'm not a regular commons contributor. However it should be obvious 1) I dont falsely claim copyright 2) I have contributed many images in public domain or had friends release images GFDL/CC-by-SA. 3) If someone wishes to remain anonymous and still contribute text its allowed... why not an image? Alkivar 00:00, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Image:Necromouse.jpg

Non-encyclopedic and unverifiable. It is impossible to determine what the two mice are doing here or even that they're actual mice and not fake. Furthermore, the uploader does not have rights to the image (according to his own comments on the image page) and therefore licensing and copyright are impossible to verify. Night Ranger 19:47, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

• This person "Alkivar" says "I did not take the photo, my friend did, he authorized its release via GFDL but stated he did not want his name associated with it." If this logic is okay, then I could just as easily take a picture of Madonna from the internet, claim "my friend" took it and released it as GFDL but they don't want their name associated with it. Real copyright licensing can't be done by "a friend of a friend" it needs to be done by the copyright holder. Delete this thing. Night Ranger 19:51, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
  • This person "Alkivar" is me, an admin on EN Wikipedia. I have credibility, and do not upload copyvio. My friend who took the photo is a professional journalist who didnt want his name attached to the photo but didnt mind it being released. We allow anonymous text contributions, why not image contributions? I can certainly give people who are required evidence that it is in fact GFDL released. Alkivar 23:55, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

 Delete Add to the questionable sourcing mentioned above that the image is of absolutely dreadful quality. -- Infrogmation 19:59, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

The dreadful quality is because someone came in and jpeg compressed the ever living shit out of it for no apparent reason. I have since reverted to the original version which is clear. Alkivar 23:58, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

Oh my, yes, I see Madmax32 mucked with it terribly. Why? -- Infrogmation 00:43, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

Closed as Keep Due to apparent bad faith actions by some of the people opposed to keeping it. (The quality of the image was destroyed, then people voted against it on that basis). If someone wants to make an argument to delete this purely on the grounds of non-usefulness they can open a new deletion request, but this one is too tainted by incorrect information. --Gmaxwell 00:25, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Image:Necromouse.jpg

(1) This image is still of poor quality, even though a new version has been uploaded. It cannot be ascertained what these 2 "mice" are doing, whether they are real mice (they look like rubber toys to me), or if they are, indeed engaging in the claimed activity. As such, image has no value to the article on the behavior for which it has been uploaded and is unencyclopedic due to poor quality. (2) I don't know anything about these claims of bad-faith that were brought up in the last IFD, but admin status should not make one exempt from the rules. Everyone who uploads an image must either state that they own the rights to the image and release them into GFDL, or else provide evidence that the copyright owner released the image under GFDL. Saying "my friend released it" isn't good enough. If evidence can be obtained then, please provide it via the correct channels. Night Ranger 17:15, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

Speedy keep, as the previous request was settled two days ago. Rama 21:09, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

Endorse closure before anyone questions it. -- Cat ^ちぃ？ 21:34, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Image:Necromouse.jpg

Needs an OTRS ticket # as uploader does not own copyright per comments in summary Night Ranger 03:36, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

Kept, there is no reason to assume this is a copyright violation; I've asked the uploader to email OTRS. w:User talk:Alkivar#Image:Necromouse.jpg John Vandenberg ^(chat) 12:28, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

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

[edit] Image:Necromouse.jpg

This image, after ages and ages, still has copyright problems. License shows that Alkivar is the copyright holder, but in the Summary, he says he did not take the picture, his "friend" did. He was asked in February to provide pertinent info to OTRS for verification and there is no evidence of him doing so. He has since been desysopped and has retired. Night Ranger 00:42, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

•  Keep If this image was pre-existing on the web the source would have been found by now. So it is reasonable to believe it is an original image. -N 02:02, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

Kept and ENOUGH OF THIS. You don't get to open a deletion request again and again (this is the fifth time by the same user) until you get the answer you want. Stop it. Lewis Collard! (hai thar, wut u doin) 02:04, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

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

[edit] Image:Schiaretti.jpg

This image is NOT from the website of the Argentine Presidency http://www.presidencia.gov.ar/ (see description of the image) ALE! ¿…? 09:48, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

• Delete ...if some Spanish reading preson can confirm that the actual source [13] does have an other free license Finn Rindahl 23:25, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
  • It is sufficient to be able to read English. Just go all the way down, there it says "Copyright". --ALE! ¿…? 15:35, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

Deleted. No permission. --Siebrand 11:30, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

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

[edit] Image:255708524_4dc25bd678.jpg

unencyclopedic unused OsamaK 12:18, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

• Comment Could be used for an article on face piercing.--Londoneye 14:37, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

Deleted. Unused, bad name. Try again. --Siebrand 11:30, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

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

[edit] Image:AndreEthier_20060726.jpg

Unencyclopedic unused OsamaK 12:32, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

• Keep - someone had removed it from en:Andre Ethier, without giving a reason. --Davepape 13:50, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
• Image no longer available at Flickr (at least not at the URL given, and I can't find it elsewhere in this guys photos). This photographer also uses now CC-BY-NC-ND. Lupo 11:43, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
• Keep Pic of notable person; if when it was uploaded the copyright was OK, surely it's still OK.--Londoneye 14:40, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

Kept. Per above. --Siebrand 11:30, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

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

[edit] Image:CROS.JPG

archivo erroneo. 06:59, 4 September 2007 User:CROS

Deletion fix. User did upload a new version but did not take the (double) deletion template off the image. The image description also reads like a wikipedia page and does not mention a source. Deadstar 14:03, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

Delete per Deadstar; anyway, unused.--Londoneye 14:48, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

Deleted. Out of scope. --Siebrand 11:30, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

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

[edit] Image:Ericrudolph.jpg

Note: Original source is NOT the FBI. The Department of Justice uses local mugshots and images from other sources for their lists, so the image is not US Gov/Public Domain, and is currently missing its source. --Alkivar 19:23, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

Delete unless source is established.--Londoneye 14:51, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

Deleted. No source. --Siebrand 11:30, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

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

[edit] Image:TedBundyWantedByTheFBI.jpg

NOTE: Original source is NOT the FBI. The Department of Justice uses local mugshots and images from other sources for their lists, so the image is not US Gov/Public Domain, and is currently missing its source. --Alkivar 19:22, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

Delete unless source is established.--Londoneye 14:51, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

Deleted. No source. --Siebrand 11:30, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

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

[edit] Image:Animal_Liberation.PDF

Not usable for articles, not relevant, by unknown artist Kenmayer 20:05, 4 September 2007 (UTC) Is this a recognized Animal Liberation logo? Not according to a google image search, but I'm willing to be persuaded.--Kenmayer 20:06, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

Delete Isn't that part of the Adobe reader logo? Probable hoax.--Londoneye 14:53, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

Deleted. Out of scope. --Siebrand 11:30, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

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

[edit] Category:Featured pictures on Czech Wikipedia

I'm a creator. 27 August 2007 User:Sevela.p

Fixed request. There are no images in this category, not even sure if Czech wiki has featured pictures? Deadstar 13:40, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

Delete Per nom.--Londoneye 14:45, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

what about this: Template:Picture of week on the Czech Wikipedia? -- 85.179.102.231 16:44, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

empty category --ALE! ¿…? 07:46, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

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

[edit] Image:672px-Ontariocoatofarms.png

Crown copyright per original version on en.wiki / Lokal_Profil 13:43, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

Keep Design was adopted in 1909, Canadian Crown Copyright is 50 years from publication. It's unthinkable this design wasn't published within a year of adoption. WilyD 20:44, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

kept --ALE! ¿…? 07:48, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

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

[edit] Category:Primitivism and Category:Primitivists

Request created "on behalf of" IP user, who said in an edit summary emptying the page: "it´s a category without any relevant reason." (28 June 2007 User:192.188.52.58). There was some to-ing and fro-ing in the history so a deletion request will hopefully sort this. There's no point keeping empty pages/categories. Deadstar 15:18, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

Delete per Deadstar.--Londoneye 14:48, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

empty categories --ALE! ¿…? 07:46, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

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

[edit] Image:Sksfdjklfjksdjkfd.jpg

No usable image but description of the user. Codeispoetry 12:07, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

Speedy-deleted as being out of scope. The picture was unused. The user, Jose Mariani, has an account on es: but only two contributions, all dating from September 2006 and related to his userpage. Jastrow (Λέγετε) 12:14, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

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

[edit] Image:Geofysisk_institutt.jpg

How can the image be GFDL when the author is unknown Rettetast 17:55, 5 September 2007 (UTC) It can't. Also the source website is ©2007 Geofysisk Institutt.

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

[edit] Image:España.Comunidades autónomas.jpg

Superseded by Image:Autonomous communities of Spain no names.svg. Not in use. --Rondador (talk) 15:15, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

Delete. I'm the uploader--Lmbuga ^{gl, pt, es: contacta comigo} 10:08, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

Deleted by the uploader, superseded by Image:Autonomous communities of Spain no names.svg--Lmbuga ^{gl, pt, es: contacta comigo} 10:15, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

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

[edit] Image:Falash_Mura1.jpg

how nice! 83.51.57.119 21:26, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

• Keep - invalid reason for deletion. I have updated the licensing.   — Jeff G. (talk|contribs) 17:39, 8 September 2007 (UTC)
• Keep ...is there something like speedy keep? ;) Finn Rindahl 18:09, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

Kept: Licensing problems solved. -- Bryan (talk to me) 18:12, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

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

[edit] Image:NORGELLAR.JPG

Spam, Band doesn't have an article in any project. Codeispoetry 12:13, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

deleted (out of scope) --ALE! ¿…? 13:34, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

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

[edit] Image:BSicon_cpicm.png

wrong uploading Sameboat - 同舟 12:48, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

deleted (no license) --ALE! ¿…? 13:38, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

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

[edit] Image:BSicon_cpicl.png

wrong upload Sameboat - 同舟 12:50, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

deleted --ALE! ¿…? 13:39, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

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

[edit] Image:Rajoy en constantina peque.jpg

Bad quality and no potential use for Wikimedia projects --Balbo 19:05, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

And potential libellous use. This image is the only contribution to Wikimedia of the uploader. --Balbo 19:19, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

Delete Out of scope. Deadstar 09:29, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

deleted --ALE! ¿…? 13:40, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

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

[edit] Image:Adrian_Jedi.jpg

COM:SCOPE Dodo 19:23, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

deleted per nom --ALE! ¿…? 13:41, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

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

[edit] Image:Bwr-mok.jpg

wordt niet gebruikt Monc 07:29, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

Deleted by Cecil: In category Unknown as of 4 September 2007; no license

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

[edit] Image:P9020199.JPG

replace with new image Jozo 09:56, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

• which one is the new image? --ALE! ¿…? 13:34, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

no information abou the new image added, image kept --ALE! ¿…? 08:47, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

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

[edit] Image:My friend sent me these, were too cool not to share!.jpg

wrong license --Conny 21:14, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

 Comment What's wrong about it? -- Bryan (talk to me) 08:45, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

Maybe that the image has been removed at Flickr? And that the image doesn't look like all the others this Flickr account has (black border)? Copyvio detected at Flickr? Lupo 13:43, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

I contacted original author via eMail - picture is not under this license. Linked Flickruser used wrong one and deleted the file after checking out maybe. Conny 17:31, 9 September 2007 (UTC).

Delete Seems reasonable to question the lic here based on the title of the image. We need credible evidence of specific permission I think. Unless we obtain it, delete. FloNight♥♥♥ 19:39, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

deleted --ALE! ¿…? 07:42, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

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

[edit] Image:Colours.SVG

Reasons for deletion request --Erik Baas 15:08, 5 September 2007 (UTC) This file is identical to a previous version of image:Colours.svg, has the same errors and no style-tag, and does not display properly. - Erik Baas 15:08, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

Kept. Use {{duplicate}}. --Siebrand 11:55, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

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

[edit] Image:Gericht-lohra-fronhausen.jpg

Diese Karte ist bestimmt nicht vom Autor erzeugt worden. Zu alt! Da keine weiterer Quelle genannt, lieber löschen. -- User:Stefan Kühn 07:39, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

Kept. Early 18th century. It's {{PD-old}}. I've added the source info etc. on the image page. Lupo 11:30, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

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

[edit] Image:Luciano_Pavarotti.jpg

This is not actually a free image, it's a copy of the image that was deleted from En.wikipedia as being unfree. Night Gyr 21:43, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

Yup, just came here to report the same thing. The source given at enwiki was [14], which is a colored photograph, so it is highly doubtful that the uploader created this image and chose to upload a resized version of the black and white copy that was formerly on enwiki. RockMFR 21:46, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

I came here to nominate the image myself. Uploader did not write at which concert this thumbnail (175 x 233) was taken, which clearly suggests to me that this is a copyvio. Uploader's first contribution. Thuresson 21:51, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

Delete Same. I already deleted a couple of copyvio photos of Lucianino. --Lumijaguaari (моє обговорення) 13:37, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

Delete clear copyvio. Dantadd✉ 10:05, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

Delete really clear copyviol, it's pd-italy on it.wiki (open {{PD-Italy}} to see where it redirect ;)) --Filnik 20:39, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

Delete as copyvio. --MichaelMaggs 22:04, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

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

[edit] Image:Huvudfoting 070226 JonathanHermin3yo.jpg

useless. 3 September 2007 User:Kilom691

Deletion fix. Child's drawing, not sure if it'll be used. Deadstar 09:05, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

Keep after reading Collard's comment + it is used. Deadstar (msg) 15:11, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

Keep. I copy this message from the uploader from the talk page:

This drawing is used here: http://sv.wikipedia.org/wiki/Huvudfoting It's used to show how small children around the world pictate humans. A head with two legs and one och two eyes. I do not know what they are called in english but the word in swedish is "Huvudfoting" (~ headfooter).

So it's not as useless as it might seem. Lewis Collard! (talk, contribs, en.wp) 12:16, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

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

[edit] Image:Catanduanes01.svg

Uploader marked image with "delete", did not give reason. In the description it says "testing my svg editor", so I assume it was a test. --Deadstar 08:02, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

• Delete as image is marked as "test" and deletion is requested by uploader. FloNight♥♥♥ 11:57, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

deleted --ALE! ¿…? 08:59, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

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

[edit] Image:No se muestra la imagen.PNG

user tests. 1 September 2007 User:Bigsus

Deletion fix Deadstar 08:39, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

deleted --ALE! ¿…? 08:59, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

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

[edit] Image:Ticket-moscow.png

Derivative work EugeneZelenko 14:32, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

deleted --ALE! ¿…? 09:00, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

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

[edit] Image:Pagina autore intestazione.svg

Wrong file -- 6 September 2007 User:IPork

Deletion fix Deadstar (msg) 13:26, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

Deleted by ALE!: as per discussion on Commons:Deletion requests (wrong upload)

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

[edit] Image:Pagina autore altre lingue.svg

Wrong version. 6 September 2007 User:IPork

Deletion fix Deadstar (msg) 13:25, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

Deleted by ALE!: as per discussion on Commons:Deletion requests (wrong upload)

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

[edit] Image:MajorEventsInMitosis.jpg

this image was superseded by Image:Major events in mitosis.svg --201.19.243.86 18:07, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

kept (no reason for deletion) --ALE! ¿…? 09:05, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

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

[edit] Image:Airshow_070.jpg

i need to rename pic, so it can be found in the search Mondariz 15:13, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

Deleted by Cecil: In category Unknown as of 6 September 2007; no license

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

[edit] Image:Skinner.jpg

"Some years back, I hired a student to make some drawings of famous psychologists which we could put into the public domain. I've since forgotten the artist's name. She did the drawing from some existing photograph." Derivative work, no permission by the photographer nor the anonymous student.

Other images from this source:

• Image:Alfred Adler.jpg
• Image:Alfred Adler.gif
• Image:CarlJung-drawing.jpg
• Image:IvanPavlov.jpg
• Image:Carl Rogers.jpg
• Image:Jung.jpg

--Polarlys 21:18, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

• Delete all per nom.   — Jeff G. (talk|contribs) 03:11, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

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

[edit] Image:BOEcombat1.GIF

This image is not in the public domain, this was an improper move. —the preceding unsigned comment was added by 75.154.77.255 (talk • contribs) 03:04, 6 September 2007

• Delete Screenshot of copyrighted software. William Avery 06:57, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

It's not public domain, but it's still free. As they say themselves "we have released the source code (along with all necessary support files, graphics files, sound effects, etc.) for the Windows and Macintosh versions of Blades of Exile to the world. Do what you want with it (within the sensible legal guidelines described in the license), and have fun."[15] // Liftarn

You're right. William Avery 11:18, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

We can read « we have released the source code (along with all necessary support files, graphics files, sound effects, etc.) » and « The Blades of Exile source code is now covered by the GNU General Public License, Version 2 », its not clear but graphics, sound may be GPL2. This screenshot is taken befor the release of the GPLed version, then can we tag this screenshot with GPL, or must we create new screenshot with the GPLed version? ~ bayo or talk 15:38, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

Can we have a like about the CPL release ? ~ bayo or talk 15:50, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

It was first released as CPL, but people in the forums complained about it so it was relicensed as GPL, but since you can't revoke licenses (I think) both are still valid. The GPL is for all the rlease (not just code). It's probably a slipup that it isn't explicitly mentioned. As for the screenshot, since it's the same code and the same graphics that shouldn't relly matter, but I was planning on donloading the Win32 version so I can take a new screenshot if that really is necessary. // Liftarn

Kept. Freely licensed. --Siebrand 11:55, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

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

[edit] Image:Taarbæk Port 21-03-06 1.jpg

bad quality, unused. 1 September 2007 User:Broadbeer

Fixed uploader's request for deletion. "Bad quality" and "Unused" are in general not reasons for deletion. Deadstar 08:51, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

It is not that bad. No copyright problems = no reason to delete. Valentinian ^(talk) 22:20, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

Kept. No reason for deletion. --Siebrand 11:56, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

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

[edit] Image:Airshow_056.jpg

i need to rename pic, so it can be found in the search Mondariz 15:10, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

•  Comment When you do, tag this image with {{badname}}. Thanks. --Digon3 ^talk 13:48, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
•  Comment upload the image again under the new name and tag the old one with {{bad name}} --ALE! ¿…? 09:01, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

Kept. See above. --Siebrand 11:55, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

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

[edit] Image:Phobos_moon_color.jpg

Not PD-NASA. ESA seems to release some material as PD, but for this image all I've found is that it's at http://www.esa.int/SPECIALS/Mars_Express/SEM21TVJD1E_1.html, with non-free terms of use here. Davepape 20:24, 6 September 2007 (UTC) Delete Shockingly, this may be correct. ESA claims copyright on NASA's public domain photos on occasion, but this seems to be genuine. WilyD 21:40, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

Deleted. No permission. --Siebrand 11:56, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

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

[edit] Image:Fromm2k.jpg

"zum allgemeinen Gebrauch bestimmt" is no license at all and doesn’t mean "for any purpose", there’s no such statement on the website btw, for copyright issues “contact the copyright holder” --Polarlys 21:14, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

Some more:

• Image:Erich Fromm.jpg
• Image:Fromm1k.jpg
• Image:Fromm3k.jpg --Polarlys 21:17, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

• Delete pr nom Finn Rindahl 12:26, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

Deleted. No permission --Siebrand 11:55, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

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

[edit] Image:Schartz1888.jpg

this is not Israel Schwartz, this is George Bernard Shaw, taken from the cover of Stephen P. Ryder's book and used by an anti-Mason website to depict Schwartz for some unknown reason (and if any other illustrations come from that same site they should also be deleted, as they took images willy nilly and put false captions on them). No known image of Schwartz exists.[16] —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 71.203.223.65 (talk • contribs) at 17:55, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

Keep This is Shaw. Ryder's book: [17]. Possible other (better) version of this photo here: [18] - very likely both are in the public domain as Shaw looks quite youthful (note the black beard - he died white bearded in 1950 at age 94). I vote to keep image, but under correct name. Deadstar 10:02, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

Delete - I have uploaded Image:Shaw.jpg as a larger, better-quality, better-named replacement.   — Jeff G. (talk|contribs|Administrator nom) 16:27, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

Great. Then this one needs to be deleted. How do we get it to happen? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 71.203.223.65 (talk • contribs) at 22:16, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

Parts of the regular deletion process include the completion of the deletion request and the use of {{vd}} and {{vk}}. You did none of those.   — Jeff G. (talk|contribs) 20:17, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

It was uploaded as SCHWARTZ -- wrong person entirely. Wrong year too. If you want it under the correct name, upload it as such, don;t keep the bad one around with bad, false history. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 71.203.223.65 (talk • contribs) at 22:16, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

Delete. Replaced with correctly named version. --MichaelMaggs 06:14, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

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

[edit] Image:Chest.png

Derivative work, see also Commons:Village_pump#Non-photograph_images. -- Bryan (talk to me) 19:54, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

The discussion Commons:Village_pump#Non-photograph_images I started was meant to clarify status of large portion of medical x-ray images in wiki commons, not to nominate all those images for deletion. I find it hard to believe that patients do not have copy rights to their own medical data, but I am not a lawyer. I would propose postponing deletion requests until the legal status is more clear. Jarekt 21:10, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

• Keep This image lacks artistic creativity, so no copyright claim can be made. Yann 14:55, 8 September 2007 (UTC)
• For once, I think Yann is right. Keep and tag all those X-rays as {{PD-ineligible}}. Lupo 22:05, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

  Besides, Bryan, derivative work of what? The chest (body)? Isn't copyrighted. Lupo 22:07, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

•  Comment Medical journals and online sites often have claimed copyright on the medical images that appear in them, so I think the image can be copyrighted. I think we need to think carefully before ignoring these claims as I think they are likely valid. And I do not think that patients automatically have copyright over their medical records. In the US by law, patients have a right to copies of their records in a timely manner for a fee if a request is made. The medical provider is the owner of the records, I think. FloNight♥♥♥ 19:27, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
• Keep I am a Paramedic, trained and certified in Connecticut in 1990. At that time, all "appropriate" medical personnel with a "reasonable" need to review, had unfettered access to ALL patient medical information, including images. I think that the greater good of having these images available outweighs any claim to a copy right. In particular, (I have three publications of my own) the journals with which I deal copyright the article as a single entity. I may use portions as I see fit, as long as I do not substantially reproduce the complete article. Until there is a legal decision, I hope these images remain. dunion 23:00, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

Not a derivative work. Kept. O₂ (息 • 吹) 01:03, 11 November 2007 (GMT)

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

[edit] Image:DS Finnmarken.JPG

According to de:MS Finnmarken, the ship was built 1912, so the painting was made even later. If the author is not known to be dead for 70 years, the photo is a derivative work and not free --schlendrian •λ• 11:30, 6 September 2007 (UTC) --schlendrian •λ• 11:31, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

“§ 41: If a work has been issued without stating the author's name, a generally known pseudonym, mark or symbol, the copyright shall subsist for 70 years after the expiry of the year in which the work was first issued. If the work consists of several parts, the term of protection shall be calculated separately for each part. The copyright in works by an unknown author shall subsist for 70 years after the expiry of the year in which the work was created, if the work is not issued during this period.” Fingalo 13:11, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

we don't know when this work was created, it may be only couple of years old. And we don't know if the autor's name is stated somewhere (back?). --schlendrian •λ• 13:06, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

Deleted because of unclear source. The uploader claims that he is the copyright owner, but it is unknown if that is because he actually painted it himself or because he owns the painting and made a foto of it (which is a common misunderstanding concerning paintings). 2.5 month are enough waiting for a clarification. If the uploader ever return he can make a request for undeletion in case of scenario one. -- Cecil 13:25, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

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

[edit] Template:Anonymous work

WTF? What does a template that, according to its own phrasing, does not apply in the European Union, the United States, Canada, Russia, China, India, countries of the Arab Law Group and others do on Commons? This is ridiculous. Even more so as there was a prior deletion discussion.

Besides, it's also utterly wrong. First, you should never base any tag on the Berne Convention (BC). The BC is not some kind of transnational super-law that would automatically take precedence over local laws.[19] Instead, signatory countries of the BC instead adapt their own laws such that they meet the minimum requirements of the BC. Second, many countries go beyond the BC minimums. Third, the rule in most countries for anonymous/pseudonymous works is that the copyright runs for X years since the creation of the image, but if the image is published within these X years, it runs until X years after the publication. (See e.g. here for the UK rules (left branch of that tree).) And additionally, some countries (e.g. Russia or Germany or indeed all EU countries) also have the rule that if the author's identity is revealed within that time, then the copyright runs until X years after that author's death. (See e.g. [20], article 1.) And finally, in many countries, X is 70, not 50. And in the U.S., it's completely different again (120 years since creation for unpublished works; for published works, normal rules unless created before 1978 but first published 1978-2002, in which case the work is copyrighted until 2047 at least).

This tag just serves as a fig leaf for images of unknown copyright status. Delete Lupo 07:23, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

The template has been messed around with so much that, indeed, it no longer makes any sense whatsoever. Fixing it up would be difficult as the rules on anonymous works differ by country, and it is a hopeless task to try to cover all by some generic template. Amongst other things, that allows people to flag as image as "anonymous work" when what they really mean is "the web site I copied this from doesn't say who the author is and I can't be bothered to find out".

But simply deleting this template will inevitably mean losing vast numbers of images, a significant proportion of which may well be ok: sometimes users flag images with {{Anonymous work}} when its age would clearly make it eligible for {{PD-Old}}. Very old images don't need this tag, even if the author happens to be unknown.

There is a strain of thought that we ought never to rely on the copyright rules relating to anonymous or unknown works, and I believe the last deletion request was based on that thinking - in other words it was an attempt to change policy about what images are allowed here. If anyone does indeed want to review the policy, by all means let's do so, but not here. On the other hand if the policy is to remain the same we can't simply delete this tag as we have little that's legally correct with which to replace it. Some time ago I created {{PD-UK-unknown}} in an effort to provide a proper legal basis for at least UK images (see the talk page for details). What we should do, I think, is to work on creating similar tags for other countries, and bring the instructions on how to use them together on a single page along the lines of the Freedom of Panorama page.

--MichaelMaggs 08:28, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

Delete but only once some replacements have been written, at least for the main countries. --MichaelMaggs 22:02, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

Just to be absolutely clear: this is a deletion request about the template, not about the images. As always when templates are up for deletion, the images concerned will need to be evaluated individually to see under what, if any, other tags they might fit. Lupo 11:53, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

This is false. Images were deleted, even without warning, because the template was deleted. Yann 15:06, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

• I also don't like this template, but the reason to keep this template was "Kept, there are certainly cases where this tag is the most applicable. The fact that it is misused or badly phrased does not mean that the template itself is invalid. If you have a problem with images, fix them to have the real license (putting up a deletion req for the invalid ones)." I don't think anything changed so there is no reason for a new deletion request. -- Gorgo 10:26, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

Well, then, help me clean up the images that currently use this tag. I've already re-tagged a a whole series to {{PD-Sweden-photo}}, which, although not undisputed either, makes at least more sense than this one. Lupo 16:44, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

Delete: As long as the template is allowed to remain there will always be more images errously tagged with it. Isn't it better to delete it (i.e. not applicable to any images uploaded after DATE) and then try to retagg iamges using it. Any images for which this used to be the correct tag could be tagged with {{PD-because}} which would also give enough room to properly explain the circumstances for why this would apply. /Lokal_Profil 14:32, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

Suggestion What if instead of deleting it now or waiting till all the images are retagged, we put a big disclaimer saying not to use it anymore and if you do the image will be deleted? If that doesn't work we can {{subst:}} all the ones in use, then delete the template. That way we prevent future use completely, while not deleting any of the older images' info. Rocket000 18:16, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

Keep

First, from the formal point of view. This template was discussed in Commons in 2006 and finally kept (23 November 2006). As I remember, all of the participants of the present discussion was present in Commons at that time, but absent in the former discussion. No new arguments was put forward. Is this the proper way to make a permanent discussion , as long as the opponents will be tired and the expected result will be gained ? ( I propose Take 3, Take 4, Take 5 an so on). Paraphrasing Lupo – the right retagging of 30-40 images cannot be a fig leaf for mass unreasonable deletion of thousands images from Commons (by previously prepared bot – of course :) ) – as a final result of deleting {{Anonymous work}}.

Second – as for the subject. Berne Convention is a basic international treaty in subject of author rights and intellectual property. As an multilateral international treaty (like Hague Conventions, Geneva Conventions and so on) has its legal value (Amtsmacht) just after proper ratification, without implementation into internal jurisdiction of the parties. It is from its definition supreme over internal jurisdiction of the states – parties of treaty. It is in contrary to the legal status of EC directives ( like well known and often cited Council Directive 93/98/EEC of 29 October 1993 harmonizing the term of protection of copyright and certain related rights ) which are not international treaties and for their legal value the implementation into internal jurisdiction of EU countries is necessary. They are living through ( and in form of) internal jurisdiction.

Berne Convention regulates every cases in doubt. For example – in the case of simultaneous publication of photo in various countries (by its owner – f. example international press agency) – Berne Convention is in effect. Also in the case of first publishing in former (non-existing at present) states without clear legal successors (such as Free City of Danzig or former en:Yugoslavia ( would anybody be so kind to explain to wikipedians what law should be in effect – this of Serbia, Croatia, Slovenia, Bosnia or en:FYROM – I will be very grateful) – Berne Convention ( which party was Yugoslavia) is in effect.

In every such case in doubt the template {{Anonymous work}} is the only one and fully justified.

Besides – in the proposal for request there are different cases – in Arabian countries f.ex. the term of securing copyright is sometimes significantly shorter than terms of Berne.

Treating any template as an possibility for abuse we should remove every templates with exception of {{PD-because}} forcing wikipedians in Commons for individual describing any particular case of image. It is not necessary, I hope to conclude, that it would be an absurd.

Best regards for everybody

Andros64 08:33, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

• PS. I've just changed "the note" inside this template ( which was awkward in fact) such way :

Note:This template does not apply to images from countries that extended the Berne Convention or that did not sign it. This is the European Union, the United States,India,Russia particularly. Please use {{Anonymous-EU}}, {{PD-US}}, {{PD-India}},{{PD-Russia}}, etc. in such cases and check Commons:Licensing everytime, carefully!.

I think it is the best solution of the question.

Andros64 12:02, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

• Keep There was nothing new happened after first take of Commons:Deletion requests/Template:Anonymous work, I see no new arguments. This template is useful in many specific cases and it is no reason to delete it. Julo 10:06, 27 December 2007 (UTC)
• Keep Nothing new since the last request. Please stop wasting our time with repeted requests. Yann 15:08, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

Kept. International treaty (Bern Convention) is clear on this. -- Cat ^ちぃ？ 21:54, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

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

[edit] Image:Yorkshire_Regiment_Badge_300px.jpg

• SPEEDY DELETE PLEASE: I have just realised I have uploaded the wrong image design, This particular version was not released PD and is still copyright - Sorry Richard Harvey 23:08, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

• Deleted. For such requests, please use {{copyvio}} and give the reason in the template. Cnyborg 17:42, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

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

[edit] Image:50centinBKK.JPG

jarrym 203.102.177.166 02:16, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

Why requested for deletion this pic? please give the reason...you don't have give the reason why to delete. I have took it my own. --Sry85 11:01, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

• Keep and close speedily: nonsensical nomination, seems self-taken. Lewis Collard! (talk, contribs, en.wp) 11:30, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
• Speedy keep and close No explanation given. This was clearly take by Sry85, who has taken many good pictures of musicians :) Spellcast 18:13, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

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

[edit] Image:EtruscanX-01.png

I think Image:EtruscanX-01.svg is better and enough, it's BQ also OsamaK 18:55, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

kept (image is used) --ALE! ¿…? 12:19, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

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

[edit] Image:SV3.jpg

This looks very recent to me, surelly not older than 70 years. --User:G.dallorto 20:55, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

deleted (no FOP in Italy) --12:20, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

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

[edit] Image:1247963227 d50a97408f.jpg

the flickr user obviously collects Beyonce knowles content without caring about copyright. --Polarlys 14:00, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

•  Neutral/ Delete - I only uploaded the original version of the picture, and when I checked, I did find that there are some copyrighted images there. I wouldn't mind deleting the picture. Yuval Y § Chat § 16:14, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
• Delete Agree with Polarlys. Unfortunately this image is most likely a copyright vio and should not have been uploaded to Flickr and then uploaded here. :( [21] FloNight♥♥♥ 12:06, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

Deleted. We have free images of Beyonce. Yuval Y § Chat § 22:25, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

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

[edit] Old forecast maps

• Image:2007 11E 5-day track.gif
• Image:2007 Hurricane Henriette 5-days.gif
• Image:2007 Storm Tropycal Henriette Sep,2 2-00 AST 5-days.gif
• Image:2007 Tropical Storm Henriette 5-days.gif.gif
• Image:Tropical Storm Barry (2007) projected path.png
• Image:Tropical Storm Chantal (2007) projected path.gif
• Image:8amtrack.gif
• Image:Dean 180807.gif
• Image:Dean 180808-02.gif
• Image:Dean 190807-02.gif
• Image:Dean 190807-03.gif
• Image:Dean 190807.gif
• Image:Dean 200807.gif
• Image:Hurricane Dean Coastal Watches 18 Aug 2007 11pm edt.gif
• Image:Hurricane Dean Coastal Watches 18 Aug 2007 2am EDT.gif
• Image:TS Dean august 15 2007.gif
• Image:2007 Hurricane Felix 5-day track Sep02 5PM.gif
• Image:2007 Hurricane Felix 5-day track.gif

These forecast images are out-of-date and unused by any wikipedia projects. They also present serious clutter. Good kitty 13:48, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

Not really, e.g Image:2007 06L 5-day track.gif is used both Spanish Wikinews + Wikipedia. --Matthiasb 13:27, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

Keep They represent the forecast at that time, which may be of use in several ways. They are not useful for reporting current events but there are many potential uses beyond that. Unused is not a deletion reason. "Clutter" is a matter of perspective in my opinion, and is also not a deletion reason. If they are freely licensed and potentially useful we should keep them. Carl Lindberg 15:38, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

All kept. We're building a media database and Carl Lindberg summarized it pretty well. PatríciaR ^msg 22:45, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

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

[edit] Image:Qsicon_exzellent_Plain.svg

wrong name, sorry Niabot 16:49, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Image:Qsicon_exzellent_Plain.svg

wrong name, sorry Niabot 16:49, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

deleted, --Siebrand 10:11, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

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

[edit] Image:Autriquegevel.jpg

architect en:Victor Horta died in 1947, (unfortunately) no panorama freedom in Belgium. 7 September 2007 User:Donarreiskoffer

Delete unfortunately... Siebrand 20:53, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

deleted --ALE! ¿…? 08:49, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

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

[edit] Image:Victor Horta-Museum.jpg

architect en:Victor Horta died in 1947, (unfortunately) no panorama freedom in Belgium. 7 September 2007 User:Donarreiskoffer

deleted --ALE! ¿…? 08:49, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

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

[edit] Image:Victor Horta Museum Interior.jpg

architect en:Victor Horta died in 1947, (unfortunately) no panorama freedom in Belgium --7 September 2007 User:Donarreiskoffer

deleted --ALE! ¿…? 08:49, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

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

[edit] Image:Bharata natyam 5.jpg

watermarked. --7 September 2007 User:Sarvagnya

Keep According to the source, the image is published under GNU FDL. The presence of a watermark is not enough reason to delete, one can remove the watermark anyway. PatríciaR ^msg 23:20, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

Kept. No reason for deletion. --Siebrand 11:56, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

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

[edit] Image:Harald_Sohlberg_Fra_Akershusvollen,_aften_1926.jpg

Copyvio. Own upload, but not my own photo. When the file was uploaded it was belived that it fell under the licence PD-art. It doesn't. Jorunn 08:33, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

• Keep Author is dead for more than 70 years. Yann 13:00, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

Kept. PD. --Siebrand 11:56, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

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

[edit] Image:Carte service vicinal.jpg

Was tagged {{copyvio}} by 84.145.106.168 but needs discussion. It's a French topo map published 1880-1914 by the Ministre de l'Intérieur. (See fr:Carte du service vicinal). Lupo 09:20, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

• Keep Gouvernment works are PD 70 years after creation in France. Yann 12:57, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

Kept. PD --Siebrand 11:56, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

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

[edit] Image:Blason-theux.svg

False version. :) And duplicate --Min's - 愛 14:00, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

Kept. No reason for deletion. Use {{duplicate}}/{{superseded}} --Siebrand 11:56, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

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

[edit] Image:Vidalins2Ice.jpg

This is a copyrighted images that has not been released under PD by the author --Steinninn 17:40, 7 September 2007 (UTC)