Commons:Deletion requests/Archive/2008/01

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

[edit] Image:Rhinopias_frondosa.JPG

Uploaded by mistake. License withdrawn. Jnpet 10:46, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

It seems to me that it was not uploaded by mistake [1]. I'm sorry but I must say this should be Keep. Samulili 13:28, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

Delete Upload was less than a week ago. Uploader has requested that image be deleted as it was uploaded by mistake. Surely the uploader should know. In the circumstances only deletion seems reasonable. --Simonxag 22:08, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

 Comment Uploader nominated the image as a candidate for a Quality Image; when it was (apparently) turned down the uploader got frustrated and changed the licensing. Seems quite useful otherwise. It was certainly not uploaded by mistake, since the deletion request seems to stem from that same frustration, as the uploader does not seem to want to upload it if it cannot be a Quality Image. We may want to respect their wishes anyways, since this was uploaded so recently. Still, I hope that the uploader reconsiders after a couple of days, as this is still a rather useful photo for all the wikipedias and others, and we would very much like to keep it. As a matter of fact, it is already in use on en-wiki and species.wikimedia.org. Carl Lindberg 00:20, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

 Comment Perhaps the mistake included a lack of understanding of the nature of the Commons. --Simonxag 18:41, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Keep. Jnpet, I sympathise with your frustration about your image not making QI. I'm certain that I'd be equally upset if it happened to me (if anything I ever took was good enough to be nominated, or even half as good as this one). But does it matter? Think: people have already used your picture. It's certainly serving a good purpose. And whatever QI says, I think it's a lovely photo (I have it as my background right now). I urge you to withdraw your nomination. Lewis Collard! (talk, contribs, en.wp) 07:01, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Keep You are right, I was frustrated because of one particular person who just seemed to attack everything I put up there. Not the first time. Being hung over on January 1st didn't help my mood and outburst either. I shall eat humble pie and withdraw the delete request. I am stll discouraged to contribute further, but I may reconsider this too eventually. Sorry for your troubles and thanks for understanding. Cheers! --Jnpet 02:25, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

KeepChange vote to keep --Simonxag 17:11, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

• Kept — Giggy 02:53, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

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

[edit] Image:Ganesh model Doi Suthep.JPG

Same as Image:Ganesh model doi suthep.JPG, uploaded on 2 July 2006 --Redtigerxyz 10:58, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

No reason for deletion! keep --88.117.77.237 21:00, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

• Will delete Image:Ganesh model doi suthep.JPG which had no source information because it is a {{duplicate}}. Waiting for CommonsDelinker. Samulili 22:05, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

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

[edit] Image:DZDLogo.jpg

fair use logo Sk-ru 11:42, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

• Deleted speedily. Samulili 13:31, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

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

[edit] Image:Kuipe1e.gif

copyvio http://www.xs4all.nl/~carlkop/andreku.html --oscar 13:01, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

Deleted. Rocket000 12:15, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

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

[edit] Image:776_1.jpg

no source and the author, most likely copied from the copyright book Sk-ru 14:47, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

• Chaged to {{nsd}}. Samulili 23:12, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

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

[edit] Image:Jubileelinetrain.jpg

People's faces are too clear and they did not give consent. Author requests deletion JamesK1987 18:10, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

A picture of a crowd in a a public place, not targetted at any one individual. Keep unless laws in UK require consent from the people who can be recognized. Samulili 18:23, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

Shouldn't this be speedied as a user-request? I say delete or speedy delete. Nyttend 20:49, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

I admit that I did not notice that this request is made by the author. However, it is not automatic that an author's request to delete an image is followed. There must still be a good or good-ish reason for deleting an image. Samulili 20:56, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

Apparently the uploader feels that what he did was not fair to the people in the picture and that he shouldn't have uploaded the image in the first place: Delete. Samulili 23:11, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

Delete Request is same day as upload. We should accept that the author made a mistake. --Simonxag 22:24, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

• Deleted — Giggy 00:16, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

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

[edit] Image:Terrazzo_boden_heidelberg.JPG

it is a duplicate by myself Scoid 23:29, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

Deleted Duplicate of Image:Terrazzo floor.JPG. --GeorgHH • talk   08:31, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

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

[edit] Image:Lorenz Werner.jpg

No evidence that PD-old applies, information on author and source are useless, as both just point to Wikipedia and a Wikipedia user --Melanom 11:42, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

Delete PD-old for a photo of an SS man is rather improbable. --Simonxag 22:11, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

deleted no pd-old ChristianBier 21:47, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

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

[edit] Image:Yuiw.jpg

Seeing the stance, the fact it's a personnality, etc, the guy didn't took it, and it's most probably a copyvio. --Darkoneko 17:07, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

Delete From a Flickr set that clearly does contain some copyvios. --Simonxag 22:21, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

Delete Apparently the back or inside cover for an album; see here. Carl Lindberg 15:41, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

add: most probably, the few other pic the guy uploaded (Special:Contributions/MDV) are also copyvio. Darkoneko 14:49, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

Delete Platonides 14:50, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

Consensus is to delete - copyviolative. - Anonymous Dissident^Talk 16:40, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

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

[edit] Image:Royal_Military_Museum_Brussels_2007_050.JPG

duplicate Szilas 13:32, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

Please give a link to the other image. Samulili 23:14, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

Kept, no duplicate file givem as source. Please use {{duplicate}} in the future. Patrícia ^msg 22:35, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

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

[edit] Image:Royal_Military_Museum_Brussels_2007_052.JPG

duplicate Szilas 13:35, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

Kept, no duplicate file givem as source. Please use {{duplicate}} in the future. Patrícia ^msg 22:35, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

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

[edit] Image:Royal_Military_Museum_Brussels_2007_053.JPG

duplicate Szilas 13:36, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

Kept, no duplicate file givem as source. Please use {{duplicate}} in the future. Patrícia ^msg 22:35, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

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

[edit] Image:Royal_Military_Museum_Brussels_2007_054.JPG

duplicate Szilas 13:37, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

Kept, no duplicate file givem as source. Please use {{duplicate}} in the future. Patrícia ^msg 22:35, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

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

[edit] Image:Royal_Military_Museum_Brussels_2007_055.JPG

duplicate Szilas 13:38, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

Kept, no duplicate file givem as source. Please use {{duplicate}} in the future. Patrícia ^msg 22:35, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

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

[edit] Image:Neplogo.gif

Obvious copright vio, I'd say - Anonymous Dissident^Talk 17:17, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

Delete per nom --Simonxag 22:47, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

Delete This Image was uploaded from Some other Wiki(I dont remember I used a bot to upload this image). Since I work on two languages namel ta and te wiki. I thought it would be useful, since I can use them in both the projects. If you find this as copyright violation, you may delete it. No objections Vinodh.vinodh 09:07, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Deleted. Patrícia ^msg 22:28, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

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

[edit] Image:Mary234x306.jpg

This is a recent picture, so it can't be in public domain because of age (the copyright can't have expired, the author is probably still alive). --Fruggo 19:10, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

Delete per nom --Simonxag 02:18, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Deleted. Obvious copyvio. Patrícia ^msg 22:44, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

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

[edit] Image:Bob_Sinclar.jpg

no source/license/author Doodle-doo Ħ 20:05, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

Delete per nom --Simonxag 22:41, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

Delete Would this now constitute nsd for longer than 7 days? -- Deadstar (msg) 12:35, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

Deleted. Uploader's deleted contributions show history of copyright violations. Patrícia ^msg 22:51, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

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

[edit] Image:100px-Tarcento-Stemma.gif

Claimed from Italian Wikipedia, the image there at http://it.wikipedia.org/wiki/Immagine:Tarcento-Stemma.gif is tagged copyrighted with fair use. Unless otherwise proven, this one cannot stay here while claimed GFDL cannot be found yet. Jusjih 02:00, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

1. Delete --Johney (talk) 16:35, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

Deleted - fairuse - Alison ^❤ 02:27, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

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

[edit] Image:Pr032206a 1.jpg

While it may be true that the United States Drug Enforcement Agency (DEA) used this photo, it is clear that the DEA did not produce the photo. The Revolutionary Armed Forces of Colombia - People's Army (FARC-EP) considers itself to be at war with the United States. The United States has classified the FARC-EP as a terrorist organization. Because the FARC-EP is heavily involved in drug trafficking, the DEA is tasked with anti-FARC activities. It is therefore extraordinarily unlikely that the FARC-EP would invite the DEA to one of their meetings. In fact, the FARC-EP has a history of simply kidnapping or murdering any American citizens that it comes across. This picture was probably either taken by a Colombian journalist or by the FARC-EP itself. --Descendall 05:25, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

Agree. Delete Samulili 13:26, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

Delete per nom --Simonxag 02:30, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Delete --Johney (talk) 16:36, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

Deleted. Patrícia ^msg 16:01, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

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

[edit] Image:Laerdal BVM.jpg

Patently wrong copyright tag - I don't think they even had BVM's 70 years ago! ;) The source information given is Laerdal, suggesting the image is from the company's site, which would be copyrighted. The same image with the background cut away exists at http://www.neann.com/Bag-Valve-Masks.htm but I can't find the identical one. Please let me know if I've done this improperly so I can learn! Delldot 11:48, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

• Delete per nom --Simonxag 22:12, 1 January 2008 (UTC)
• Delete And they certainly didn't have the cameras and the lighting to produce photos like this, either...

Deleted - copyvio - Alison ^❤ 02:30, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

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

[edit] Image:AudenVanVechten1939.jpg

Invalid license; not a work of the government John Vandenberg 02:54, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

Image:MuseeDesBeauxArtsMS.jpg also has the same problem, however that image looks suitable for Wikipedia under fair use. John Vandenberg 03:01, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

I have no problem with deleting AudenVanVechten1939.jpg. It isn't even being used anywhere. Macspaunday 19:43, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

Keep It is not PD-USGov, but it is {{PD-Van Vechten}}. The LOC page for the original image is here. Carl Lindberg 00:05, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

• Keep Van Vechten image. -N 04:31, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
• Keep for the Van Vechten image; thanks for identifying that one. John Vandenberg 01:47, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
• Image:MuseeDesBeauxArtsMS.jpg is a manuscript of w:W. H. Auden's w:Musée des Beaux Arts (poem); even if a printed edition of that poem has slipped into the PD by way of {{PD-US-no-renewal}} I cant see how this manuscript can be PD until 2033 (1938 + 95) if it was published as such, or 2043 (1973 + 70) if it was unpublished.
  Image:AgeOfAnxietyTitlePage.jpg (and duplicate image) is another image with issues, as it claims that a title page is not copyrightable, which has already been addressed here. John Vandenberg 01:47, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Covers with no art pass the threshold of originality where? -N 02:34, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
  • The poem image should be deleted... that would seem to be a copyvio, as the UK sounds like the country of origin, and the term outside the U.S. would be 70 pma (expires in 2044). Open up a separate deletion request though ;-) The title page however image is indeed PD-ineligible. Images of nothing but short bits of text do not qualify... book covers with a photo on them are a another matter, but that is not the case here. Delete the duplicate though... they are different sizes and maybe a different crop, but I can't fathom the need for two of them. Carl Lindberg 03:27, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

(ec) Deletion request: MuseeDesBeauxArtsMS.jpg launched. I dont believe that title pages are ineligible of copyright, and the lack of a template for such a common case says a lot. John Vandenberg 04:18, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

{{PD-ineligible}} ;-) See also here on why. Carl Lindberg 05:16, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

I am familiar with copyright. This is not merely a few phrases; it is a typeset page of a work covered by copyright. John Vandenberg 05:36, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

I still don't see anything remotely copyrightable on there (other than the poem, which is out of copyright). Obviously the text of the book is copyrighted, but there is no copyrightable text on that image. From here, the arrangement of type on a printed page cannot support a copyright claim. Is there something else that I am missing? Carl Lindberg 06:28, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

• • I don't how this affects anything, but the country of origin of the manuscript is US in that it was written out in the US (probably for a benefit auction). But the text certainly is in copyright, so I won't argue against deletion. Macspaunday 04:12, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
    • Yes, it is the text that is the problem. Carl Lindberg 05:16, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

Image:AudenVanVechten1939.jpg Kept. Other images delt with seperately. -- Infrogmation 06:14, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

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

[edit] Image:ColtraneH1.jpg

At least parts of this photo are not PD due to the fact that it is showing cover photos of John Coltrane recordings, e.g. en:A Love Supreme. So it does not really matter that the photo was done by some government employee, the cover photos were not. And for sure you cannot call them de:Beiwerk, without the covers it would just be a piano. Dr. Shaggeman 23:30, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

Shaggerman did not add this request to the main page... So I do it. One month later. --81.48.205.105 13:11, 1 January 2008 (UTC) EDIT: Even if it's obviously a derivative (so speedy deletion).

Actually, it's been listed here before. Twice. Also, Delete as derivative work. Lewis Collard! (talk, contribs, en.wp) 19:26, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

Deleted -- Infrogmation 06:21, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

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

[edit] Image:Boston_city_seal.jpg

Superseded by http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Image:Boston_city_seal.png Kkaefer 22:41, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

Keep at least for now... it is in use on tons of wikis. Use the {{SupersededPNG}} template on the image page instead, and wait for all usages to be replaced. We may as well keep this one for historical reference anyways. Carl Lindberg 23:55, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

Keep as superseded images are not deleted. Lewis Collard! (talk, contribs, en.wp) 05:31, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Keep Commons:Deletion requests/Superseded. Multichill 20:01, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Kept -- Infrogmation 06:24, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

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

[edit] Image:Downtown Chicago Illinois Nov05 img 2648.jpg

Copyvio (magazine cover) --Flominator 11:30, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

deleted, copyvio --Polarlys 11:32, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

• KeepThis shouldn't have been speedy deleted. I had no chance to respond. I believe since the magazine was only part of the image it was fair use. The juxtaposition of the magazine with the bible in the hotel drawer was the main subject. Dori - Talk 18:00, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

Restored. --Flominator 20:49, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

• Delete This looks awfully like a picture of the magazine cover. There are other elements there, but that's what the picture is basically of. --Simonxag 02:23, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

It's not a picture of the magazine per se. It's a picture of the (unintentional) positioning of the items. The uploader opened the drawer and saw two holy books alongside a perfect depiction of western decadent consumerism. What's funny is if an artist created this scene they could own copyright over it (but the usage of the magazine itself would still not be owned, merely on its positioning). Neutral on deletion, although the magazine cover is almost 1/3 of the image. -N 04:27, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

• Keep I think that the main theme of this photo is not a cover of specific magazin but a dissonance between the themes you can find in the bibles and a such magazin. Something good for everybody taste... ;) Elektron 11:54, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

• Delete The copyrighted magazine cover is not incidental inclusion, but the central element key to the photo. -- Infrogmation 06:17, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

Deleted: Magazine is the main element of the picture. -- Bryan (talk to me) 15:09, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

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

[edit] Image:White_Mage.JPG

From en:8-Bit_Theater, non free comic http://www.nuklearpower.com/index.php Site has "Copyright 2001 - 2007 Brian Clevinger. Some images are property of Square-Enix.", no PD-licence. Tomia 11:39, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

The same for

• Image:Black Mage.JPG
• Image:Dwarf King.JPG
• Image:Megahedron.JPG
• Image:Darko.JPG
• Image:Raven5.JPG
• Image:Lich2.JPG
• Image:Gary3.JPG
• Image:King Steve.JPG
• Image:Thief.JPG
• Image:Red Mage.JPG

Delete Copyvio. Also delete a bunch of similar uploads by the same user. Unless, that is, Kert.mitchell is really Brian Clevinger. --Simonxag 02:28, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Note: This should be deleted from the Commons, but retained on Wikipedia as fair-use. I have edited the image's description page there with the appropriate copyright tag and fair-use rationale. Bahamut0013 21:11, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

• Delete speedy delete these copyvios. -N 13:54, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

Deleted. We can't wait forever for files to be reuploaded on en.wp under a fair use rationale. I'll provide the files or do a temporary undelete if asked for. Patrícia ^msg 18:09, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

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

[edit] Image:StammbaumProgrammiersprachen.jpg

Superseded by SVG version --Rohieb 23:36, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

• Keep superseded images are not deleted. Sigh. Lewis Collard! (talk, contribs, en.wp) 05:29, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
• Keep Commons:Deletion requests/Superseded. Multichill 20:01, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Kept. Patrícia ^msg 18:18, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

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

[edit] Image:Feat Example Screen2.PNG

What is this? It has no description, no category and it's not used anywhere. --Samulili 13:24, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

 Comment It seems to be one of 2 groups of screenshots from the playing of 2 simple computer games. All were uploaded by the same user. I don't think there's a copyright problem with the screenshots (just look at what's there), but whthere they're any use I don't know. --Simonxag 22:19, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

• Still not used, no one cares, it goes. Samulili 08:26, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

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

[edit] Image:Rachidtabti.jpg

Image taken in France not Algeria Tarawneh 18:49, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

How do you know this? --Simonxag 02:20, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Because the championship he played in took place in France. The user already uploaded the image as fairuse on ar.wiki and was deleted there. --Tarawneh 00:18, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Delete In that case it's got to go. --Simonxag 02:12, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

• deleted --Tarawneh 03:55, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

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

[edit] Image:Cosmos05.gif

Also Image:Lolostrand.gif

The usage condition of “refering to the movie” is not acceptable. We require free works only, i.e. free for all uses including commercial use and creation of derivative works. --Mormegil 21:41, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

Keep The condition is merely one of attribution. Normally what is required is attribution to the author. Here it's to the movie, but the condition is no more restrictive of the images use than that imposed by CC-by. --Simonxag 22:32, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

Keep Yeah...uhh...what he said. Vipersnake151 00:00, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

 Comment Well… OK, I don’t think this is what was meant, but OK, that is a possible interpretation of that notice. But the template will need to be changed (use {{attribution}} instead). --Mormegil 10:30, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Keep 100% agree with Simonxag. That's why I uploaded it. --TwoWings (ID confirmed on my talk page) 86.67.47.199 11:32, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

 Comment It's the same case with Image:Lolostrand.gif. --TwoWings (ID confirmed on my talk page) 86.67.47.199 14:33, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Keep I came here intending to write ... what they all wrote. :-) --AnonEMouse 15:31, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

Keep --Nolanus ✉ (C | E) 19:10, 8 January 2008 (UTC) I agree with Simonxag

Keep I agree with Simonxag. --Dezidor 21:04, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

Delete I'ts not meerly a request for attribution. "FREE USE OF ALL PHOTOS AND TEXTS ON THE CONDITION OF REFERING TO THE MOVIE" means that derivative works and the use of the work are strongly limited. for instance I could not use the image as an example of breast implants only as an illustration when talking about the movie. The image would be fair use (on en.wiki) for the article about the movie though. Same thing applies for Image:Lolostrand.gif. This image cannot be used to describe hoola hooping it can only be used when refeering to Camping Cosmos. I've added that image to this deletion request./Lokal_Profil 12:30, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

The quoted statement from the webpage is rather awkward English but it is complete and not part of a larger piece. The obvious meaning is the weak condition If an image or text is used, then the movie must be referred to. This would be satisfied by the license on the image's page in the Commons. The reading you seem to be using is something like If an image or text is used, then the text within which it is being used must refer to the movie. But the statement contains no reference to the new containing text, only to those on the website, and so it is very hard to see how the condition can apply to this new text. Basically all it requires is attribution to the movie, your breast implant use should be fine. --Simonxag 00:59, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

Image from Camping Cosmos

@Lokal: if you do something like I've just done here next to the picture, you can use it anywhere, no matter what the subject of your text is. You may have been confused by the use of the word "text" in the attribution request. In fact "text" here refers to texts on the website of the production company, that are also free to use if you refer to the movie. That doesn't mean the text you produce yourself has to refer to the movie. --TwoWings (ID confirmed on my talk page)86.67.47.199 07:34, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

Keep I entirely agree with Simonxag. Pietdebrabandere 14:04, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Kept, interpreting the notice as requiring attribution. --rimshot^talk 15:04, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

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

[edit] Image:Map_of_Allen_County_Ohio_With_Municipal_and_Township_Labels.PNG

wierd 24.165.124.148 20:03, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

• Speedy keep as a bad-faith or altogether uninformed nomination: it's a useful map derived from a Census source, listed on the image description, without any problems. Neither "wierd" nor "weird" is a valid reason for deletion. Nyttend 20:51, 1 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Also, note speedy keep for the Bluffton picture listed by this same IP address (I can't list this on its discussion page, as none was created): it's a useful picture that isn't violating any guidelines of any sort — not to mention no reason given by nominator! Nyttend 20:56, 1 January 2008 (UTC)
• Keep nothing to discuss. Lewis Collard! (talk, contribs, en.wp) 21:27, 1 January 2008 (UTC)
• Speedy keep I am the author of the map and Nyttend's summary is true - it is from the US Census (Public Domain) and my minor tweaks are GFDL. Are IP addresses allowed to make nominations for deletion here? Ruhrfisch 02:24, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Yeah they are, and regularly do. Apart from the occasional junk request like this, they don't seem to cause many problems. If anything, they're not nearly as bad as registered users for clogging up DR with shit like incorrectly named images, superseded images, etc. Lewis Collard! (talk, contribs, en.wp) 05:36, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
    • OK, thanks very much. Ruhrfisch 22:05, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
• Keep Commons:Deletion requests/Superseded. Multichill 20:01, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
• Keep wierd is good.--Simonxag 21:51, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

Kept. Rocket000 02:12, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

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

[edit] Image:Map_of_Allen_County_Ohio_With_Municipal_and_Township_Labels.PNG

wierd 24.165.124.148 21:17, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

Kept. Bad faith nom. Rocket000 02:12, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

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

[edit] Image:US-NationalCounterterrorismCenter-Seal.png

This was generated from an old version of Image:US-NationalCounterterrorismCenter-Seal.svg which at the time was not working. The SVG has since been fixed, so this (unused) PNG version is no longer needed. Carl Lindberg 23:50, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

Keep The images are slightly different and it is sometimes desirable to have a non-SVG version, because of browsers compliance issues. Patrícia ^msg 18:22, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

Kept. Finn Rindahl 16:04, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

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

[edit] Image:Smokey3.jpg

Images of Somkey Bear are not free and are regulated by US Code as well as USDA administrative law. See, for example, 18 USC 711.

Hm.... not sure. This is definitely protected by non-copyright law 18 U.S.C. 711, but that is only for "for profit" uses, and Wikimedia's usage should not be in violation. We normally only delete if these restrictions are part of copyright law itself, or if wikimedia's own usage would violate those laws. We are not responsible for what others do with them. On the other hand, reading the history, I'm not entirely sure if this was completely a U.S. government creation, as it was done in conjunction with the Ad Council. According to this though, it sounds like the original artists were government employees. I'll go for a weak Keep. If we do keep it, mark this image with {{insignia}} and add a link to that law. Carl Lindberg 00:45, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Delete Images need to be free for for-profit uses. Reasons much discussed elsewhere. The criminal law of the US prevents such uses and the Commons is subject to US Criminal law. --Simonxag 02:09, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Non-commercial restrictions are a problem only if they are a part of the copyright license. See the note at the bottom of the Commons:Licensing page. Carl Lindberg 03:14, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

• Keep Even some commercial uses are ok, such as publication in a magazine. These protections are not part of copyright law, but a separate law. -N 02:47, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Yes the criminal law of the United States of America where the Commons is based. --Simonxag 02:14, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Hosting the image on commons, or using it in a wikipedia article about Smokey the Bear, is not breaking that law though, so it should be fine. The non-commercial restrictions on commons pertains to copyright law specifically, not additional laws like this -- in this case, we just need to make sure that wikimedia's use does not violate it. Carl Lindberg 02:36, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

• Keep Images only have to free in the copyright sense, which this one is. So we're fine as far as our policy goes, and as far as the law goes, we are not breaking it by hosting this. So there's no reason to delete. Rocket000 17:52, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
• Keep as this is public domain, copyright-wise, and permitted for Wikipedia use otherwise. I have cleaned up the description page to make this clearer. I didn't add {{insignia}}, as I'm not sure it fits the definition of insignia. --rimshot^talk 13:00, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Kept: Commons only takes copyright restrictions into account when evaluating the freeness of an image. -- Bryan (talk to me) 14:56, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

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

[edit] Image:Wikinews_year_overview_2007_animated.gif

Incorrect licensing. Is licensed under cc-by-2.0 but some source images are 2.5 (licensing allows for later versions but not for older versions) Also some cc-by-sa images are demoted to cc-by. Also a GFDL image is included. -N 18:31, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

• cc-by is one way compatible with GFDL, but otherwise the licenses are not compatible. The only way this image could work is to remove the GFDL image and change overall licensing to cc-by-sa-2.5 or later. Or exclude cc-by-sa images and make overall licensing GFDL. -N 18:36, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
• The licenses have been included as icons (CC or GFDL or PD) in the images, and I've referred people to the respective images. Technically, I would say that I am licensing my contributions under cc-by-2.0+GFDL, and simply telling people to check the other licenses. If it would solve anything, I could list it as cc-by-sa-all and GFDL.--Steven Fruitsmaak (Reply) 18:47, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
  • I have no objections. I should have discussed it with you before listing for deletion. -N 18:49, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

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

[edit] Image:Le_Grand_Heron.jpg

• 1111 85.185.0.248 17:06, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
• Keep Meritless deletion request. Midnightcomm 17:58, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
• This is obvious vandalism.--Phoenix-wiki 18:00, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Closed as keep — obvious vandalism--Phoenix-wiki 18:06, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

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

[edit] Image:Me_in_front_of_Jvari.jpg

COM:SCOPE. The tourist makes the photo unusable. Maybe some cropping... Ecemaml ^{talk to me/habla conmigo} 21:58, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

I have no objection. Geagea 22:02, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Delete - the Jvari is too far in the background, so the crop doesn't do much effort. We have better pictures of the place. Yuval Y § Chat § 03:42, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Deleted --Ecemaml ^{talk to me/habla conmigo} 23:41, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

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

[edit] Image:Sjwilie06.gif

copyrighted poster, deleted on nl: Kameraad Pjotr 10:37, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Deleted by MichaelMaggs: copyright poster

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

[edit] Image:OBHC_logo.jpeg

copyvio? Seems to be self-uploaded but also has no license -N 04:59, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

• Delete, no license and not useful. Lewis Collard! (talk, contribs, en.wp) 05:38, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
• Delete seems to be a copyvio to me. --- Anonymous Dissident^Talk 06:17, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
• Delete No license. --Dezidor 16:32, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

no license, not useful. Delete. - Anonymous Dissident^Talk 22:11, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

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

[edit] Image:Alicia_Miguelalt1.jpg

doubtful uploader is copyright holder -N 04:54, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

• I'm pretty sure you can {{copyvio}} this one. Anyway, Delete. Lewis Collard! (talk, contribs, en.wp) 05:45, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
• Delete. This one should probably have been speedy deleted. Cowardly Lion 20:51, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

deleted, --Polarlys 22:48, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

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

[edit] Image:Foto Bela Lugosi.jpg

Copyright violation. Photographer is unknown and not necessarily dead for 70 years or more. --Zinnmann 17:03, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

deleted, --Polarlys 22:50, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

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

[edit] Image:H69731.jpg

Image made by german citizen so does not fall under PD-USGov Denniss 23:46, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

• Delete per nomination. Durova 08:47, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
• Keep this isn't PD-USGov, but marked as public domain by Naval Historical Center. Pibwl 18:07, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
  •  Comment What the naval historical center believes is irrlevant, hundreds of their "PD"-images were deleted here because of wrong licenses and/or not made by US government employees. For example many of these were made by german naval officers showing Bismarck and other capital ships, even if they were seized or donated these officers did not retract their copyright on these images. See more infos here --Denniss 01:48, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

deleted, since Paul S. Schmalenbach took this photo in 1941, it can't be in the public domain. --Polarlys 22:51, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

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

[edit] Image:H69730.jpg

Image by german citizen, does not fall under PD-USGov Denniss 23:48, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

• Delete per nomination. Durova 08:46, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

deleted, since Paul S. Schmalenbach took this photo in 1941, it can't be in the public domain. --Polarlys 22:54, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

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

[edit] Image:H69732.jpg

Image by german citizen, does not fall under PD-USGov Denniss 23:48, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

• Delete Obviously not a work for hire of the United States government. Durova 08:09, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

deleted, since Paul S. Schmalenbach took this photo in 1941, it can't be in the public domain. --Polarlys 22:54, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

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

[edit] Image:Nonazis2.gif

This image does not appear to qualify as a public domain image under COM:L 3. That is, the image is not ineligible for a copyright and the copyright has not expired. Also, the source link in the information box results in a 404 Error. There is, thus, no evidence that image has actually been released into the public domain by its author. DieWeisseRose 13:30, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Keep Have you tried using the wayback machine or something? Also images by Carlos Latuff are copyright free. See here for details. // Liftarn

• • Yes, I have tried archive.org. It's not there. I was unaware of the copyleft info you provided. If that is an acceptable license for the Commons then I will withdraw the deletion request. I'll wait to hear from a few more editors. --DieWeisseRose 00:47, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
    • Yes, I also found out that. Anyway, since we also have a second source for the info I think it's OK. // Liftarn
• Keep Free Carlos Latuff image (although if nominated again on scope grounds I might be tempted to vote delete). -N 15:41, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
  • The sight of a pathetic hate-filled bigot like Latuff sanctimoniously claiming to be anti-racist is certainly rather nauseating... AnonMoos 23:06, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
    • That you call an antiracist "a pathetic hate-filled bigot" says more about your views than his. // Liftarn
      • That you continue to try to conjure up lame and feeble excuses for the expressed bigoted views of a proud hatemongerer certainly throws light on your character. Furthermore, your idea of "racism" is as flexible as a rubber-band -- according to you, everybody who disagrees with your personal political views is a "racist"[sic], while everybody who agrees with your personal political views (no matter how vile and contemptible their personal behavior) is an "anti-racist"[sic] (as was exposed at Image_talk:Gathering of eagles.jpg). AnonMoos 17:10, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
        • There is nothing rubbery with the definition of racism as "hatred towards a specific ethnic (or ethnoreligious) group". // Liftarn
          • Please do have the kindness to tell us what "rubbery" is even supposed to mean as a noun (as opposed to an adjective)! It certainly rhymes with the shrubbery that the Knights Who Say Ni told King Arthur to bring to them... After that, you might try to find one single dictionary published by a mainstream lexicographical publisher (such as Oxford University Press, Merriam-Webster, Macquarie, etc.) which includes prejudice against an ideology which people can voluntarily choose to join or leave as part of the core definition of the word "racism" (as opposed to a loose metaphorical extension). This is something which you have conspicuously failed to achieve, so far. AnonMoos 07:00, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
            • So you are saying antisemitism isn't racism because you can choose to convert from Judaism. Interesting idea... // Liftarn
              • Why not consult Image_talk:Gathering of eagles.jpg (which I've linked to twice already in this discussion) to refresh your failing memory on this point? Meanwhile, the fact that you have been completely and utterly incapable or unwilling to find any support from any reputable dictionary for your idiosyncratic personal redefinition of the word "racism" tells its own story... (Of course, any definition of the word "racist" according to which Latuff is allegedly some kind of supposed "anti-racist"[sic] is bound to be quite bizarre!) AnonMoos 00:26, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

• • What are "scope grounds," N? AnonMoos, is this kind of ad hominem editorializing appropriate to a deletion request discussion? --DieWeisseRose 00:47, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
    • Look at his intentional anti-Jewish religious bigotry on Image:Cry-wolf.png to start with. Frankly Carlos Latuff should just look in the mirror if he wants to see someone who's much more of a Nazi than all those politicians and national personifications whom he keeps continually monotonously repetitively redundantly boringly drawing as Nazis. AnonMoos 02:25, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
      • No evidence of any antisemitism there. // Liftarn
      • I'll ask again: AnonMoos, is this kind of ad hominem editorializing appropriate to a deletion request discussion? --DieWeisseRose 02:11, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
        • The relevance is that I'm frustrated that Liftarn has been successful so far in "gaming the system" with respect to the Latuff cartoons, in order to use Wikipedia / Wikimedia Commons as a platform for the promulgation and promotion of bigoted hate speech. If you want to know, I'm far from being the only one who feels this way... AnonMoos 07:00, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
    • Commons should not host bigoted cartoons just because they are free if they are unused in the projects. Carlos Latuff's cartoons have been through a deletion discussion and we said keep (I even said keep). Individual cartoons should still be scrutinized for suitability however. -N 01:11, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
      • Please review Commons:Project scope. // Liftarn

Frankly, your determination to continue pointless gratuitous edit-warring on Category:Islamophobia, despite everything documented at Image_talk:Gathering of eagles.jpg, is far more "immature" behavior than anything anyone else has exhibited here. Furthermore, there's absolutely no reason why Wikimedia Commons is obligated to host bigoted hate cartoons (we can if we want to, but there's nothing that says we have to) -- especially when they were uploaded with the specific intention of disguising and making lame excuses for their bigotry and hatred. And what do you mean, "we", Kemosabe? AnonMoos 17:10, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Yes, please do ignore what we are here to discuss and continue with your unfounded and disruptive personal attacks. // Liftarn

Since you seem to be very big on bureaucratic jargon acronyms and technicalities of official Wikipedia/Wikimedia policies, please do inform us exactly which clause of which policy imperatively requires that Wikimedia Commons host bigoted hate-cartoons. I think that you'll find this task quite difficult to achieve, since while we can host such material if we choose to do so, there's nothing which requires us to do so -- and there's no reason why, if a near-consensus of interested Wikimedia Commons users decides not to host such material here, it shouldn't be deleted with extreme finality. P.S. The use of the plural pronoun "we" to express individualistic personal opinions should be restricted to Queen Victoria and people with tapeworm. AnonMoos 07:00, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

There are no "bigoted hate-cartoons" discussed here. // Liftarn

Nice way of refusing to answer the question, while implicitly conceding my point -- there's no reason why we have to host the Latuff hate images here on Commons... AnonMoos 00:21, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

The last mass nomination of them closed as keep, including a keep vote by me. I could be persuaded to vote delete for some in selective cases though. -N 07:18, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

• Keep per "copyleft" release by author. --DieWeisseRose 07:10, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

Kept. --DieWeisseRose 08:22, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

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

[edit] Image:Qbq97-6.jpg

http://www.gun-world.net/china/rifle/qbz97/qbz97.htm ,copy vio image Evers 09:44, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

Deleted. Obvious copyvio. Use {{copyvio}} instead next time. Ecemaml (talk to me/habla conmigo) 14:41, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

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

[edit] Image:עמק_טרוסו_5.jpg

COM:SCOPE Ecemaml (talk to me/habla conmigo) 00:03, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Keep Usable picture of a tourist location, with a geocode, though it could do with a much better description. --Simonxag 02:11, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

•  Comment Usable? Maybe if cropped and with a description but nowadays is a typical personal photo --Ecemaml ^{talk to me/habla conmigo} 14:56, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Keep Nice view of Truso valley and the river. I belive that the travelers not disterbing to the picture. Geagea 20:47, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Keep We can't just crop and replace because there isn't a single obvious way the image would be cropped. In this case, I see two ways this could be cropped: above the heads and beside the bodies. So we'll need to have any cropped versions reference this image for attribution purposes. But it'd also be nice to have the longer Hebrew description translated to English if possible. --Damian Yerrick (☎) 12:48, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

kept -- Infrogmation 06:26, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

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

[edit] Image:Pelle.jpg

I think somebody should delete this image. "Pelle" means "clown" in Finnish language, and the man in the image isn't a clown. It seems to be just an inappropriate and abusing image. --212.149.208.89 12:48, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

• Delete While the requested deletion reason is silly, the image is unused and unidentifiable. We have too many of those as it is. -N 15:43, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
• Delete per N. -- Deadstar (msg) 16:59, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
• Delete --Johney (talk) 18:19, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Deleted -- Infrogmation 06:29, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

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

[edit] Image:Square_activation_symbol.jpg

It looks like derivate work from any non-free image sevela.p 12:50, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Nerozumím. Je to vlastní montáž. Vo co jde? --Ervinpospisil 23:16, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

Montáž, ale podle mě je to odvozené dílo od nějakého nesvobodného díla a tudíž nesvobodné. Je mi líto.--sevela.p 15:01, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

Deleted by Zirland: derivative, copyvio

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

[edit] Image:Chris Holden- Gay Male.jpg

[Extremely limited] value, probable vanity --Gustav VH 23:15, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

• Delete, not useful. Lewis Collard! (talk, contribs, en.wp) 13:13, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
• Delete per above. Rocket000 05:23, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

Deleted. RedCoat 19:04, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

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

[edit] Image:Gaynewyorker.jpg

Duplication of Image:Chris Holden- Gay Male.jpg- see above. Gustav VH 23:23, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Delete both duplicate and original for uselessness. Lewis Collard! (talk, contribs, en.wp) 12:10, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Deleted. RedCoat 18:56, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

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

[edit] Image:Brooklyn_Bridge_panorama_2006.jpg

The source says "You can use a picture FOR FREE for non-commercial, non-profit use only". ([2]) Kjetil r 04:38, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

• Keep The license linked to is by-sa 2.5. Creative Commons says the license linked to is the one granted[3]. -N 04:52, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

He is obviously linking to the wrong license, he does not mean to allow commercial use. We shouldn't say "ha ha, you linked to the wrong document, now you are losing some rights to your work!", we should respect the author's intentions. --Kjetil r 05:05, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Delete, well said Kjetil r. This issue has come up before: ultimately, if there's a conflict between the wording of a license and the intent of the author, then we should go with the intent of the author, out of courtesy to the author if nothing else. Lewis Collard! (talk, contribs, en.wp) 05:54, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

• Delete, and respect intentions of the author. Cowardly Lion 20:49, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Deleted. MichaelMaggs 08:17, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

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

[edit] Image:Suisse_swiss_magazine_Hebdo.gif

Nothing indicates that the copyright holder indeed released the image under the licence indicated; given that this is the logo of a well-known media in Switzerland, it is unlikely that there is no restriction on its use; at the very least, more information should be provided. Schutz 21:49, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Agreed that the specified license is dubious, but this logo is not eligible for copyright... it should be marked {{PD-textlogo}}. Is it trademarked? If so, marked with {{trademarked}} too. Keep Carl Lindberg 08:10, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Yes, it is trademarked in Switzerland, as per https://www.swissreg.ch/srclient/en/tm/P-333565. I have added both tags, along with more information, thanks. I guess exactly the same applies to Image:LogoMigrosNouveau.jpg, so I will update it as well. Cheers, Schutz 17:38, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Yes, the same would apply :-) Thanks for doing the research, and fixing them. Carl Lindberg 03:37, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

Kept as ineligible. --rimshot^talk 16:26, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

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

[edit] Image:En-WPSignpost 2007 04 02.ogg

Improper sourcing --62.56.75.239 21:59, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

• Keep ridiculous nomination. Wikipedia is cited and proper GFDL attribution is given. The "own work" is the spoken portion. -N 22:51, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
• Keep. Cowardly Lion 21:25, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Kept. Nilfanion 21:12, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

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

[edit] Image:OTD0416.ogg

Sounds like a recording of content from another source, although claim is that it's self made --62.56.75.239 22:02, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

• Keep ridiculous nomination. Wikipedia is cited and proper GFDL attribution is given. The "own work" is the spoken portion. -N 22:50, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
• Keep. Same voice as Image:OTD505.ogg, which clearly mentions Wikipedia and GFDL, and was uploaded by the same person. Cowardly Lion 21:40, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Kept. Nilfanion 21:11, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

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

[edit] Image:OTD418.ogg

Sounds like a recording of content from another source, although claim is that it's self made. --62.56.75.239 22:04, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

• Keep ridiculous nomination. Wikipedia is cited and proper GFDL attribution is given. The "own work" is the spoken portion. -N 22:49, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
• Keep. Same voice as Image:OTD505.ogg, which clearly mentions Wikipedia and GFDL, and was uploaded by the same person. Cowardly Lion 21:42, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Kept. Nilfanion 21:10, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

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

[edit] Image:OTD420.ogg

Claims to be self-made, but sounds like a recording of content from another source --62.56.75.239 22:05, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

• Keep ridiculous nomination. Wikipedia is cited and proper GFDL attribution is given. The "own work" is the spoken portion. -N 22:49, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
• Keep. Same voice as Image:OTD505.ogg, which clearly mentions Wikipedia and GFDL, and was uploaded by the same person. Cowardly Lion 21:45, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Kept. Nilfanion 21:11, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

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

[edit] Image:OTD505.ogg

Claims to be self-made but sounds like a recording of content from another source --62.56.75.239 22:07, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

• Keep. The recording clearly mentions Wikipedia and GFDL. Cowardly Lion 21:46, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Kept. Nilfanion 21:12, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

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

[edit] Image:OTD506.ogg

Claims to be selfmade , but appears to be a recoding of content from another source --62.56.75.239 22:08, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

• Keep ridiculous nomination. Wikipedia is cited and proper GFDL attribution is given. The "own work" is the spoken portion. -N 22:47, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
• Keep. The recording clearly mentions Wikipedia and GFDL. The recording seems to have been made by the person who uploaded it. Cowardly Lion 21:51, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Kept. Nilfanion 21:12, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

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

[edit] Image:Wikicast-Test2.ogg

Suspect music portion used in this clip in good faith may have been copyvio since removed from commons --62.56.75.239 21:28, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

• Keep uploader is long-established user. This anon presents ridiculous nominations. -N 22:59, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Kept. Nilfanion 21:12, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

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

[edit] Image:Wikicast test transmission.ogg

Suspect music clip used , claimed as PD in good faith, is copyvio --62.56.75.239 21:35, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

• Keep ridiculous nomination. A piece of classical music is used which has no doubt fallen into PD. -N 22:49, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

• • This was nominated because certain Holst pieces HAD been removed from Commons because they were

NOT pd. 62.56.75.239 23:00, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

• • • ORLY? Then what is Category:Gustav Holst? -N 23:04, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

• • • • OK Then, If the clip is recognisable from the clips remaining in that category, Nom withdrawn ;)

62.56.75.239 23:16, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Kept. Nilfanion 21:15, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

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

[edit] Image:Wikisignpost 0814.ogg

Claimed as own work , but clearly derived from Wikipedia... --62.56.75.239 22:15, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

• Keep ridiculous nomination. Wikipedia is cited and proper GFDL attribution is given. The "own work" is the spoken portion. -N 22:44, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Keep. The recording gives his name, and it's obviously the same person who uploaded it. Cowardly Lion 23:25, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Kept. Nilfanion 21:12, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

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

[edit] Image:Wikisignpost 0821.ogg

Claimed as own work, but clearly derived from Wikipedia --62.56.75.239 22:16, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

• Keep ridiculous. Wikipedia is available under the GFDL and is properly credited and the licensing is preserved. The "own work" refers to the spoken portion, which the person had to self-make by actually speaking with his own voice. -N 22:28, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
• Keep. I agree with N. The Wikipedia text is available under a free licence. The recording (which gives the name of the speaker) is obviously from the same person as the person who uploaded it here under a free licence. What's the problem? Cowardly Lion 23:35, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Kept. Nilfanion 21:12, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

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

[edit] Image:Wikisignpost 0828.ogg

Claimed as own work, but clearly derived from Wikipedia --62.56.75.239 22:18, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

• Keep ridiculous. Wikipedia is available under the GFDL and is properly credited and the licensing is preserved. The "own work" refers to the spoken portion, which the person had to self-make by actually speaking with his own voice. -N 22:27, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Kept. Nilfanion 21:12, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

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

[edit] Category:Tombs in Korea

all contents moved to Tombs in South Korea --Applebee 22:33, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Redirected to Category:Tombs in South Korea. --Boricuæddie 15:00, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

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

[edit] Image:Toilet_Overflow.jpg

Unused on Wikimedia projects; image is too dark; no obvious purpose Kelvinc 04:59, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

• Keep "unused" is not an argument for deletion. "Image is too dark" can be fixed. "No obvious purpose" is wrong: it depicts a disgusting shitter. Lewis Collard! (talk, contribs, en.wp) 05:43, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

• Keep per Collard, it can be useful --Ogre 15:12, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Kept --S^[1] 01:30, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

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

[edit] Image:Himno_Martin_Miguel.ogg

Uploader recorded the music, but did he write it? -N 05:15, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

I, German Casares Alonso, declare that this music is my creation and release the copyrights. Of course the music has been written by myself. (2 january 2008) —the preceding unsigned comment was added by Sanyerme (talk • contribs)

• Kept - affirmation of creation by uploader - no reason to doubt.

Patstuart (talk) 20:52, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

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

[edit] Image:Naked_in_Subway.jpg

Is it useful in any way? Ecemaml ^{talk to me/habla conmigo} 21:59, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

• Keep Shows public nudity, which is a right many people are fighting for. -N 22:23, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
• Delete Innapropriate image, no need for it. I dunno how how this will influence people's rights to walk around naked, btw.--Phoenix-wiki 17:55, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
• Delete Not in scope. We have plenty such images; this is a particularly poor one. No point in keeping. Majorly (talk) 17:59, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
• Keep - Harmless, one of hundreds of thousands of barely useful photographs on Commons. Cary Bass ^demandez 18:01, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
• Keep Perfect illustration of public nudity and exhibitionism. --TwoWings (ID confirmed on my talk page) 86.67.47.199 08:45, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Kept per TwoWings. – Mike.lifeguard | ^@en.wb 21:01, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

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

[edit] Image:Same Sex Couple.jpg

Questionable whether couple are same sex, bad quality photo, limited usefulness --Gustav VH 23:19, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

• Keep Harmless. --TwoWings (ID confirmed on my talk page) 86.67.47.199 08:52, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

   Neutral in fact no it's nbot harmless since you're right: it's questionable whether couple are same sex or not. --TwoWings * to talk or not to talk... 15:04, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

• Delete could not really put it better than the nominator --Herby ^{talk thyme} 14:53, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

Deleted. – Mike.lifeguard | ^@en.wb 21:02, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

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

[edit] Image:Ramat-gan1.jpg

Uploader blanked the page and license unexplained. Jusjih 01:33, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Keep Release into the PD is not revocable. This is a year after the original upload, so it's not a matter of correcting a mistake. If the uploader wants the image deleted, they must persuade the general community that there is a good reason for this. --Simonxag 02:17, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

• Delete image is of dubious quality and usability anyway. -N 02:48, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
• Delete unless it's an image of anything actually useful - would be questionable commons scope. Megapixie 03:46, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Deleted. pr uploaders request/scope/not used Finn Rindahl 16:09, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

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

[edit] Image:RLagosWeber.jpg

"avoidance" of misuse could just be a reservation of moral rights (inalienable in most countries legislations so reserving them does not make the work unfree) or it could be an outright denial of derivative works. You decide. -N 04:34, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

The producer (Government of Chile) has relinquished all rights upon the image. The proviso about "avoidance of misuse" is simply a reminder that the use of the image for illegal purposes (such as for falsifying an official document (i.e. passport)) is not included in the rights being given to the user. See law 19.628 --Melromero 04:42, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

I think that the "avoidance of misuse" is more like a {{personality rights}} warning than a prohibition to the licence. The licence is OK... so Keep the image --B1mbo 20:17, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

Kept. Finn Rindahl 16:12, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

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

[edit] Image:WAGGGSAsiaPacificMap-World_copy.svg

not needed Sagredo 20:18, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

• Delete it's a practical duplicate of image:WAGGGSAsiaPacificMap-World.svg --Ogre 15:23, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Deleted. Finn Rindahl 16:15, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

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

[edit] Category:Santarém

Exists as Category:Santarém (Pará). FrancoBras 02:43, 16 December 2007 (UTC) Request fixed -- Deadstar (msg) 16:43, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

 Comment Redirect? Disambiguation? -- Deadstar (msg) 16:44, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Kept as disambiguation, as there are several Santaréms in Brazil alone. rimshot^talk 13:22, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

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

[edit] Image:JimTang.jpg

Author and source is JimTang, not uploader Jokit.--Shizhao 02:07, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

• Delete. Possibly the same image as Image:Jim Tang.jpg, which was previously deleted as having incomplete information on source, licence, author, and permission, and which came from Jim Tang's blog. See here. Cowardly Lion 20:43, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

•  Comment It's not the same image. --rimshot^talk 16:19, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

Deleted no indication of permission for release into the public domain. -- Bryan (talk to me) 14:57, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

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

[edit] Image:Gebrueder-grimm-ffm002.jpg

Not indicated that the author of the genealogical table is dead for more than 70 years or has agreed to the use of his work under GNU licence. -- 14:32, 29 December 2007 User:91.12.110.159 Request fixed -- Deadstar (msg) 16:55, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Familienstammbäume ohne künstlerische grafische Gestaltung sind nicht copyright-geschützt. dontworry 03:42, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Kept: The family tree only contains data without individual creative expression and is as such not eligible for copyright. -- Bryan (talk to me) 14:59, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

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

[edit] Image:Maurice_strong.jpg

The assertion by Dondesnet that he took this picture is questionable pending clarification. Strong was 78 in 2007, and the picture is of a younger man. Fred Bauder 17:46, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

The identity of user:Dondenet who has recently edited w:Maurice Strong and added this image is unknown. It may be Strong himself or a family member. Thus, an explanation may clear this up. The image, even if from another source, may be usable. Fred Bauder 17:51, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Sorry. this is first time I have uploaded an image to Wikipedia, so I am learning the process as I go on. I have changed the information for the image. The identity of user Dondesnet, surmised as being a member of Maurice Strong's family, is inaccurate. Dondesnet is Don de Silva, one of the first journalists from a developing country to write and report on environmental and developmental issues. He has attended and reported on many international conferences, including the Stockholm Conference on the Human Environment in 1982 and the Earth Summit in Rio. Don de Silva is a journalist, author, and environmentalist. The image is taken from http://www.mauricestrong.org --Dondesnet 09:49, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

It's a nice image and would be w:fair use for Wikipedia, see w:Wikipedia:Non-free content and other educational sites, but doesn't meet the requirements of Commons, as I understand them. However, it should be OK on Wikipedia, if a proper rational for fair use is given. Fred Bauder 19:05, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Deleted: Non free images are not allowed on Wikimedia Commons. Contact me if somebody wants to upload the image to the English Wikipedia. -- Bryan (talk to me) 14:52, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

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

[edit] Image:WOTD lilliputian.ogg

Claim of CC-BY-SA, But basis work included or derived from is GFDL --62.56.75.239 21:33, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

• Keep ridiculous nomination. Wikipedia is cited and proper GFDL attribution is given. The "own work" is the spoken portion. -N 22:57, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

The issue is that it can't be both CC-BY-SA AND GFDL. Reformat nom as a contact uploade to resolve issue 62.56.75.239 23:01, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

So use your brain and figure out what license it should be. -N 23:03, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Removed CC licenses and kept. -- Bryan (talk to me) 15:02, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

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

[edit] Image:Swwiki.jpg

Not own work foto Sean Demspey/ EPA --Multichill 22:15, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

• Delete unless there's proof that the copyright holder releases it under a free licence. There's no indication of that at the moment. Cowardly Lion 23:29, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Deleted -- Bryan (talk to me) 15:02, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

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

[edit] Image:Canada map.jpg

Not self-made or deriative work of [4] --Multichill 22:19, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

•  Comment - {{PD-ineligible}}? Patstuart (talk) 20:54, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Deleted: While the data itself may not be copyrighted, the drawing certainly is. -- Bryan (talk to me) 15:04, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

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

[edit] Image:02ContohHanacaraka.jpg

Uploader changed my no source tag to pd-ineligible. -N 18:12, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Delete Upload the glyphs/words and use them in wikitext (provided they're free). Platonides 22:00, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

• Withdrawn this seems simplistic enough not to copyright. -N 15:24, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

Kept. – Mike.lifeguard | ^@en.wb 19:27, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

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

[edit] Category:Cheonmacheong

typo --Applebee 00:18, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

• Deleted — Giggy 02:48, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

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

[edit] Image:Mel_b.jpg

Highly likely to be a professional image, probable copyvio. Thoughts? — Giggy 02:45, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

See also the uploader's talk page...— Giggy 02:46, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Thoughts? I'd hit it. Delete image is copied from [5]. -N 05:29, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Deleted, copyvio (http://ww1.prweb.com/prfiles/2007/04/20/520714/FHCIMelB.jpg). Jastrow (Λέγετε) 08:26, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

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

[edit] Image:Ajiacob.jpg

claimed as self-made, dubious [6] --F3rn4nd0 07:07, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

• Delete MD5s are the same, Last-Modified header on the picture on that website predates the upload of this picture by close to four years. Lewis Collard! (talk, contribs, en.wp) 12:27, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Tagged with {{copyvio}}, please do this for blatant copyright infringements in future, F3rn4nd0. Lewis Collard! (talk, contribs, en.wp) 12:33, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Deleted as copyvio. MECU≈talk 16:51, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

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

[edit] Image:De_Volkschulwesen_Württemberg_(Kaißer)_156.jpg

This file is not his own work it is only scanned in his computer Inertkids 08:21, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

The author Bernhard Kaißer died in 1918. This document is public domain! keep --194.48.128.75 12:22, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Keep as above; the uploader is not claiming it as his own work. Lewis Collard! (talk, contribs, en.wp) 12:24, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Keep this is part of a book (409 pages) uploaded by the german speaking ws community. The book itself is Out of copyright as author died more than 70 years ago --Joergens.mi 13:01, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Keep - author died more than 70 years ago. --- Anonymous Dissident^Talk 23:09, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Speedy kept. There is no need to wait seven days for the decision, the rules are more than clear in this case. It's indeed the own work of the given author, who would be the long dead Bernhard Kaißer. The uploader never claimed it as his, he even told the source. Don't know what the proposer was thinking, but his claim is obviously totally wrong and thus invalid. -- Cecil 14:22, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

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

[edit] Image:Alyssa_Milano-1-.jpg

GFDL permission, where? -N 13:02, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Delete No permission --Simonxag 18:02, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

• Changed to {{npd}}. Samulili 15:51, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

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

[edit] Image:Bill_Cosby_(56318935).jpg

And this is why bots shouldn't review Flickr images -N 15:10, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Delete Copyrighted screenshot. -- Deadstar (msg) 15:37, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Come to think of it, why is Magnus Manske's bot vetting its own uploads? -N 15:47, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Deleted (again) -- Infrogmation 21:41, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

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

[edit] Image:Sureyya_Ayhahan_Sieg_EM_2002.jpg

Looks like a scan of a postcard -N 16:01, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

"Deutsch: Ich habe das schriftliche Einverständnis, alle Bilder frei nutzen zu dürfen. Daher ist dieses Bild public domain." I will change this to {{npd}}. Samulili 15:35, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

reopened: Scan of a postcard. Previous delete request was strangely closed as "keep" with a tag of no permission. Someone else removed the no permission tag. The German text says they have written permission. Without more information that is not enough to maintain this image on Commons. -N 04:26, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

The debate was closed and {{npd}} was added to the image because, only proper permission information was missing. The bot thought this debate was closed as kept, however. Regarding removing the "no permission" tag, that should not have be done. Samulili 12:26, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

• Deleted by User:Polarlys as "no permission". Samulili 12:26, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

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

[edit] Image:Yuri_Gagarin_Headline,_1961_(NASA)_(463614642).jpg

This is not a NASA image. The Russian cosmonaut photo is, of course, from Russia, and the Huntsville Times of course owns the newspaper. The cc-by-sa license is just a fiction for convenience at Flickr. -N 16:20, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Deleted by Zirland. --Christian Nurtsch^TM 14:32, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

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

[edit] Image:100_11.jpg

I can't even mark this as no license because of the spam filter. Kill it. Actually the uploader appears to be a spambot. Kill it too. -N 16:51, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Deleted by Herbythyme. --Christian Nurtsch^TM 14:30, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

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

[edit] Image:South-Park-clan.jpg

Characters in this image are identital to copyrighted characters from the animated series South Park.--Maniago 17:37, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Speedy Deleted, obvious copyright violation -- Infrogmation 21:25, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

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

[edit] Image:Xavi3.jpg

Appears to be an unauthorised derivative of a poster or similar. —LX (talk, contribs) 19:47, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

• Delete Agreed. Reflections in the shot look like it was shot through glass in a business establishment. Durova 20:56, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Deleted Obvious.-- Infrogmation 21:28, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

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

[edit] Image:Modesto_Delgado_Rodas,_Desnudo.JPG

The uploader claims to be the author of this "self-made" nude painting by Modesto Delgado Rodas, who died in 1963. This is clearly false, but what is the post mortem duration of copyright in Paraguay? —LX (talk, contribs) 19:56, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

• Delete It's pma+70 years[7]. -N 22:20, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Speedy deleted based on that along with Image:Modesto Delgado Rodas, Mita í,.JPG. Thanks. The user's other uploads also need some scrutiny. —LX (talk, contribs) 22:24, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

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

[edit] Image:Deinosuchus skull.JPG

What is its source and how old is the "very old picture" really? I guess not old enough to be public domain. --TomCatX 18:06, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

I found this deletion request. It was never closed and it looks like it was never included at Commons:Deletion requests. Multichill 20:27, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

• Changed to {{nsd}}. Samulili 20:33, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

- I can't remember the source. Ok for deletion. Regards. barracuda1983 21 January 2008

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

[edit] Image:Clock_underconstruction.svg

Broken file. I tried to get it speedy deleted but for some odd reason the admin declined it. -N 22:08, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Hi,

I removed the first speedy tag yesterday as I thought that a broken image should not just be deleted, but could simply reuploaded. I admit that I may have been more explicit by dropping a note to your talk page (or to the talk page of the speedy requester), instead of just commenting my action in the edit comment box...

As you may have noticed, after your message on User talk:Spoladore, this user decided to request a speedy deleting on his own, so I'll delete the image. However, I'll not consider it as a duplicate of the png version, as svg and png are significantly different.

I hope I didn't harm in any way!

Best regards from France,

-- AlNo (discuter/talk/hablar/falar) 09:24, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

Deleted per uploader speedy request. -- AlNo (discuter/talk/hablar/falar) 09:24, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

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

[edit] Image:Ponytail_Star_Mama.jpg

This image is obscene and offensive. 99.243.105.11 23:29, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

• Funny. But Keep. Lewis Collard! (talk, contribs, en.wp) 00:29, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
• Keep Lame. -N 02:02, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
• Keep We're not censored (although it's hard to see how this gives offense). Durova 04:15, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
• Keep - Offensive? It is difficult to show a ponytail with a Burqa - Chris 73 06:58, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

Kept. Jastrow (Λέγετε) 14:06, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

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

[edit] Image:Northport_(M)_logo.JPG

Doesnt look self-made to me, and, if it is, it is out of scope and is of no use here. So either copyvio or scopevio. - Anonymous Dissident^Talk 08:06, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

• Delete as copyrighted logo. Lewis Collard! (talk, contribs, en.wp) 13:03, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
• Delete Copyvio www.northport.com. --GeorgHH • talk   18:43, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
• Delete Take it to Wikipedia per nom. --Damian Yerrick (☎) 12:53, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

Deleted copyvio from http://www.northport.com.my/ - "All copyright, trademarks, and other intellectual property rights used as part of this website are vested in Northport and /or its licensors." -- Deadstar (msg) 09:26, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

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

[edit] Image:Manny Villar.jpg

copied from internet, possible copyvio[8] --F3rn4nd0 10:15, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

• Delete. MD5s for both files are the same; the Last-Modified header for the probable source of this picture predates the upload of this file by several months. Lewis Collard! (talk, contribs, en.wp) 11:58, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Deleted by Cecil: copyright violation, see Commons:Licensing

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

[edit] Image:Palats Sportu7.jpg

The image has bad quality.--Ahonc 12:53, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

• Delete, unfixable and unusable. Lewis Collard! (talk, contribs, en.wp) 12:59, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

No problem for me  KKonstantin 14:30, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Delete per nom --Simonxag 17:59, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Deleted Too blurry - out of scope. -- Deadstar (msg) 16:12, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

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

[edit] Image:Palats Sportu2.jpg

This image has bad quality --Ahonc 12:58, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

• Delete, blurriness not fixable. Lewis Collard! (talk, contribs, en.wp) 14:12, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

 No problem for me KKonstantin 14:31, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Delete per nom --Simonxag 18:00, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

deleted Too blurry - out of scope. 7 January 2008 User:Deadstar

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

[edit] Image:DSC02659.JPG

duplicate image - see "image:Palmaiola island - front view.jpg" Samuele 14:13, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Deleted {{duplicate}} -- Deadstar (msg) 16:14, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

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

[edit] Image:Dubcek.jpg

This image is very low quality, out of focus Zzyzx11 06:24, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Delete unusable --F3rn4nd0 07:02, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Keep The image is used on 25 pages in 17 projects, so I don't think it qualifies as unusable. It's evidently the only photo of Alexander Dubček we've got. RedCoat 11:57, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Strong keep but a good candidate for an illustrator to base a drawing on. --Simonxag 17:35, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Keep Terrible quality but important subject, would jettison if we had a better replacement. Durova 20:45, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Keep Low quality, but good enough to be usable at screen resolution. Any image this widely used should never be deleted due to "low quality" reasons since the simple fact of usage refutes the argument. May as well keep it permanently, since it's in so many articles' edit history, but it sure would be nice to have a better image to replace it with in articles. Carl Lindberg 07:10, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

Strong keep. At the end of August, 1968, Dubcek was delivered to CCCP and interrogated there; the KGBsts were supposed to make pics, (it is first operation at any detention). Let Zzyzx11 enter their archieve, and upload here the better pic. Do not let Zz to delete any pic before to upload its better equivalent. Domitori 03:02, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

Keep. I know very well that my photo is of poor quality. When I met Mr. Dubcek at the day after his election for president of the parliament, he was surrounded by crowds of reporters and fans. I had to kick away a lot of people before being able to take the picture (and was kicked myself as well, sure ;-)). In the end I caught his head as a very small part of the complete photograph; what you see now is a zoom-out with, of course, low resolution. But please take into consideration that it is, at present, the only free Dubcek picture we have for disposition here in Wikipedia.--Dr. Meierhofer 12:48, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

Keep --Clockwork Orange 10:38, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

strong keep per Dr. Meierhofer--Wiggum 11:15, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

• Kept - Although advice some involved to take it easy one what could be seen as sockpuppetry...— Giggy 02:58, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

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

[edit] Image:Capitolional.jpg

copyvio - taken from geocities claimed as self-made [9] --F3rn4nd0 07:00, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Delete per nom --Simonxag 17:36, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

deleted, --Polarlys 22:55, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

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

[edit] Image:Palmaecera.jpg

copyvio [10] --F3rn4nd0 07:13, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Delete Simple copyvios should be just be flagged as such. --Simonxag 17:39, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

deleted, --Polarlys 22:55, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

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

[edit] Image:New-10.GIF

[11] copyvio --F3rn4nd0 07:33, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Delete Simple copyvios should be just be flagged as such. --Simonxag 17:42, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

deleted, --Polarlys 22:55, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

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

[edit] Image:Saltoo.jpg

per this Image:Saltto.jpg copyvio [12]--F3rn4nd0 07:35, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Keep Same subject, same vantage point (probably purpose built for tourists) but just not the same photo. --Simonxag 17:44, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Is the uploader Fredy Gómez? [13] If not, and it seems unlikely, Delete. The image linked above is different, and thus is not a reason to delete, but the image I just linked to is identical. Carl Lindberg 07:24, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

deleted, copyvio --Polarlys 22:58, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

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

[edit] Image:Santa-Sara.jpg

[14][15]copyvio --F3rn4nd0 08:08, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Delete blatant copyvio --Simonxag 17:53, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

deleted, --Polarlys 22:56, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

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

[edit] Image:1149275309noc big.jpg

[16]copyvio --F3rn4nd0 08:15, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Delete blatant --Simonxag 17:54, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Keep In that site there is another image form wikipedia is Image:Bogotaview.jpg and that image is form other author. Is very possible that the site upload pics from commons without mention it. Sorry for my english. ---Chien 02:13, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

Take a look at the other stuff this user has uploaded! --Simonxag 02:56, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

deleted, --Polarlys 22:56, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

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

[edit] Image:SELENE.jpg

Not a NASA image. The image is from http://nssdc.gsfc.nasa.gov/nmc/spacecraftDisplay.do?id=2007-039A, where it says "All images and diagrams courtesy JAXA" 62.216.198.20 12:25, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

• Delete JAXA copyright policy is unfree. -N 12:52, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
• Delete agree with deletion nomination, JAXA images are non-free. TheDJ 16:31, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Unfree - delete. --- Anonymous Dissident^Talk 02:49, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

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

[edit] Image:Saltto.jpg

copyvio all info in the Colombian government websites are copyrighted [17] --F3rn4nd0 06:55, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

This image couldn't have been captured by him it is too perfect Inertkids 08:24, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

 Comment A copyvio is not unlikely, taking a closer look to the uploader's history. But this one is not the same image, it's taken from a different location, apparently with different shutter speed, different light...btw - "too perfect" indeed would not qualify as a reason for deletion, you ever heard of Featured pictures? --194.48.128.75 13:21, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

 Comment This isn't from any government website, the link is from another image, ad you can't argue that is too perfect. can't i take a good shot?? both reasons r wrong