Commons:Deletion requests/Archive/2010/06/20

unused private image - out of scope Cholo Aleman (talk) 05:59, 20 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

•  Delete - privy.--E8 (talk) 12:55, 20 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted. Mbdortmund (talk) 15:57, 20 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

unused private image - out of scope (the mascot is unusable because of the missing context) Cholo Aleman (talk) 11:45, 20 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

•  Delete - privy.--E8 (talk) 12:56, 20 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted. Mbdortmund (talk) 15:58, 20 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Falsches obszönes Bild Kürschner (talk) 12:47, 20 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted abf «Cabale!» 12:59, 20 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Misrepresentative - image purports to be a Georgia highway shield, but no such route exists C.Fred (talk) 03:21, 20 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

+ sole upload, no license, bogus source, etc. Delete. - Jmabel ! talk 04:59, 20 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted. DieBuche (talk) 16:48, 20 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

singlor Singlor (talk) 15:38, 20 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted by DieBuche: Uploader request

copyviol http://www.ba.itc.cnr.it/NotesImages/Topic1NotesImage14.jpg ZioNicco (talk) 15:58, 20 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted by DieBuche: Copyright violation: http://www.ba.itc.cnr.it/NotesImages/Topic1NotesImage14.jpg

Self promotion Leonardo (talk) 17:33, 20 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

 Comment clear advertisement - but is this a strong argument for a deletion? - there are two more images of the same user. At least they are professional graphics. Cholo Aleman (talk) 17:44, 20 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted by DieBuche: Promotional content

unused and unusable personal file, out of scope Santosga (talk) 20:52, 20 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted. (not by me) DieBuche (talk) 23:00, 20 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Copyright violation Midori (talk) 22:42, 20 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted by DieBuche: Copyright violation: http://kuliner.us/2009/11/02/kue-lupis-ketan/

out of scope, calendar of a fan club's activities [1] Santosga (talk) 18:02, 20 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted by DieBuche: Out of project scope

out of scope, page's only purpose is advertising --Santosga (talk) 18:09, 20 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

'Deleted by DieBuche: content was: '{{delete|reason=out of scope, page's only purpose is advertising|day=20|month=June|year=2010}} A Perfil Artes é uma agência especializado na criação e produção de materiais impressos - Design Gráfico, viabilizando soluções que ...

Copied from http://forum.oktaneclub.com/index.php?showtopic=126395&st=15 --Ednei amaral (talk) 18:18, 20 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted by DieBuche: Copyright violation: http://forum.oktaneclub.com/index.php?showtopic=126395&st=15

Copied from http://oglobo.globo.com/rio/bairros/posts/2009/01/16/vista-da-pedra-das-cabritas-153932.asp Ednei amaral (talk) 18:20, 20 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted by DieBuche: Copyright violation: http://oglobo.globo.com/rio/bairros/posts/2009/01/16/vista-da-pedra-das-cabritas-153932.asp

Copied from http://www.flickr.com/photos/antolog/43534963/ Ednei amaral (talk) 18:22, 20 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted by DieBuche: Non-free Flickr license

was in the no-permission-category, but seems likely to be pd-art. Any ideas on that? abf «Cabale!» 11:29, 20 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• I have permission to publish this image on wikimedia commons. ImreKiss (talk) 12:34, 20 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, way too old for copyright. Plainly {{PD-art}}. Nyttend (talk) 12:42, 20 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

 Delete unless a source is provided to verify. Wknight94 ^talk 14:57, 20 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

 Keep pl:Michał Stachowicz says he died in 1825. Teofilo (talk) 15:53, 20 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Kept. Masur (talk) 17:51, 21 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

superfl. to Penstemon hirsutus --Uleli (talk) 23:13, 20 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

•  Delete per nom. Jujutacular ^T · C 19:04, 21 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted. Julo (talk) 06:17, 24 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Most likely copyvio and flickrwashing. --ZooFari 00:30, 20 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

•  Delete Highly likely copyvio. Jujutacular ^T · C 19:05, 21 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted. Julo (talk) 06:18, 24 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Unused user image with lengthy out-of-scope text. Jmabel ! talk 01:08, 20 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

 Delete per Jmabel. ZooFari 03:21, 20 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

 Delete - selfpromotion Cholo Aleman (talk) 05:20, 20 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

 Delete per nom --DieBuche (talk) 16:47, 20 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

 Delete privy.--E8 (talk) 21:57, 20 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted. Julo (talk) 06:19, 24 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

unused logo for something - out of scope (I failed in identifiing it) Cholo Aleman (talk) 05:15, 20 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

 Delete Can't find anything notable with that name--DieBuche (talk) 16:50, 20 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted. Julo (talk) 06:19, 24 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

strange unused drawing - out of scope (is someone can give a context, it will be great) Cholo Aleman (talk) 05:12, 20 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

 Delete unless we can get more info on it--DieBuche (talk) 16:49, 20 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted. ZooFari 00:10, 27 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

unidentified stone in a wood - only edit of this user - unusable - out of scope Cholo Aleman (talk) 05:19, 20 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted. ZooFari 00:25, 27 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

unused nearly private image - "participants" of an event - out of scope Cholo Aleman (talk) 06:07, 20 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted. ZooFari 00:37, 27 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

advertisement for a chinese company - unclear copy rights?! - out of scope, copy vio Cholo Aleman (talk) 06:13, 20 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted. ZooFari 00:38, 27 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

image of an MIT student - not notable (now) - out of scope Cholo Aleman (talk) 06:31, 20 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

•  Delete - privy.--E8 (talk) 12:53, 20 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted. ZooFari 00:27, 27 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

strange unused collage - out of scope (I dont understand the value) Cholo Aleman (talk) 06:36, 20 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted. ZooFari 00:38, 27 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

outside our scope abf «Cabale!» 10:33, 20 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

•  Delete - though humorous, out of scope.--E8 (talk) 12:52, 20 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted. ZooFari 00:25, 27 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

unused small private image- out of scope Cholo Aleman (talk) 12:21, 20 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

•  Delete - privy.--E8 (talk) 21:58, 20 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted. ZooFari 00:24, 27 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

undescribed and unused image, small, no exit data - can be a copyright violation = out of scope Cholo Aleman (talk) 12:25, 20 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

•  Delete per nom.--E8 (talk) 21:59, 20 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted. ZooFari 00:24, 27 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

unused not good image of a part of a building - nearly private - out of scope Cholo Aleman (talk) 13:06, 20 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted. ZooFari 01:31, 27 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

copyviol http://www.ba.itc.cnr.it/NotesImages/Topic1NotesImage41.jpg ZioNicco (talk) 16:02, 20 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted. ZooFari 00:43, 27 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

copyviol http://www.ba.itc.cnr.it/NotesImages/Topic1NotesImage45.jpg ZioNicco (talk) 16:00, 20 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted. ZooFari 00:43, 27 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

unused private joke image - out of scope - the poster is copyrighted obviouly - several reasons for deletion Cholo Aleman (talk) 17:03, 20 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted. ZooFari 00:45, 27 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Most likely a copyvio. Streifengrasmaus (talk) 17:42, 20 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

 Delete copyvio Cholo Aleman (talk) 20:00, 20 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

 Delete copyvio --Motopark (talk) 20:09, 20 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted. ZooFari 01:32, 27 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Outside of project scope. Blurpeace 18:44, 20 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted. ZooFari 01:33, 27 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Personal photo that is outside of project scope. Possibly promotional content. Blurpeace 18:47, 20 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted. ZooFari 00:20, 27 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Outside of project scope: low quality photo. Blurpeace 19:07, 20 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted. ZooFari 00:21, 27 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Outside of project scope: low quality photo that lacks descriptive information regarding the train station. Blurpeace 19:09, 20 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted. ZooFari 00:21, 27 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Outside of project scope: low quality photo of an otherwise insignificant "county store". Blurpeace 19:20, 20 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

•  Keep I have added GPS location and a category. Image isn't bad. can be useful. Amada44 (talk) 10:43, 21 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Kept. Short in images at Category:Shops in Vermont. ZooFari 00:19, 27 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Outside of project scope: how many different resolution rectangles do we need? Blurpeace 19:23, 20 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

•  Delete unused, svg and png available. Amada44 (talk) 10:29, 21 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted. ZooFari 00:16, 27 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I have no idea what this is, but I'm betting it's either outside of project scope or a possible copyright violation. Blurpeace 19:48, 20 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

 Delete - out of scope and unusable (too small) Cholo Aleman (talk) 20:32, 20 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted. ZooFari 01:36, 27 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

unused drawing - to small to be useful - (seems to be an astronomical consideration) Cholo Aleman (talk) 20:04, 20 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

•  Delete per nom. Amada44 (talk) 10:50, 21 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

 Comment nearly a duplicate with this better and used image File:Ödeö26a.JPG Cholo Aleman (talk) 19:05, 21 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted. ZooFari 01:37, 27 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

unused private image - selfadvertisement - out of scope Cholo Aleman (talk) 20:46, 20 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

•  Delete per nom. Amada44 (talk) 10:51, 21 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted. ZooFari 01:38, 27 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

unused diagram - organization of a small firm - private data - out of scope Cholo Aleman (talk) 21:00, 20 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

•  Delete per nom. Amada44 (talk) 10:52, 21 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted. ZooFari 01:39, 27 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

logo of a group of artists consistent of two people - unused and out of scope, selfadvertisement Cholo Aleman (talk) 21:01, 20 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted. ZooFari 01:39, 27 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

unused private image - out of scope Cholo Aleman (talk) 21:08, 20 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

•  Delete per nom. Amada44 (talk) 10:52, 21 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted. ZooFari 00:14, 27 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

unused private image - out of scope Cholo Aleman (talk) 21:09, 20 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

•  Delete per nom. Amada44 (talk) 10:52, 21 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted. ZooFari 00:14, 27 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

too small, same exist in jpg Nacéra Benseddik (talk) 21:10, 20 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted. File:Toutenbéton.jpg. ZooFari 01:44, 27 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Bougé/Trembled --D Villafruela (talk) 22:10, 20 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

What do you mean?--DieBuche (talk) 23:01, 20 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Kept. Motion blur, I think, which is not a good reason for deletion. ZooFari 00:13, 27 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No evidence that the uploaded image is owned by the uploader. --Everard Proudfoot (talk) 22:32, 20 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted. Lots of Google searches. ZooFari 00:12, 27 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No evidence that the uploader is the copyright holder. --Everard Proudfoot (talk) 22:35, 20 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted. [2] ZooFari 00:11, 27 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Appears to be a photo of a television screen, otherwise insufficient information provided on source. --Ytoyoda (talk) 03:18, 20 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted.      Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 23:26, 27 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

derivative work - copyrighted material (not old) - copyright violation Cholo Aleman (talk) 05:28, 20 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted.      Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 23:26, 27 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

strange unused poster with esoteric content ("mesoenergia" ) - unusable and out of scope (like the other files of this user) Cholo Aleman (talk) 05:38, 20 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted.      Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 23:27, 27 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Derivative work: Reproduction of presumably copyrighted two-dimensional poster. Gabbe (talk) 06:21, 20 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted.      Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 23:27, 27 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

known musician from france - but the image is unusable with this watermark of copyrights Cholo Aleman (talk) 06:33, 20 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted.      Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 23:28, 27 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

strange unused parody of vitruv (can be) - out of scope Cholo Aleman (talk) 06:34, 20 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted.      Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 23:28, 27 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Unused photograph of a non-notable person with dubious copyright. The original content was self-promotional. --AFBorchert (talk) 07:50, 20 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

 Comment See also this discussion. --AFBorchert (talk) 07:52, 20 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

•  Delete per Comment.--E8 (talk) 12:57, 20 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted.      Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 23:28, 27 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Text on sign in Hong Kong. COM:FOP#Hong Kong is similar to that of UK : not available for text. --Teofilo (talk) 08:17, 20 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted.      Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 23:29, 27 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

COM:FOP#United Kingdom does not apply to wall paintings. --Teofilo (talk) 08:32, 20 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

•  Comment image was kept before Cholo Aleman (talk) 12:22, 20 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Comment When? --Starscream (talk) 13:47, 20 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
•  Keep too nice. --Starscream (talk) 13:47, 20 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I had not seen Commons:Deletion requests/Banksy graffiti. It's true that it was decided as "kept" then. So... But how do we know if this is a legal graffiti with permission from the wall owner or an illegal graffiti without permission ? Has the owner erased it since the photograph was taken ? Teofilo (talk) 16:02, 20 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

according to this old discussion it is not the question if this is legal or not see COM:CB#Graffiti (I cannot judge the validity of these arguments, I just quote them) Cholo Aleman (talk) 16:34, 20 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted.      Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 23:31, 27 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Unused, replaced by File:Flag of Georgian SSR.svg User:Zscout370 ^{(Return fire)} 08:38, 20 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

•  Keep Not a reason for deletion. Coexistence of SVG and PNG versions is not a problem. Julo (talk) 06:23, 24 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • The PNG and SVG file look the same and the PNG is unused. Commons:Superseded images policy and Commons:Deletion_policy#Redundant.2Fbad_quality allow for DR's like this. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return fire)} 19:22, 24 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Kept.      Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 23:36, 27 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The image is a logo of a Political Party, and is copied from their web: http://www.partidoliberal.org.ar/home/ . And in their web says "Todos los derechos reservados" that means "All the rights are reserved". The web system management they use (Joomla!) is free (free software, GNU/GPL), but the content of the page isn't. --DieBuche (talk) 13:12, 20 June 2010 (UTC)completing incomplete RfD[reply]

Deleted.      Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 23:39, 27 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Logo of a non-notable website. The article was deleted twice in ruwiki. --Blacklake (talk) 14:06, 20 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted.      Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 23:47, 27 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Flag of a non-notable organization. The article was deleted in ruwiki. Doesn't fall within project scope. --Blacklake (talk) 14:08, 20 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted.      Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 23:48, 27 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This is not actually a MIDI file, but a WAV file with a ".mid" suffix. Reuploaded in Ogg Vorbis format as File:Oud open Strings.ogg. Ilmari Karonen (talk) 15:01, 20 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted.      Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 23:48, 27 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This is not actually a MIDI file, but a WAV file with a ".mid" suffix. Reuploaded in Ogg Vorbis format as File:Al-Amira al-Andaluciyya.ogg. Ilmari Karonen (talk) 15:02, 20 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted.      Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 23:48, 27 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Eric Gill died in 1940 & no FOP in the UK for bidimensional works. category:Undelete in 2011 --Teofilo (talk) 15:49, 20 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Kept. it is a 3-D work -- it is carved into the brick -- which is FOP in Britain      Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 23:49, 27 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

blurred image, better pictures can be found in Category:Place Grenette Santosga (talk) 15:59, 20 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted.      Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 23:49, 27 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Would like to hear some more opinions on this one. It has a OTRS tag but ticket is "id=null". However I'm not sure we even need a permission because the "layout" might be PD-old. What do you think? MGA73 (talk) 17:11, 20 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

 Keep I agree, the fleur-de-lis is PD, and the combination with "be prepared" in scouting is old. Similarly, the Forstmann 100% Virgin Wool label with inwoven fleur-de-lis was was not eligible for copyright (Forstmann Woolen Co v J.W. Mays Inc). /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 17:18, 20 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note I tried to find this OTRS ticket as I put the OTRS on this but I can't. I noticed this was only about 7 days after I got OTRS access so it was probably one of the first ones I did and I obviously goofed it up. Sorry. — Rlevse • Talk • 01:59, 21 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep per PK.--Kintetsubuffalo (talk) 08:00, 21 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Kept.      Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 23:50, 27 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

unused advertisment and logo for a brazilian internet company (?!) - out of scope Cholo Aleman (talk) 17:14, 20 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted.      Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 23:51, 27 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I have doubt, that this is the flickr users own work. See the watermark in the upper right corner. flickrvio. Martin H. (talk) 17:24, 20 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted.      Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 23:53, 27 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

unused advertisement for a university project - out of scope, in the German WP university projects are not relevant (only universities) Cholo Aleman (talk) 17:41, 20 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

+ 1 ; + copyvio. I can't belive that the uploader has all copyrights on the pictures used in the image. See also: File:Handlungsfelder.jpg.--Karsten11 (talk) 17:55, 27 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted.      Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 23:56, 27 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Derivative of a photo, this one. Pieter Kuiper (talk) 18:28, 20 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

•  Delete per nom. --Diego Grez ^{return fire} 18:28, 20 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted.      Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 23:57, 27 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Derivative of a photo, must be this one. Pieter Kuiper (talk) 18:40, 20 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

 Comment Note that uploader had removed the tag, I restored it. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 14:56, 27 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted.      Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 23:59, 27 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Outside of project scope. Blurpeace 18:44, 20 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted.      Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 00:00, 28 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Derivative of a photo, this one for sure. Pieter Kuiper (talk) 19:19, 20 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted.      Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 00:01, 28 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Outside of project scope: low quality, has a small black line in the center and uncategorized. Blurpeace 19:26, 20 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted.      Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 00:02, 28 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The OTRS does not have a correct syntax (it links to nowhere) and I could find nothing in OTRS. MGA73 (talk) 19:34, 20 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

•  Delete, thats the last surviving image from en:User talk:Wendroa. --Martin H. (talk) 19:45, 20 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted.      Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 00:03, 28 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Derivative work. Eusebius (talk) 19:35, 20 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted.      Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 00:04, 28 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Derivative of non-free content Blurpeace 19:46, 20 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted.      Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 00:04, 28 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Probably a derivative of this photo (but the photographic portrait is much better). Pieter Kuiper (talk) 19:54, 20 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

•  Keep you cannot copyright someone's face. -Nard (Hablemonos)(Let's talk) 20:00, 20 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Kept.      Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 00:07, 28 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

strange text about time travels - out of scope, unusable Cholo Aleman (talk) 20:33, 20 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted.      Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 00:08, 28 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Derivative of this photo. Pieter Kuiper (talk) 20:39, 20 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

•  Delete Clear copy. The pose and clothing are identitcal. -Nard (Hablemonos)(Let's talk) 20:48, 20 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It is a direct copy of that photo, yes. I didn't know it was forbidden, which is no excuse, of course. I will try to provide another one. Delete. --HTO (talk) 17:26, 21 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted.      Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 00:09, 28 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

unused image of an unknown band - out of scope Cholo Aleman (talk) 20:52, 20 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted.      Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 00:09, 28 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Another image which is certainly free if freedom of panorama applies, but COM:FOP says that it does not apply under Russian law. Angus McLellan (Talk) 13:52, 7 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

 Delete along with all other photos in Category:Embassies of Bulgaria (including those located in countries where FOP exists) as the building is located on Bulgarian territory under international law, and Bulgarian FOP doesn't allow it. --russavia (talk) 14:02, 7 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

 Comment @Russavia: er... e.g. the Bulgarian Embassy in Berlin is not located on Bulgarian teritory, an embassy is always placed on the teritory of the hosting country, the territory of course is specially protected by the international law, but this doesnt have anything in common with copyrights. --Martin H. (talk) 14:20, 7 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted. Please do a single del-req for each other image in that category you want to have deleted. abf /talk to me/ 14:02, 15 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No FOP in Russia per Commons:Freedom_of_panorama#Russia. MGA73 (talk) 20:58, 20 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I just noticed we had another DR about this subject Commons:Deletion requests/Image:Bulgarian Embassy Moscow.jpg. ("Image" instead of "File") --MGA73 (talk) 21:01, 20 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

A previous undeletion request is at Commons:Undeletion requests/Archive/2009-09. -- User:Docu at 16:45, 23 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted.      Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 00:11, 28 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Derivative work from copyrhigted work Ferbr1 (talk) 21:20, 20 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Freedom of Panorama in Chile? --Don-kun (talk) 08:29, 21 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It was actually taken in Argentina. I recall a question about FOP in Argentina on the Wikimania Mailing list last year before Wikimania, with a reply saying FOP is customary law in Argentina. But I don't know any better than that.--Puchku (talk) 20:23, 21 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted.      Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 00:12, 28 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The file is an fair use image from en.wp and is described as created by the Ventura County Sheriff's Department - that Sheriffs Department is not the FBI and the claim that the FBI created it is ungrounded and added here without any evidence or source. --Martin H. (talk) 23:02, 20 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

•  Delete Some mug shots, such as those created by Los Angeles County Sheriff's Department are in the public domain. This mug shot is possibly a public domain, but I do not see any evidence that Ventura County Sheriff's Department releases their mug shots in the public domain. Karppinen (talk) 18:36, 21 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I apologize for my mistaken belief that it was created by the FBI. Is there any way to ascertain if that police department releases their mug shots in the public domain? 71.172.187.106 03:25, 22 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted.      Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 00:16, 28 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

falsches bild hochgeladen --Emma7stern (talk) 19:30, 12 December 2009 (UTC) ( Completing RfD) --DieBuche (talk) 13:15, 20 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted, uploader request. Kameraad Pjotr 12:12, 6 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Head the wrong size, body too bulky. (Completing RfD)--DieBuche (talk) 13:14, 20 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted, uploader request, out of project scope. Kameraad Pjotr 18:39, 7 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

this is not fabian marcaccio Completing RfD--DieBuche (talk) 13:13, 20 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Kept, no evidence that this is not Fabian Marcaccio, can be renamed if evidence is provided. Kameraad Pjotr 18:51, 9 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Copied from http://www.gringo-rio.com/leblon.html . "own work" with more than 100 years? hard to believe... Ednei amaral (talk) 18:13, 20 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

but if it's older than 100 years (don't be sure about that), it is in the PD, isn't it. --Herzi Pinki (talk) 19:23, 20 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

 Keep This photo was taken 100 years ago, it is PD. Luispihormiguero (talk) 21:10, 22 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

 Comment But please, change the license, you are not the autor. Luispihormiguero (talk) 12:54, 26 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted. Nothing happend. If someone comes to the conclusion that the file is free for some reason simply make an accurate upload with it without the false author claim and the 'self' license. --Martin H. (talk) 02:39, 8 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Own work dated from 1850 is impossible. User has uploaded several other files violating copyrights and saying they're his own work. --Ednei amaral (talk) 18:25, 20 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Own is wrong; 1850 meams PD anyway--DieBuche (talk) 10:33, 21 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

But should we believe it's dated from 1850, considering author has already uploaded several copyrighted files, always saying it's his "own work"? And I'm not sure if 1850 is the year off the scenario or if it's the year when the photo/image was produced... Ednei amaral (talk) 04:31, 11 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted. Per Ednei amaral, likely a computer created illustration, nothing that indicates that it is an old work. Also the other contributions contain watermarks, no author information,no source information, .... all deleted. --Martin H. (talk) 02:27, 8 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The growth line are inconsistent with the origianl. (original request by User:Conty--DieBuche (talk) 16:40, 20 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted, uploader request. Kameraad Pjotr 19:55, 6 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The growth line are inconsistent with the origianl. (original request by User:Conty--DieBuche (talk) 16:40, 20 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted, uploader request. Kameraad Pjotr 19:55, 6 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Not an official flag of the group "Anonymous", therefore outside of project scope. Blurpeace 18:42, 20 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Not saying that this image should be kept, but actually there are hundreds of "special or fictional flags" on Commons, and images are not usually deleted just for that reason alone (unless they're also hatemongering, deliberate hoaxes, etc.). AnonMoos (talk) 09:55, 24 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I can't see the reason for keeping an unused unofficial flag. It serves absolutely no purpose and isn't educational in the least bit. If you see any others that fit the prior stated criteria, you should nominate them. Sincerely, Blurpeace 05:35, 25 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

There are probably hundreds of images here which you might think worthy of deletion, but the more or less established de facto policy is currently that such images are not usually deleted for that reason alone. AnonMoos (talk) 08:32, 25 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That'll have to be overturned then. ;) Blurpeace 10:07, 25 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

However, in the meantime, until you get your campaign properly launched, maybe we should be guided by previous precedent in considering the deletion of this image (which is what I was saying all along)... AnonMoos (talk) 18:12, 25 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

 Delete This file is so useless, also, we do not know who made it. Luispihormiguero (talk) 21:08, 22 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

 Keep Assuming good faith, the uploader claims to be the author. "Usefulness" or "uselessness" is not a criteria for keeping a file on a project that aims to store any and all public domain pictures possible, which may or may not be used on any Wikimedia Project. --Anime Addict AA (talk) 16:37, 22 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

 Keep per AnonMoos: precedent is not to delete files which are not immediately seen as useful, because of the utter subjectivity of such a view. While you may not find it to be of educational value, others may. Bahamut0013 (talk) 13:09, 10 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted, fantasy flag, out of project scope. Kameraad Pjotr 19:11, 8 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No source, no author, no date of first publication; but a widely used file, thus converted from speedy. Kameraad Pjotr 11:40, 20 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Probably old enough --Mbdortmund (talk) 11:46, 28 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted, without date of first publication, PD-status cannot be verified. Kameraad Pjotr 19:29, 13 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• File:A T P S Nor copy.jpg (derivative work)

not own work, no information about source Prosfilaes (talk) 01:18, 20 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, just wrote it on the uplaoders talkpage and tagged it with {{subst:nsd}}. Own work is obviously wrong, its a scan from a book. No evidence from what book, no date, nothing. Without a source I wouldnt say anything about "old" or not, maybe recolored, maybe recent painting, noone knows. --Martin H. (talk) 01:22, 20 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Looks like (British) India c. 1920-1930; does anyone know the likely copyright status of that? - Jmabel ! talk 04:58, 20 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Life+60. Could have run out some time ago, or could have another half century to run.--Prosfilaes (talk) 05:24, 20 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

 Keep Subject died 1940. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 12:37, 21 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Err... Subject != photographer... --PaterMcFly (talk) 13:41, 21 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The requirement in {{PD-India}} for photographs does not depend on the photographer's death year. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 14:25, 21 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

So change license to {{PD-India}} and keep? - Jmabel ! talk 16:58, 21 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Not without knowing the source or if it was e.g. a b&w photo colored by someone else. The uploader said, that only scanned it from a book on the help desk. --Martin H. (talk) 17:05, 21 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

•  Delete Unless source can be specified and copyright status verified. Jujutacular ^T · C 19:09, 21 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted, no source, no date of first publication; PD status can not be verified. Kameraad Pjotr 21:30, 22 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Marked as PD-textlogo, but the right part of the image is plainly too complicated for PD-textlogo. Nyttend (talk) 12:41, 20 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

 Keep, no, I don't think so. PD-Ineligible is perfectly ok. --PaterMcFly (talk) 15:12, 20 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

 Delete It's complex enough in my opinion. ZooFari 15:30, 20 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

 Keep It's two letters in a fancy typography. Even if it weren't, File:Heartagram HIM logo.png isn't copyrightable either, and the right side is about the same level or less of complexity.--Prosfilaes (talk) 15:37, 20 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The ovalish shape is two letters? Or do you mean something else? Nyttend (talk) 14:10, 21 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The two half oval shapes are a C and a D.--Prosfilaes (talk) 16:13, 21 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It's amazing how we try to find ways to look the other way around. ZooFari 16:19, 21 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Excuse me? I take offense at that; this is simple application of US copyright law.--Prosfilaes (talk) 16:23, 21 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No offense intended, just matter of opinion. ZooFari 16:46, 21 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

 Keep From this link "it is not possible to copyright a new version of a textile design merely because the colors of red and blue appearing in the design have been replaced by green and yellow, respectively. The same is true of a simple combination of a few standard symbols such as a circle, a star, and a triangle, with minor linear or spatial variations." Everything I know about PD-textlogo is "Stylized text, is still text."--SexyKick (talk) 20:11, 27 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Kept, does not meet the Threshold of originality, {{PD-ineligible}}. Kameraad Pjotr 21:17, 23 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Appears to be trademarked and copyrighted image —Eustress ^talk 15:25, 12 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

•  Keep You raise no issues that weren't raised above. And trademarked is irrelevant.--Prosfilaes (talk) 15:42, 12 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
•  Neutral I don't share the same feelings I had back then. --ZooFari 03:59, 19 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Kept. - PD-textlogo - Jcb (talk) 23:52, 22 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The "T" is original enough to be held under copyright. I have no strong opinion for keep or delete. Blurpeace 19:16, 20 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

•  Delete Not a "T" at all. Rather it is a clever optical illusion that your mind calls a "T". Any actual T, no matter how decorative, cannot be copyrighted. -Nard (Hablemonos)(Let's talk) 19:27, 20 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted, passes the threshold of originality. Kameraad Pjotr 20:32, 25 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No OTRS ticket. -Nard (Hablemonos)(Let's talk) 20:24, 20 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• I found this ticket https://ticket.wikimedia.org/otrs/index.pl?Action=AgentTicketZoom&TicketID=1044658&ArticleID=1286551&QueueID=53 for 117 images. There is a notice on the image (http://www.flickr.com/photos/animenut/1102048986/#comment72157601495708813) saying the image is on Wikipedia. So I think that it is likely that author gave a permission and do not mind, that image is on Commons - but for some reason this image was not mentioned in the permission. --MGA73 (talk) 18:33, 28 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • But the flickr image has ARR on the image page and not mentioned in the permission. Could we send another email to make sure that the above image is actually a part of this permission? User:Zscout370 ^{(Return fire)} 19:13, 28 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Isn't it enough to keep File:Liana K 2.jpg, where everything seems to be o.k. 84.227.66.112 23:53, 8 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Kept, per MGA73. Kameraad Pjotr 17:24, 8 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]