Commons:Deletion requests/Archive/2010/01/06

Minghui does not have right to declare this public domain. This image is a work derived from a video produced by en:China Central Television, who are the likely copyright holders. It is unlikely, and there is no indication that ownership rights have been renounced or subrogated to Minghui in any way. --Ohconfucius (talk) 02:53, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

•  Delete. Incorrect licence applied, and insufficient evidence that file is in the public domain. — Cheers, JackLee ^–talk– 09:43, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

 Delete per Ohconfucius Beep21 (talk) 03:26, 11 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 14:49, 13 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Copyrighted logo --Ednei amaral (talk) 03:32, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

•  Delete "© Copyright 2009 Globo Comunicação e Participações S.A. Política de Privacidade". Otherwise an OTRS. ZooFari 03:48, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted. I dont know how often I already deleted this non-free logo from Commons. No fair use here. --Martin H. (talk) 04:42, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Unused, lower-quality duplicate of File:RensselaerCounty Brunswick.svg. Since the svg version is of such higher quality, yet completely redundant, I don't see any benefit in keeping the png around. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 04:26, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

•  Delete I think it's distorted... ZooFari 23:01, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
•  Delete Very distorted, indeed inaccurate. Unnecessary due to File:RensselaerCounty Brunswick.svg, which can be made into a png of any size for free. upstateNYer 03:05, 7 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted, redundant to File:RensselaerCounty Brunswick.svg. Deletion in accordance with superseded images policy. –blurpeace ^(talk) 23:01, 13 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

unused, no proper description, one of several similar files, non-fitting permission tag - out of scope Cholo Aleman (talk) 05:37, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

•  Delete unused and useless.   ■ MMXX  ^talk  07:48, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
•  Delete. How is the PD-Vietnam licence even relevant? — Cheers, JackLee ^–talk– 09:44, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
•  Delete per Cholo Aleman Beep21 (talk) 03:54, 11 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 14:50, 13 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

private drawing, bad quality - not useful Cholo Aleman (talk) 05:42, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

•  Delete unused and useless, outside of the project scope.   ■ MMXX  ^talk  07:51, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
•  Delete not educational Beep21 (talk) 03:57, 11 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 14:50, 13 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

description: "nada" - nice people, but useless without descriptions, only edit of this user Cholo Aleman (talk) 05:51, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

•  Delete Possibly out os scope; failure to give a description means the people in the photo will remain anonymous. ZooFari 23:08, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
•  Delete not educational Beep21 (talk) 03:58, 11 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 14:50, 13 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

logo of a nonexisting record label - out of scope Cholo Aleman (talk) 06:01, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

•  Delete per nom, also a note below permission in image page says "DOnt use this without my permission".   ■ MMXX  ^talk  07:59, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted -- Infrogmation (talk) 06:41, 10 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Out of scope: this flag doesn't seem to exist anywhere but in the uploader's imagination. –Tryphon^☂ 08:04, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

•  Delete I checked the news and other sources to see if this flag is indeed new; nothing. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return fire)} 08:19, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
•  Delete per nom.   ■ MMXX  ^talk  08:30, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
•  Delete It's not the flag of Palestine. User seems to invent flags of his choosing, to replace recognised ones. RolandR (talk) 11:57, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
•  Delete This kind of non-notable flag designs is not in project scope. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 15:25, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
•  Delete per above. Looks like the user has lots of similar images, for example File:Allemagne03.PNG. Might be usable in userboxes or something, but... definitely not a good idea to let anyone assume it is a real flag. Carl Lindberg (talk) 18:34, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
•  Delete per nom. Ricardo P. (talk) 21:15, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

__ This flag does exist. This is the Turkish-Palestinian resistance. This flag was created following the World Economic Forum in Davos. It would take some research to see that it's true.

Regarding the German flag, it is also existing. This flag represents the Turkish community in Germany. You could also see him watching the match Germany - Turkey.AteshCommons (talk) 10:54, 10 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Almost certainly delete. AteshCommons is now claiming this to be the flag of something entirely different than what he or she described it as being when uploading. Either AteshCommons needs to bring forth some documentation of what he or she now claim, or not only should this image be deleted, but we should comb closely through all of his or her other uploads. - Jmabel ! talk 00:58, 11 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
•  Delete per Jmabel Beep21 (talk) 04:11, 11 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

 Done deleted - out of scope and unused. Michelet-密是力 (talk) 08:05, 13 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted by Micheletb. –Tryphon^☂ 08:29, 13 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Encyclopaedic use not thinkable. The image is not used and what it shows cannot be identified properly. High Contrast (talk) 08:06, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

•  speedy delete Here is also it's duplicate: File:Jay jay image 057.jpg, Commons is not a personal image storage. IMO most of this user images are problematic and not useful, take look at uploader's user page, uploader thinks here is her/his personal website.   ■ MMXX  ^talk  08:41, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
•  Delete - impossible to identify, and thus cannot be used in any educational way. Ale_Jrb^talk 12:44, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
•  Delete per nom Cholo Aleman (talk) 08:46, 8 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 14:52, 13 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hebrew "All rights reserved" in bottom Netanel h (talk) 11:38, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

 Delete Some gambling site; not used, not in scope. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 15:29, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted. –blurpeace ^(talk) 23:04, 13 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hebrew "All rights reserved" in bottom Netanel h (talk) 11:40, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

•  Delete Per nom, also "No source" since August 2008.   ■ MMXX  ^talk  06:54, 7 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted. –blurpeace ^(talk) 23:05, 13 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

advertisements, looks like copyrihgted images, as other uploaded by the same user Netanel h (talk) 11:43, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

•  Delete No source and no description, should have been marked as "No source" two years ago!   ■ MMXX  ^talk  06:52, 7 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted. –blurpeace ^(talk) 23:06, 13 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Copyright violation of art(map).

Place:Osaka,Japan.

Note:Freedom_of_panorama#Japan--KENPEI (talk) 12:23, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

 Delete The sign is protected by copyright. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 15:55, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

 DeleteThe copyright holder in figure was not confirmed.おさ (talk) 08:22, 9 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted. J.smith (talk) 01:50, 17 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

copyvio of http://www.u-toyama.ac.jp/jp/access/access.html --Sushiya (talk) 13:51, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted. Justass (talk) 19:20, 8 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

copyvio of http://www.panoramio.com/photo/4598148 --Sushiya (talk) 14:14, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted. One of many from same uploader Justass (talk) 19:06, 8 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

copyvio of http://4travel.jp/traveler/suomita/pict/17688792/src.html --Sushiya (talk) 14:24, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted. Justass (talk) 19:12, 8 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This is a COPY of an image posted several times on the commons and on wikipedia with different file names. Furthermore this file name does not make any sense! 19:27, 14 June 2009 99.226.115.81 (completed incomplete request --MGA73 (talk) 18:49, 23 June 2009 (UTC))[reply]

•  Comment Where is the correct file? This image is in use by the way. --MGA73 (talk) 18:49, 23 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Kept. In use. Pruneau^talk 14:27, 15 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

One of many redundant Spanish Empire maps uploaded by EuroHistoryTeacher. Two others that are the same as this one include: File:Spanish Empire1975.png and File:Spanish Empire (total expantion).png.

 Delete Not in use anymore! --Maps & Lucy (talk) 15:37, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

 Delete Here are examples of absolute duplicates and mildly altered depictions of the Spanish Empire including this one:

1. File:666999.PNG

2. File:666333.PNG

3. File:SpanishEmpire1975.PNG

4. File:SpanishEmpire1492.png

5. File:Imperioespañol1402.PNG

6. File:HispaniaRegnum-World.png

7. File:SpanishEmpireHRE.PNG

8. File:CorrectoImperioEspañol.png

9. File:SpanishEmpireanachronic.png — Preceding unsigned comment added by Maps & Lucy (talk • contribs) 15:58, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, watch your step! These images have different territories highlighted... They are NOT all the same!--92.194.138.82 17:20, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Closed. All these maps were nominated or listed in multiple requests and the same comments were spammed to all of them. I am simply closing them since Blurpeace already deleted the files "per Commons:Deletion_requests/File:666333.PNG". Rocket000 (talk) 05:42, 6 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This is a redundant COPY of absolute and simular images up-loaded by EuroHistoryTeacher and is missing Portugese claims during the union! --Maps & Lucy (talk) 15:40, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

 Delete Here are examples of absolute duplicates and mildly altered depictions of the Spanish Empire including this one:

1. File:666999.PNG

2. File:666333.PNG

3. File:SpanishEmpire1975.PNG

4. File:SpanishEmpire1492.png

5. File:Imperioespañol1402.PNG

6. File:HispaniaRegnum-World.png

7. File:SpanishEmpireHRE.PNG

8. File:CorrectoImperioEspañol.png

9. File:SpanishEmpireanachronic.png

 Delete All these maps were just an attempt by User:EuroHistoryTeacher to enhance his POV, wich was refused in a huge number of discussions (namely en:Spanish Empire). The file File:Imperio espanol-3-.png, although not uploaded by the same user is also redundant, very similar to all these ones and not used at all. I should also be deleted. The Ogre (talk) 20:08, 19 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, and there is also File:SpanishEmpire1492.PNG by EuroHistoryTeacher. Delete it! The Ogre (talk) 20:08, 19 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

And also File:Spanish Empire color.png, File:Hahaharedhatofpatferrick.PNG, File:Spanish Empire total.PNG, File:HRE Charles V.PNG, all by EuroHistoryTeacher. Delete them! In fact, someone should stop this guy... The Ogre (talk) 20:15, 19 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Another similar fabrication by User:Emiliojcp is File:Spanish Overseas Empire and Spanish Hapsburg Realms Without Portugal Empire.jpg. It should also be deleted. The Ogre (talk) 13:03, 20 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

And here is still another one by User:Willyvice - File:Imperio.png... The Ogre (talk) 13:06, 20 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

As far as I can tell, all the maps shown in the gallery below should be deleted. The Ogre (talk) 13:42, 20 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• File:HRE Charles V.PNG
• File:Imperio espanol-3-.png
• File:SpanishEmpire1492.PNG

Since they are copies, or variations of:

Which are highly POV and OR maps (as can be seen in the discussions) basically only used in Spanish wikipedias (Castilian, Catalan, Galician, Asturian, etc.), and that should in fact all be replaced bi the correct map shown below. The Ogre (talk) 13:42, 20 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

 Delete In agreement with both previous commentaries, The image forms part of a gallery of images done to satisfy EuroHistoryTeacher's individual claims and it is one of many redundant Spanish Empire maps uploaded by him. Trasamundo (talk) 16:52, 21 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted. Blurpeace 05:20, 6 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

source is google images - copyright violation Cholo Aleman (talk) 16:02, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

•  Delete per nom.   ■ MMXX  ^talk  06:43, 7 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted. — Dferg (talk) 19:10, 13 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

joke, out of scope Cholo Aleman (talk) 16:45, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

•  Delete per nom.   ■ MMXX  ^talk  06:41, 7 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 14:53, 13 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Copyright violation Kenmayer (talk) 17:21, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

•  Delete per nom, uploader admitted that it is copyvio (See image page history).   ■ MMXX  ^talk  06:46, 7 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 14:53, 13 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Unusable (scaled) version of File:Jablonski Termschema.png. --Leyo 17:26, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

 Delete Should be SVG to scale properly. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 20:36, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

 Delete In that form unusuable. --Yikrazuul (talk) 11:08, 7 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted. Edgar181 (talk) 20:22, 25 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It can't be own work by uploader: resolution is low, black & white, and the band is clearly standing for a press photo. The band despicted disbanded in 1997. Even more, I have a magazine from a decade ago that uses this very same image as a poster (it was surely a reuse of a photo took from some other magazine, but it serves to deny the "own work" claim). The site linked is a repository of scanned photos, as told in the main page Belgrano (talk) 23:13, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

•  Delete running it through TinEye reveals that it's an old standard picture of the band. We'd certainly need OTRS permission before we could use it, even if the photographer did uploaded it.--Prosfilaes (talk) 01:52, 7 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• http://www.mtv.com/music/artist/soundgarden/artist.jhtml suggest copyright lies with A&M Records. Track record of original uploader at en-wiki leaves me convinced that he doesn't really own copyright. Amalthea (talk) 23:07, 8 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Delete en Wikipedia version of this image has been deleted as copyvio. Extract from deletion log:
    
  • 01:03, 9 January 2010 Amalthea (talk | contribs) deleted "File:Circ061797.jpg" ‎ (F9: Image copyright violation without claim of PD, FU etc, http://www.mtv.com/music/artist/soundgarden/artist.jhtml)

Speedily deleted by User:High Contrast as copyright violation Belgrano (talk) 20:10, 10 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

There are many images of the Spanish Empire on the Commons when only one or two would really be neccisary. This one is not being used anywhere at all, so there is no reason to keep it. Furthermore the Portugese never held inner Ethiopia and western Idea to the extent the map dipicts and the Spanish never owned Cambodia at all, it was under the Empire of Siam and later French Indochina. --Maps & Lucy (talk) 02:41, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

 Delete Here are examples of absolute duplicates and mildly altered depictions of the Spanish Empire including this one:

1. File:666999.PNG

2. File:666333.PNG

3. File:SpanishEmpire1975.PNG

4. File:SpanishEmpire1492.png

5. File:Imperioespañol1402.PNG

6. File:HispaniaRegnum-World.png

7. File:SpanishEmpireHRE.PNG

8. File:CorrectoImperioEspañol.png

9. File:SpanishEmpireanachronic.png

Watch your step, there are slight differences in the pictures and they show the Spanish Empires during different periods...--92.194.138.82 17:22, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

 Delete All these maps were just an attempt by User:EuroHistoryTeacher to enhance his POV, wich was refused in a huge number of discussions (namely en:Spanish Empire). The file File:Imperio espanol-3-.png, although not uploaded by the same user is also redundant, very similar to all these ones and not used at all. I should also be deleted. The Ogre (talk) 20:09, 19 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, and there is also File:SpanishEmpire1492.PNG by EuroHistoryTeacher. Delete it! The Ogre (talk) 20:09, 19 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

And also File:Spanish Empire color.png, File:Hahaharedhatofpatferrick.PNG, File:Spanish Empire total.PNG, File:HRE Charles V.PNG, all by EuroHistoryTeacher. Delete them! In fact, someone should stop this guy... The Ogre (talk) 20:15, 19 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Another similar fabrication by User:Emiliojcp is File:Spanish Overseas Empire and Spanish Hapsburg Realms Without Portugal Empire.jpg. It should also be deleted. The Ogre (talk) 13:03, 20 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

And here is still another one by User:Willyvice - File:Imperio.png... The Ogre (talk) 13:06, 20 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

As far as I can tell, all the maps shown in the gallery below should be deleted. The Ogre (talk) 13:42, 20 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• File:HRE Charles V.PNG
• File:Imperio espanol-3-.png
• File:SpanishEmpire1492.PNG

Since they are copies, or variations of:

Which are highly POV and OR maps (as can be seen in the discussions) basically only used in Spanish wikipedias (Castilian, Catalan, Galician, Asturian, etc.), and that should in fact all be replaced bi the correct map shown below. The Ogre (talk) 13:42, 20 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

 Delete In agreement with both previous commentaries, The image forms part of a gallery of images done to satisfy EuroHistoryTeacher's individual claims and it is one of many redundant Spanish Empire maps uploaded by him. Trasamundo (talk) 16:49, 21 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Closed. All these maps were nominated or listed in multiple requests and the same comments were spammed to all of them. I am simply closing them since Blurpeace already deleted the files "per Commons:Deletion_requests/File:666333.PNG". Rocket000 (talk) 05:42, 6 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This is a redundant image by User:EuroHistoryTeacher, There are other images that depict the same thing by other users. Example is File:Spanish Empire color.png --Maps & Lucy (talk) 15:44, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

 Delete Here are examples of absolute duplicates and mildly altered depictions of the Spanish Empire including this one:

1. File:666999.PNG

2. File:666333.PNG

3. File:SpanishEmpire1975.PNG

4. File:SpanishEmpire1492.png

5. File:Imperioespañol1402.PNG

6. File:HispaniaRegnum-World.png

7. File:SpanishEmpireHRE.PNG

8. File:CorrectoImperioEspañol.png

9. File:SpanishEmpireanachronic.png

 Delete All these maps were just an attempt by User:EuroHistoryTeacher to enhance his POV, wich was refused in a huge number of discussions (namely en:Spanish Empire). The file File:Imperio espanol-3-.png, although not uploaded by the same user is also redundant, very similar to all these ones and not used at all. I should also be deleted. The Ogre (talk) 20:04, 19 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, and there is also File:SpanishEmpire1492.PNG by EuroHistoryTeacher. Delete it! The Ogre (talk) 20:06, 19 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

And also File:Spanish Empire color.png, File:Hahaharedhatofpatferrick.PNG, File:Spanish Empire total.PNG, File:HRE Charles V.PNG, all by EuroHistoryTeacher. Delete them! In fact, someone should stop this guy... The Ogre (talk) 20:15, 19 February 2010 (UTC):::Another similar fabrication by User:Emiliojcp is File:Spanish Overseas Empire and Spanish Hapsburg Realms Without Portugal Empire.jpg. It should also be deleted. The Ogre (talk) 13:03, 20 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

And here is still another one by User:Willyvice - File:Imperio.png... The Ogre (talk) 13:06, 20 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

As far as I can tell, all the maps shown in the gallery below should be deleted. The Ogre (talk) 13:42, 20 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• File:HRE Charles V.PNG
• File:Imperio espanol-3-.png
• File:SpanishEmpire1492.PNG

Since they are copies, or variations of:

Which are highly POV and OR maps (as can be seen in the discussions) basically only used in Spanish wikipedias (Castilian, Catalan, Galician, Asturian, etc.), and that should in fact all be replaced bi the correct map shown below. The Ogre (talk) 13:42, 20 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

 Delete In agreement with both previous commentaries, The image forms part of a gallery of images done to satisfy EuroHistoryTeacher's individual claims and it is one of many redundant Spanish Empire maps uploaded by him. Trasamundo (talk) 16:51, 21 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Closed. All these maps were nominated or listed in multiple requests and the same comments were spammed to all of them. I am simply closing them since Blurpeace already deleted the files "per Commons:Deletion_requests/File:666333.PNG". Rocket000 (talk) 05:43, 6 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This is a redundant COPY of images made by EuroHistoryTeacher! File:Spanish Empire color.png will work for all pages requiring an image of the Spanish Empire. --Maps & Lucy (talk) 15:47, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

 Delete Here are examples of absolute duplicates and mildly altered depictions of the Spanish Empire including this one:

1. File:666999.PNG

2. File:666333.PNG

3. File:SpanishEmpire1975.PNG

4. File:SpanishEmpire1492.png

5. File:Imperioespañol1402.PNG

6. File:HispaniaRegnum-World.png

7. File:SpanishEmpireHRE.PNG

8. File:CorrectoImperioEspañol.png

9. File:SpanishEmpireanachronic.png

 Delete Per above. Ricardo P. (talk) 20:51, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

 Delete All these maps were just an attempt by User:EuroHistoryTeacher to enhance his POV, wich was refused in a huge number of discussions (namely en:Spanish Empire). The file File:Imperio espanol-3-.png, although not uploaded by the same user is also redundant, very similar to all these ones and not used at all. I should also be deleted. The Ogre (talk) 20:08, 19 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, and there is also File:SpanishEmpire1492.PNG by EuroHistoryTeacher. Delete it! The Ogre (talk) 20:08, 19 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

And also File:Spanish Empire color.png, File:Hahaharedhatofpatferrick.PNG, File:Spanish Empire total.PNG, File:HRE Charles V.PNG, all by EuroHistoryTeacher. Delete them! In fact, someone should stop this guy... The Ogre (talk) 20:15, 19 February 2010 (UTC):::Another similar fabrication by User:Emiliojcp is File:Spanish Overseas Empire and Spanish Hapsburg Realms Without Portugal Empire.jpg. It should also be deleted. The Ogre (talk) 13:03, 20 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

And here is still another one by User:Willyvice - File:Imperio.png... The Ogre (talk) 13:06, 20 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

As far as I can tell, all the maps shown in the gallery below should be deleted. The Ogre (talk) 13:42, 20 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• File:HRE Charles V.PNG
• File:Imperio espanol-3-.png
• File:SpanishEmpire1492.PNG

Since they are copies, or variations of:

Which are highly POV and OR maps (as can be seen in the discussions) basically only used in Spanish wikipedias (Castilian, Catalan, Galician, Asturian, etc.), and that should in fact all be replaced bi the correct map shown below. The Ogre (talk) 13:42, 20 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

 Delete In agreement with both previous commentaries, The image forms part of a gallery of images done to satisfy EuroHistoryTeacher's individual claims and it is one of many redundant Spanish Empire maps uploaded by him. Trasamundo (talk) 16:50, 21 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Closed. All these maps were nominated or listed in multiple requests and the same comments were spammed to all of them. I am simply closing them since Blurpeace already deleted the files "per Commons:Deletion_requests/File:666333.PNG". Rocket000 (talk) 05:43, 6 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Redundancy of images by EuroHistoryTeacher. Missing Portugese claims which are in the image File:Spanish Empire color.png --Maps & Lucy (talk) 15:50, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

 Delete Here are examples of absolute duplicates and mildly altered depictions of the Spanish Empire including this one:

1. File:666999.PNG

2. File:666333.PNG

3. File:SpanishEmpire1975.PNG

4. File:SpanishEmpire1492.png

5. File:Imperioespañol1402.PNG

6. File:HispaniaRegnum-World.png

7. File:SpanishEmpireHRE.PNG

8. File:CorrectoImperioEspañol.png

9. File:SpanishEmpireanachronic.png

 Delete All these maps were just an attempt by User:EuroHistoryTeacher to enhance his POV, wich was refused in a huge number of discussions (namely en:Spanish Empire). The file File:Imperio espanol-3-.png, although not uploaded by the same user is also redundant, very similar to all these ones and not used at all. I should also be deleted. The Ogre (talk) 20:08, 19 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, and there is also File:SpanishEmpire1492.PNG by EuroHistoryTeacher. Delete it! The Ogre (talk) 20:08, 19 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

And also File:Spanish Empire color.png, File:Hahaharedhatofpatferrick.PNG, File:Spanish Empire total.PNG, File:HRE Charles V.PNG, all by EuroHistoryTeacher. Delete them! In fact, someone should stop this guy... The Ogre (talk) 20:15, 19 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Another similar fabrication by User:Emiliojcp is File:Spanish Overseas Empire and Spanish Hapsburg Realms Without Portugal Empire.jpg. It should also be deleted. The Ogre (talk) 13:03, 20 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

And here is still another one by User:Willyvice - File:Imperio.png... The Ogre (talk) 13:06, 20 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

As far as I can tell, all the maps shown in the gallery below should be deleted. The Ogre (talk) 13:42, 20 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• File:HRE Charles V.PNG
• File:Imperio espanol-3-.png
• File:SpanishEmpire1492.PNG

Since they are copies, or variations of:

Which are highly POV and OR maps (as can be seen in the discussions) basically only used in Spanish wikipedias (Castilian, Catalan, Galician, Asturian, etc.), and that should in fact all be replaced bi the correct map shown below. The Ogre (talk) 13:42, 20 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

 Delete In agreement with both previous commentaries, The image forms part of a gallery of images done to satisfy EuroHistoryTeacher's individual claims and it is one of many redundant Spanish Empire maps uploaded by him. Trasamundo (talk) 16:50, 21 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Closed. All these maps were nominated or listed in multiple requests and the same comments were spammed to all of them. I am simply closing them since Blurpeace already deleted the files "per Commons:Deletion_requests/File:666333.PNG". Rocket000 (talk) 05:43, 6 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This is a reduntant duplicate of Spanish Empire maps by EuroHistoryTeacher. (Germany was not part of the empire in any way!!!) --Maps & Lucy (talk) 15:52, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

 Delete Here are examples of absolute duplicates and mildly altered depictions of the Spanish Empire including this one:

1. File:666999.PNG

2. File:666333.PNG

3. File:SpanishEmpire1975.PNG

4. File:SpanishEmpire1492.png

5. File:Imperioespañol1402.PNG

6. File:HispaniaRegnum-World.png

7. File:SpanishEmpireHRE.PNG

8. File:CorrectoImperioEspañol.png

9. File:SpanishEmpireanachronic.png

 Delete All these maps were just an attempt by User:EuroHistoryTeacher to enhance his POV, wich was refused in a huge number of discussions (namely en:Spanish Empire). The file File:Imperio espanol-3-.png, although not uploaded by the same user is also redundant, very similar to all these ones and not used at all. I should also be deleted. The Ogre (talk) 20:08, 19 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, and there is also File:SpanishEmpire1492.PNG by EuroHistoryTeacher. Delete it! The Ogre (talk) 20:08, 19 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

And also File:Spanish Empire color.png, File:Hahaharedhatofpatferrick.PNG, File:Spanish Empire total.PNG, File:HRE Charles V.PNG, all by EuroHistoryTeacher. Delete them! In fact, someone should stop this guy... The Ogre (talk) 20:15, 19 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Another similar fabrication by User:Emiliojcp is File:Spanish Overseas Empire and Spanish Hapsburg Realms Without Portugal Empire.jpg. It should also be deleted. The Ogre (talk) 13:03, 20 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

And here is still another one by User:Willyvice - File:Imperio.png... The Ogre (talk) 13:06, 20 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

As far as I can tell, all the maps shown in the gallery below should be deleted. The Ogre (talk) 13:42, 20 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• File:HRE Charles V.PNG
• File:Imperio espanol-3-.png
• File:SpanishEmpire1492.PNG

Since they are copies, or variations of:

Which are highly POV and OR maps (as can be seen in the discussions) basically only used in Spanish wikipedias (Castilian, Catalan, Galician, Asturian, etc.), and that should in fact all be replaced bi the correct map shown below. The Ogre (talk) 13:42, 20 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

 Delete In agreement with both previous commentaries, The image forms part of a gallery of images done to satisfy EuroHistoryTeacher's individual claims and it is one of many redundant Spanish Empire maps uploaded by him. Trasamundo (talk) 16:51, 21 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Closed. All these maps were nominated or listed in multiple requests and the same comments were spammed to all of them. I am simply closing them since Blurpeace already deleted the files "per Commons:Deletion_requests/File:666333.PNG". Rocket000 (talk) 05:44, 6 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Redundant COPY of an image of the Spanish Empire's claims by EuroHistoryTeacher! Exadurated claims by Portugese! --Maps & Lucy (talk) 15:57, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

 Delete Here are examples of absolute duplicates and mildly altered depictions of the Spanish Empire including this one:

1. File:666999.PNG

2. File:666333.PNG

3. File:SpanishEmpire1975.PNG

4. File:SpanishEmpire1492.png

5. File:Imperioespañol1402.PNG

6. File:HispaniaRegnum-World.png

7. File:SpanishEmpireHRE.PNG

8. File:CorrectoImperioEspañol.png

9. File:SpanishEmpireanachronic.png

 Delete All these maps were just an attempt by User:EuroHistoryTeacher to enhance his POV, wich was refused in a huge number of discussions (namely en:Spanish Empire). The file File:Imperio espanol-3-.png, although not uploaded by the same user is also redundant, very similar to all these ones and not used at all. I should also be deleted. The Ogre (talk) 20:09, 19 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, and there is also File:SpanishEmpire1492.PNG by EuroHistoryTeacher. Delete it! The Ogre (talk) 20:09, 19 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

And also File:Spanish Empire color.png, File:Hahaharedhatofpatferrick.PNG, File:Spanish Empire total.PNG, File:HRE Charles V.PNG, all by EuroHistoryTeacher. Delete them! In fact, someone should stop this guy... The Ogre (talk) 20:15, 19 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Another similar fabrication by User:Emiliojcp is File:Spanish Overseas Empire and Spanish Hapsburg Realms Without Portugal Empire.jpg. It should also be deleted. The Ogre (talk) 13:03, 20 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

And here is still another one by User:Willyvice - File:Imperio.png... The Ogre (talk) 13:06, 20 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

As far as I can tell, all the maps shown in the gallery below should be deleted. The Ogre (talk) 13:42, 20 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• File:HRE Charles V.PNG
• File:Imperio espanol-3-.png
• File:SpanishEmpire1492.PNG

Since they are copies, or variations of:

Which are highly POV and OR maps (as can be seen in the discussions) basically only used in Spanish wikipedias (Castilian, Catalan, Galician, Asturian, etc.), and that should in fact all be replaced bi the correct map shown below. The Ogre (talk) 13:42, 20 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

 Delete In agreement with both previous commentaries, The image forms a part of a gallery of images done to satisfy claims individuals of EuroHistoryTeacher and it is one of many redundant Spanish Empire maps uploaded by him. Trasamundo (talk) 16:47, 21 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

•  Delete per above (but  Keep File:Spanish Empire.png and File:Imperio español.png which have long histories and discussions.) Roke (talk) 04:00, 27 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yes, yes, I was not proposing those two for deletion, even if I strongly disagree with them! The Ogre (talk) 16:38, 28 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Closed. All these maps were nominated or listed in multiple requests and the same comments were spammed to all of them. I am simply closing them since Blurpeace already deleted the files "per Commons:Deletion_requests/File:666333.PNG". Rocket000 (talk) 05:46, 6 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I cannot find any evidence that this image was released into the public domain. Image was uploaded by a single purpose account (SPA) with no other edits. Same can be said of their en.wiki account as well. I am afraid this may be a copyright violation. --JBsupreme (talk) 16:58, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete no evidence that this was in fact done by a USG employee in official capacity (the content alone suggests this is fishy.) Not verifiable = no good for commons. David Fuchs (talk) 15:10, 19 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted. Polarlys (talk) 10:15, 23 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Duplicate, not used. Also inaccurate (Cardiff not Cambridge) timd (talk) 00:59, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted. Polarlys (talk) 10:15, 23 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Copyright material derived from video, not own work. timd (talk) 01:51, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

 Delete. Copyright Violation}. Ricardo P. (talk) 20:53, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

•  Comment - Which video did the picture came from? Techman224^Talk 02:33, 19 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
•  Comment - About 40 secs into this one http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a9AiBfAn2ZI, believed to be derived from TV or promotional video. timd (talk) 16:08, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted. Polarlys (talk) 10:15, 23 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The logo is too complex for {{PD-textlogo}}, and there is insufficient indication that the uploader is the copyright holder and entitled to release the image to the Commons. It should be transferred back to the English Wikipedia and other language Wikipedias under a fair-use licence, if applicable. — Cheers, JackLee ^–talk– 06:02, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

•  Delete per Jacklee

Deleted. Polarlys (talk) 10:15, 23 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

useless image with nonsense description, no proper source information.   ■ MMXX  ^talk  08:22, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

•  Keep. The description is indeed nonsense and should be replaced by a basic description of the subject of the photograph, and a personality rights warning should be added. Otherwise the image is in focus and could be used for a number of articles. Uploader asserts it is his or her own work, and I don't see anything raising suspicion that this might not be the case. The photograph does not appear to be that of a celebrity taken by a professional photographer and ripped from a website. We should assume good faith. — Cheers, JackLee ^–talk– 09:52, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • What articles, about what? Elekhh (talk) 00:36, 11 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
•  Delete. Auto promotion, Notable because of the description. Ricardo P. (talk) 21:02, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
•  Delete. Looks like private image: not in scope. No indication of educational value. Not in use. Elekhh (talk) 00:36, 11 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted. Polarlys (talk) 00:16, 23 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The stated permission gives no conclusion about free commercial use or derivative work. High Contrast (talk) 11:32, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted. Polarlys (talk) 10:15, 23 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Copyright violation of art(map).

Place:Osaka,Japan.

Note:Freedom_of_panorama#Japan--KENPEI (talk) 12:17, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

 DeleteThe copyright holder in figure was not confirmed.おさ (talk) 08:20, 9 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

 Delete /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 19:47, 12 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted. Polarlys (talk) 00:02, 23 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Copyright violation of photo.--KENPEI (talk) 13:07, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

•  Delete COM:DW. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 15:56, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

per nom Deleted. Mbdortmund (talk) 11:55, 6 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

source = google Ziyalistix (talk) 18:39, 27 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

copyright violation --Ziyalistix (talk) 17:16, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted. Polarlys (talk) 10:16, 23 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It's a logo copied from http://www.santaisabel.com.br/pt_br/informacoes.php , where it's not licensed as here. --Ednei amaral (talk) 19:32, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

•  Delete Clear Copyright Violation. Ricardo P. (talk) 21:29, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted. Polarlys (talk) 00:02, 23 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

bad name and no license for the older--Pantoine (talk) 20:26, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

•  Comment So what is the good name? /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 20:33, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The good name":I have uploaded my new file with an other name. But I request the deletion because I uploaded by error a first version (see history) of "SNCF 4dmd2.jpg" which has copyright.--Pantoine (talk) 21:34, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted. 19:42, 9 January 2010 Túrelio (talk | contribs | block) deleted "File:SNCF 4dmd2.jpg" ‎ ((incorrectly named) duplicate of File:SNCF BB60032.jpg) Rocket000 (talk) 06:20, 6 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

unused personal foto - out of scope Cholo Aleman (talk) 20:59, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

 Delete per nom.   ■ MMXX  ^talk  06:40, 7 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

 Delete--Pullus In Fabula (talk) 20:01, 20 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

per nom Deleted. Mbdortmund (talk) 11:57, 6 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

duplicated image Anenja (talk) 21:10, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

-- Speedy delete. Duplicate of File:Escudo de Alcalá la Real-Jaen.svg -- Asclepias (talk) 14:34, 16 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

per nom Deleted. Mbdortmund (talk) 11:58, 6 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Copyright status is unclear. Website just says "Copyright © 2005 - 2010 Ayuntamiento de Viver". It is not clear wether Mariaviver is the copyright owner. Please follow Commons:OTRS to send permission to commons. Jan Arkesteijn (talk) 21:25, 6 January 2010 (UTC) Jan Arkesteijn (talk) 21:25, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted. Polarlys (talk) 10:24, 23 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

License is not verifable/ creator and person in the picture are the same person MartinS (talk) 23:00, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted. Polarlys (talk) 00:02, 23 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to write "Keep it" just for the reason that it looks nice please consider that per Commons:Freedom_of_panorama#United_States there is no Freedom of Panorama in the US for 2D Artwork. If you still want to keep it, you can search for the artist and ask him/her if s/he would give us the permission to host a file of his/her image under a free licence confirmed with an OTRS ticket. --D-Kuru (talk) 09:10, 10 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

good and educative image but it's a derivative work of a graffiti in Queens, New York, USA. There is no FOP in the USA for 2D Artwork --D-Kuru (talk) 14:48, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

have some respect for the king of hip hop. this image deserves to be seen by the eyes of the world. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.208.210.243 (talk • contribs) 12:36, 19. Jan. 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, respect has been sold out...; "this image deserves to be seen" Yes, maybe. However, Commons only collects free media and even the licence is free the shown content (the graffiti) was presumably not made by the author of this image. In the US you would need a permission from the author to keep this image under a free licence. Afterall this image can be found on flickr anyway so it can still be "seen by the eyes of the world" --D-Kuru (talk) 11:54, 19 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah this i s a great piece of art. who is going to go to flickr to see it? show some respect for biggie. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.234.123.67 (talk • contribs) 20:51, 24. Jan. 2010 (UTC)

Give me a break. Keep the picture up. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.20.60.225 (talk • contribs) 20:18, 26. Jan. 2010 (UTC)

I can't believe people bother with all this. Keep the image up, I trully believe that the autorh is widely recognized in Queens, so if you want his license, go there. Don't delete this image, this is just absurd. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 201.21.231.62 (talk • contribs) 00:59, 30. Jan. 2010 (UTC)

 Delete Damn, those arguments against deletion by anonymous users are baseless. I, too would like if this photo wouldn't have to be deleted, but as it has been stated, United States does not have FOP for artworks. This is a derivative work and it will be deleted from Commons. Karppinen (talk) 20:11, 12 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

So, If a four year old drew a picture of a rainbow, you couldn't put it on wikipedia? TheThingy (talk) 03:24, 14 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No, unless you have the permission of the kid. However, that is unrelated to this deletion discussion. --Karppinen (talk) 10:25, 14 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thats a bunch of crap people. This is artwork. Some of the best graffiti work youll probably ever see. Why would you take time out of your life to try and have a picture deleted? stupid -Tony — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.171.21.203 (talk • contribs) 05:34, 7 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• • • Graffiti = Hip-Hop = Graffiti *** what's the big fuzz about? I like this picture of BIG better than the last photo. 13 years ago today he died. Am sure the artist would not mind giving the rights in honor of BIG unless of course, he's a sellout like Diddy / All about the Benjamin's. [SANQUIN52]

i think you will find that the author did spray this fine piece of art work so next time dont presume or assume thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.193.48.35 (talk • contribs) 23:48, 12 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

•  Comment Just for the record, at some point the license changed on Flickr, atleast today it is "cc-by-nc 2.0". CC is irrevocable, but I thought I'd mention it here. -- Krinkle^talk 23:54, 12 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

give me a fuckin break its just a graffiti man loosen the fuck up and have some respect for tha king of NY -one of the many B.I.G. fans — Preceding unsigned comment added by Thickey91 (talk • contribs) 06:28, 6. Apr. 2010 (UTC)

Deleted. howcheng {chat} 20:18, 15 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

essential information (author) missing, existence of permission unclear (no OTRS), upload by bot Umschattiger (talk) 17:55, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I adressed that problem long time ago in Commons:Administrators'_noticeboard/Archive_12#Photos_from_skijumping.pl. Based on the information written in Commons:Deletion requests/Image:4wiki romoeren bjoern einar.jpg we have permission to reuse images made by two authors from that site. This requires of course that the author is written here, that a deeplink is given and that the author is verifiable written there. See also pl:Wikipedia:Zapytania o zgodę na wykorzystanie, a permission text (although I cant read it) was once written there and is linked as the only indication on many images on Comons. See the last version befor this permission was deleted from the pl.wp site. I fully agree that the information given with this bot upload is poor and not acceptable. --Martin H. (talk) 11:36, 7 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for information. But still, without a proven permission and especially without any indication of the author we can't keep this picture, unfortunately. --Umschattiger (talk) 13:38, 7 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted, no author. Kameraad Pjotr 08:28, 1 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

wrong file --Amada44 (talk) 17:57, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

 Keep deletion for what reason? Was meinst du mit "wrong file"? Scheint doch ganz recht zu sein. Als Autor kannst du natürlich auch eine neue Version hochladen, eine Löschung ist nicht nötig. --Umschattiger (talk) 18:07, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes I know that. I didn't know that I have to defend deletions on my own files. Could you please just delete it? thank you! Amada44 (talk) 11:19, 10 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Why don't you just use {{speedy|Uploader requested}} on your image. Just put in the reason that you requested it as uploader of the image, an administrator will deal with it. Techman224^Talk 02:45, 19 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I will do that. Thanxs for the info. --Amada44 (talk) 12:29, 19 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Do you like it now? Techman224^Talk 00:01, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

yes, it's great!!! thank you! --Amada44 (talk) 04:54, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

 Info Amada44 has re-uploaded the photo as File:Wolfbergarch-001.jpg today, so all is fine now :-) --:bdk: 15:02, 1 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted, user request. Kameraad Pjotr 08:32, 1 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

not used and there are a few other green squares. eg. this one Image:Green square.svg and this one: Image:Solid green.png --Amada44 (talk) 18:09, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted, per nominator. Kameraad Pjotr 08:37, 1 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Very probably a copyrighted architectural plan. Flickr washing? AndreasPraefcke (talk) 14:06, 12 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

 Comment The flckr page has "scan from the 1946 city plan". Here is my best reading of the largest flckr image:

w:en:Harland Bartholomew states he died December 2, 1989 and "In 1919, he established Harland Bartholomew and Associates and served as its chairman until his retirement in 1962" and "He served as city planning commissioner in St. Louis, the first full-time planner employed by an American city. He served in that capacity until 1950". -84user (talk) 10:28, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

 Keep must be {{PD-US-no notice}} or {{PD-US-no renewal}}. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 09:01, 8 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Kept, PD-US-no notice. Kameraad Pjotr 18:49, 17 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

not in use Unknown deletion request author — Preceding unsigned comment added by RubiksMaster110 (talk • contribs) 21:24, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted - out of scope, : jpeg of a hand drawn stripe, Not in use, uploaded by blocked dutch vandal –Krinkle^talk 00:03, 25 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Most likely copyright violation. According to COM:L any wikimedia project as source is not cinsidered as a valid source. Besides, there is no evidence given that would legitimate a public domain licence. High Contrast (talk) 11:39, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

 Keep Old Polish photograph; can a plwp have a look at the erased upload info? /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 15:32, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

 Delete old polish photographs? Any evidence for that? Just because an image was on pl.wp or shows a polish airplane does not make it a polish photograph. Delete per nom, no information here at all. --Martin H. (talk) 16:59, 31 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The photo shows planes with the en:Polish Air Force checkerboard, it is a WWI aircraft, decommisioned 1922. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 17:26, 31 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted, no evidence of first publication in Poland. Kameraad Pjotr 07:23, 28 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The stated permission gives no conclusion about free commercial use or derivative work. High Contrast (talk) 11:46, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Kept, expired Crown Copyright. Kameraad Pjotr 07:41, 28 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The stated permission gives no conclusion about free commercial use or derivative work. High Contrast (talk) 11:46, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

 Keep Should be free enough; I suppose this is expired Crown copyright. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 15:45, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Kept, expired Crown Copyright. Kameraad Pjotr 07:42, 28 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The stated permission gives no conclusion about free commercial use or derivative work. High Contrast (talk) 11:47, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Kept, expired Crown Copyright. Kameraad Pjotr 08:00, 28 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Copyright violation of writing.

Note:Freedom_of_panorama#Japan.--KENPEI (talk) 12:07, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted, no FOP in Japan. Kameraad Pjotr 08:02, 28 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I didnt send this or file mistake hotwill31 (talk) 09:12, 25 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

 Keep This is not the account that was used for uploading. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 15:45, 12 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

 Delete Artwork by a living artist. Needs COM:OTRS permission. Wknight94 ^talk 12:29, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted, lacks suitable permission. Kameraad Pjotr 08:11, 28 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Copyright violation of writing.

Note:Freedom_of_panorama#Japan--KENPEI (talk) 13:05, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted, no FOP. Kameraad Pjotr 08:14, 28 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Copyright violation of writing.

Note:Freedom_of_panorama#Japan.--KENPEI (talk) 13:11, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted, no FOP. Kameraad Pjotr 08:15, 28 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The uploaders states that the author is unknown but coincidentally he claims this image being his "own work". The image itself looks like a derivative work of any photograph. The true copyright status remains unclear. High Contrast (talk) 17:27, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not really sure. María Concepción Loperena died near to 1835, according with Spanish Wikipedia article, then, all pictures of her made when she was still alive, are under public domain. I guess (but I don't know) this one was made when she was alive. ·×α£đ·^es 17:36, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

 Keep pic in public domain, it's simply a scan of a en:Daguerreotype, after over 100 years daguerreotypes look this way if they aren't handled with a lot of care. No copyrights possible. --Umschattiger (talk) 18:03, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It seems like the user took their own photograph of the daguerrotype and uploaded it, thus "own work". If the description of the original is accurate, then yes it would be PD, and so would this upload per PD-Art (though in some jurisdictions, there may actually be a copyright on this photograph too as a derivative work instead of a copy, so the additional licensing statement may be helpful in those jurisdictions).  Keep I think, though it would be nice to have more information on the daguerrotype itself and where it is from, so to have better documentation that it is actually of the person claimed. Carl Lindberg (talk) 17:50, 7 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Kept, PD-Art. Kameraad Pjotr 08:32, 28 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• File:Location map Mongolia.png

Out of scope. Those two maps were originally used as location maps with a pin placed on top of them in infoboxes. Because they are based on a projection more suitable for China than for Mongolia, they are heavily distorted (stretched horizontally). For that reason among others, they have been replaced everywhere and are not in use anymore on any project. I see no educational use in geometrically incorrect maps, which places them outside of our Project's scope. Latebird (talk) 18:47, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• I created it because Location map Mongolia.png didn't exist yet. Now there's no need in this file. Delete. --Obersachse (talk) 19:27, 8 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Doesn't really matter. We now have a decent svg.Dr. Blofeld (talk) 12:50, 10 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted, out of project scope, per nominator. Kameraad Pjotr 08:34, 28 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

copy-right Unknown Author of deletion request

•  Keep. Doesn't look like copyright to me. Ricardo P. (talk) 21:12, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
•  Keep Doubtless licensing. ZooFari 23:10, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
•  Comment DR by ip-number three minutes after upload - what is going on here? The DR of File:Localización de Jete.PNG also links here. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 20:10, 7 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Kept, free licensed. Kameraad Pjotr 08:45, 28 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

outdated picture --Marcelo BARO (talk) 21:31, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

 Keep Doubtless licensing, could be used as an early hood image of the biography. ZooFari 23:04, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Kept, within project scope. Kameraad Pjotr 08:49, 28 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Pf dečko.. 160.166.183.77 17:19, 17 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Kept: no valid reason for deletion. — D Y O L F 77^[Talk] 22:26, 23 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]