Commons:Deletion requests/Archive/2008/08/07
 |
This is an archive, please do not edit. Post new cases at Commons:Deletion requests. You can visit the most recent archive here. |
 |
Uploaded under wrong file name. balcer (talk) 02:43, 7 August 2008 (UTC)
Deleted as unused duplicate with bad name per the speedy deletion guidelines. Anonymous101 talk 10:32, 7 August 2008 (UTC)
Was a request for speedy deletion: The metadata shows no information about which camera the image was taken from, meaning that the uploader likely was not the author. If the image really were taken by the uploader, there would be metadata about the camera's model, aperture, etc. Since all of this is absent, the image was likely copy and pasted from elsewhere, which implies that the "self"-licensing is also a copyvio. I think that's not sufficient. →Christian.И 12:55, 7 August 2008 (UTC)
- Maybe so, but I've got a problem with this (linked here), dated March 9, 2007, whereas the upload here occurred on September 30, 2007.
Delete as a copyvio. Lupo 13:25, 7 August 2008 (UTC)
- Oh, and the earlier upload at en-WP at en:Image:Ruby lin 1.27.jpeg was on August 22, 2007. Lupo 13:45, 7 August 2008 (UTC)
Well, that does indeed qualify for speedy deletion. →Christian.И 14:00, 7 August 2008 (UTC)
"free screenshot" is a contradiction in terms. As pointed out on en, this is a photoshopped picture of Mini-Me from the Austin Powers movies SarekOfVulcan (talk) 16:05, 7 August 2008 (UTC)
Deleted. MichaelMaggs (talk) 19:00, 7 August 2008 (UTC)
I am not certain about the rules for images of software and if this software can have this license or not. -- carol (talk) 10:13, 7 August 2008 (UTC) --carol (talk) 10:13, 7 August 2008 (UTC)
- Delete IconMaps is a proprietary-software, not free. --V.Riullop (talk) 09:02, 8 August 2008 (UTC)
Comment It appears that I can just skip this voting thing and put the copyright violation template upon it then. -- carol (talk) 09:45, 8 August 2008 (UTC)
Deleted by Rootology: Copyright violation
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
This is a derivative work of the official World heritage logo and as such is copyrighted/trademarked by UNESCO. From http://whc.unesco.org/en/emblem/ I'm getting the impression that it is not under a free license. Lokal_Profil 01:31, 7 August 2008 (UTC)
- The same obviously applies for Image:Världsarv.svg and Image:UNESKO Welterbe.jpg. /Lokal_Profil
- Delete both. Appears logo is being used for decoration in infoboxes. While pretty, it doesn't seem to meet the FUC for en.wikipedia. Furthermore, the logo is copyright, so it shouldn't be on the commons. Furthermore, seems highly unlikely that Bruno Rosta owned the copyright in the first place, so the PD-self claim seems spurious. -Andrew c (talk) 12:57, 12 August 2008 (UTC)
- Delete, copyrighted logo that cannot be released as an uploader's own work. TimVickers (talk) 16:36, 12 August 2008 (UTC)
Deleted per nomination. Durova (talk) 17:25, 12 August 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Work by de:Emil Preetorius (1883-1973), no permission by the unnamed publisher (probably de:Hans von Weber (1872-1924) --Mutter Erde (talk) 09:17, 7 August 2008 (UTC)
--Mutter Erde (talk) 09:22, 7 August 2008 (UTC)
Deleted per nomination. Durova (talk) 17:34, 12 August 2008 (UTC)
Orphaned personal image. OsamaK 10:45, 7 August 2008 (UTC)
Deleted due to contradictory license statements. Uploader marked both "all rights reserved" and public domain. Also per nomination, appears to be a personal snapshot with little (if any) encyclopedic use. Durova (talk) 17:38, 12 August 2008 (UTC)
It's obviously a logo, so it is not copyright free, GNU, CC-sa or similar... -- ELBorgo (sms) 14:15, 7 August 2008 (UTC)
- Please, an admin can check MeeticS contributions? (See http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/MeeticS ...). I think all the images are logos and must be deleted... Bye. -- ELBorgo (sms) 14:26, 7 August 2008 (UTC)
Deleting all user contribs as promotional. -mattbuck (Talk) 21:11, 12 August 2008 (UTC)
Derivative work of copyrighted logo owned by Paramount / CBS. Also nominating Image:Ufp1.jpg which is the same, but w/o transparency. -Romeo Bravo (T | C) 15:17, 7 August 2008 (UTC)
- This design is not copyrighted/trademarked by Paramount Pictures or CBS, and as such neither of these images are in violation of Commons:Licensing. Please go to http://www.uspto.gov/main/profiles/acadres.htm to search the US trademark database. Using Combined Word Mark and All search terms, some search queries that should show results, but do not, are "federation of planets", "federation paramount", and "federation cbs". For comparison to other trademark results, use the queries "star trek" and "starfleet", which return the various trademarked designs. — OranL (talk) 18:47, 7 August 2008 (UTC)
- Delete. Trademark is not the same as copyright. In this case, the copyright is most certainly owned by Paramount Pictures or the original author, regardless of whether the image has been registered as a trademark. --jonny-mt 03:07, 8 August 2008 (UTC)
- Delete Agree with assessment by nom and by jonny-mt (talk · contribs), image is not free and does not belong here. IDIC. Cirt (talk) 05:12, 9 August 2008 (UTC)
Deleted per nomination, with respect toward the well-meaning uploader. Jonny-mt states it well. Durova (talk) 17:42, 12 August 2008 (UTC)
Incorrect license, the image is non-free, The image is not found at source given. This image was actually taken by a photographer working for the Bettmann/CORBIS agency. It is copyrighted, and the copyright is held at present by the magazine "© 2003 El Nuevo Cojo Ilustrado Media, Llc." which is based in New York http://elnuevocojo.com/Galerias/Che_Guevara/38.html --Sandahl (talk) 15:29, 7 August 2008 (UTC) --Sandahl (talk) 15:30, 7 August 2008 (UTC)
- The link to the site you are giving doesn't work. Redthoreau (talk) 22:31, 7 August 2008 (UTC)
- Should work now.--Sandahl (talk) 22:39, 7 August 2008 (UTC)
- Looks to me like the magazine doesn't hold copyright, but that Brettman/Corbis does. TimVickers (talk) 01:22, 8 August 2008 (UTC)
- Yes you are probably right, they credit it to Bettmann/CORBIS who hold copyright to several of the death scenes especially the ones where Guevara is placed on top of what looks like a tub which makes it unfree.--Sandahl (talk) 02:59, 8 August 2008 (UTC)
- I believe Bettmann/Corbis (as in the stock agency) is an archive (of tens of millions) of deceased photographers images owned by Bill Gates. That wouldn't necessary display who the original photographer was though. Redthoreau (talk) 06:28, 8 August 2008 (UTC)
- Bettman/Corbis is a archive of copyrighted, for sale stock photography, who owns it would be coincidental. Freddy Alborta [1] took most of those images.--Sandahl (talk) 12:15, 8 August 2008 (UTC)
- I see that Freddy Alborta claims to have taken the one (pointing to the side) photo (which seems to be the case), but fail to see where you got "most" from? Also how would one identify the author (for the particular image in question) to make a fair use justification (on Wikipedia), since it is merely part of a repository of millions of images? Redthoreau (talk) 03:36, 9 August 2008 (UTC)
- This isn't Wikipedia, which allows fair use, it's Wikimedia Commons which only permits free use. For the question about Alborta and the photo on the side in the above link, he took that image and it is copyrighted [2]. Please also see [3] in relation to Alborta being the only professional photographer allowed to take see the corpse of Guevara.--Sandahl (talk) 14:24, 10 August 2008 (UTC)
- I see that Freddy Alborta claims to have taken the one (pointing to the side) photo (which seems to be the case), but fail to see where you got "most" from? Also how would one identify the author (for the particular image in question) to make a fair use justification (on Wikipedia), since it is merely part of a repository of millions of images? Redthoreau (talk) 03:36, 9 August 2008 (UTC)
- Bettman/Corbis is a archive of copyrighted, for sale stock photography, who owns it would be coincidental. Freddy Alborta [1] took most of those images.--Sandahl (talk) 12:15, 8 August 2008 (UTC)
- I believe Bettmann/Corbis (as in the stock agency) is an archive (of tens of millions) of deceased photographers images owned by Bill Gates. That wouldn't necessary display who the original photographer was though. Redthoreau (talk) 06:28, 8 August 2008 (UTC)
- Yes you are probably right, they credit it to Bettmann/CORBIS who hold copyright to several of the death scenes especially the ones where Guevara is placed on top of what looks like a tub which makes it unfree.--Sandahl (talk) 02:59, 8 August 2008 (UTC)
- Looks to me like the magazine doesn't hold copyright, but that Brettman/Corbis does. TimVickers (talk) 01:22, 8 August 2008 (UTC)
- Should work now.--Sandahl (talk) 22:39, 7 August 2008 (UTC)
- The link to the site you are giving doesn't work. Redthoreau (talk) 22:31, 7 August 2008 (UTC)
- Seems like it's really copyrighted. Such material should be uploaded on particular wikis under fair use, not here under public domain license, which seems to be incorrect. - Darwinek (talk) 10:01, 10 August 2008 (UTC)
Deleted clearly comes from a copyrighted source. Durova (talk) 18:05, 12 August 2008 (UTC)
This picture depicts a recent building (2004) in France designed by Catherine Geoffroy and Frank Zonka (description here). According to the french laws, this is a art work and it can't be freely photographed. Pymouss Tchatcher - 20:35, 7 August 2008 (UTC)
Deleted. -mattbuck (Talk) 21:13, 12 August 2008 (UTC)
image proportions strangely altered, will try again --Acroterion (talk) 21:15, 7 August 2008 (UTC)
- Delete superseeded by Image:Club Moderne, Anaconda, Montana.jpg by same author. --V.Riullop (talk) 08:45, 8 August 2008 (UTC)
- Delete as subsumed by another image. Cirt (talk) 05:13, 9 August 2008 (UTC)
Deleted per nomination. Durova (talk) 18:21, 12 August 2008 (UTC)
Contains various copyrighted logos. Lokal_Profil 21:43, 7 August 2008 (UTC)
- Possibly fair use on en.wiki. /Lokal_Profil 21:43, 7 August 2008 (UTC)
- What about the template {{trademark}}? doesn't that qualify it to be on Commons? --Oren neu dag (talk) 21:49, 7 August 2008 (UTC)
- {{Trademarked}} is for images which are copyrightwise free but trademarked. An example would be a text logo where the text is in a standard font. It's ineligible for copyright (no originality) but trademarked. The trademarks in this image are however copyrighted as well as trademarked. /Lokal_Profil 13:16, 8 August 2008 (UTC)
- Delete, Ok Delete it then, I'll re upload it under Fair Use in en.wiki. --Oren neu dag (talk) 16:56, 8 August 2008 (UTC)
- {{Trademarked}} is for images which are copyrightwise free but trademarked. An example would be a text logo where the text is in a standard font. It's ineligible for copyright (no originality) but trademarked. The trademarks in this image are however copyrighted as well as trademarked. /Lokal_Profil 13:16, 8 August 2008 (UTC)
- What about the template {{trademark}}? doesn't that qualify it to be on Commons? --Oren neu dag (talk) 21:49, 7 August 2008 (UTC)
- Delete Does not belong on this project. Cirt (talk) 05:14, 9 August 2008 (UTC)
- ...Actually Cirt it has everything to do with wikipedia. please see en:Antiamericanism --Oren neu dag (talk) 12:10, 9 August 2008 (UTC)
Keep - The logos, as far as I can tell, are from a free dingbats font that contains a variety of corporate logos. While any such logo used at a full size would obviously be a copyvio, at the very tiny size shown here, I cannot see how there is a problem. One of the main purposes of copyrighting something is to protect it from being used in a way that causes confusion in the mind of the viewer (did XYZ Company actually produce this or is it a knock-off?); this in no way is confusing. There is also no commercial gain by another or loss by the copyright holder (protection of economic interests is another reason to copyright something). If Commons still feels it's not acceptable within the guidelines of the project, then I agree that it should remain as a Fair Use image on the English Wikipedia. --Willscrlt (Talk) 22:55, 11 August 2008 (UTC)- Keep - Isn't it satire? According to en:Adbusters it is a campaign tool of the organisation and is available for purchase here. So, to me, it's fair-use on the grounds of satire.Journeyman (talk) 23:37, 11 August 2008 (UTC)
No fair use on commons. Cool though. -mattbuck (Talk) 21:14, 12 August 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Bulgaria has exempt section for stamps? Butko (talk) 08:52, 7 August 2008 (UTC)
- Keep
- I agree with your arguments. But please take note that the image is in intensive use in multiple Wikipedias. So, it would be great if the deletion nominator would first warn the people in there that the image is scheduled for a deletion here. Otherwise, there would be a frustration of those image users. With kindest regards, --Michael Romanov (talk) 23:03, 7 August 2008 (UTC)
- It is unfortunate this image is being used by several wikis, especially if it get deleted, but that only shows that perhaps images get uploaded without enough oversight. If it is not PD, it must go. The onus is on the uploader to provide the appropriate licence and I don't think it is possible to notify every editor who might be interested in its current usage. Deletion of images happens all the time and individual wiki editors just deal with it when they see the image is gone. Ww2censor (talk) 23:32, 7 August 2008 (UTC)
- I agree with your arguments. But please take note that the image is in intensive use in multiple Wikipedias. So, it would be great if the deletion nominator would first warn the people in there that the image is scheduled for a deletion here. Otherwise, there would be a frustration of those image users. With kindest regards, --Michael Romanov (talk) 23:03, 7 August 2008 (UTC)
- Comment re change to Keep:- I see that you have added the Bulgarian CC licence info to this image page, so I agree and now support a keep, but even though Butko states all Bulgarian stamps to be PD he has not shown any evidence of that. However, it is good to know that they have given permission for some stamps, so they may do so in the future for others. It might even be useful to see if they would give a CC licence for all stamps if someone will approach them. Cheers Ww2censor (talk) 16:01, 8 August 2008 (UTC)
- Keep: My apologies, when uploading that image I only thought about the aggregate picture and its license, not realizing that the stamp as part of the image needs a license too. Fortunately, the stamp itself has already been uploaded with an appropriate license as Image:Souvenir-Sheet-2002.jpg. No grounds for deletion I reckon. Apcbg (talk) 14:40, 8 August 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
no autor, no source, propably a facke —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jaro.p (talk • contribs) 14:13, 7 August 2008 (UTC)
- Keep. The Soviet Union is dead. Stop trying to delete images to hide the fact that the regime relied on photographic alteration to establish its legitimacy. 141.214.37.67 18:39, 24 August 2008 (UTC)
Comment Fixed deletion nomination. --jonny-mt 03:03, 8 August 2008 (UTC)
Comment Why does the deletion requester not read the description? He would find a source there! Or in other words: Is this deletion request a fake? Mutter Erde (talk) 08:53, 8 August 2008 (UTC)
- description page "Author: unknown / editor: unknown" source not academikal and not oficial soviet book. I think this image is a joke or a facke. This image used to illustrated the soviet history. When somebody know the soviet book or soviet newspaper like "Pravda", "Izvestia" please poste this source.
- when nobody know the autor the copirate is unknow too: 1. The author of this work died before June 22, 1941 2. The author of this work died between June 22, 1941 and December 31, 1942 and did not work and also did not serve in the Army during the Great Patriotic War. 3. This work is shot from non-amateur cinema or television film or television broadcast. Autor is unknow source is dubious.--Jaro.p (talk) 12:16, 9 August 2008 (UTC)
- On a more bureaucratic level, the image was taken by an uncredited Soviet photographer and published in an issue of Pravda in an article about Stalin touring the newly finished Moscow canal system that Yezhov, in one of his duties, was responsible for building. After Yezhov's fall, the official original photo maintained in the archives was altered to remove Yezhov and the article changed to remove any mention of Yezhov's role in the canals. Like the vast majority of Soviet photos from this period, the photographer was not recorded, never credited and can never be known, thus making the copyright dead for all intents and purposes. I leave it up to you. Bullzeye (talk) 11:37, 10 August 2008 (UTC)
- Yep, that's right. Keep, unless sombody finds a better resolution pic of this really famous Soviet fake Mutter Erde (talk) 11:58, 10 August 2008 (UTC)
- Source, autor and better images (David King Collection) : http://www.tate.org.uk/tateetc/issue8/erasurerevelation.htm
- Like the vast majority of Soviet photos from this period, the photographer was not recorded When this photo pablished in Pravda the autor of this photo shuld be know. Pravda pablished olways the name of photografs.
- Source, autor and better images (David King Collection) : http://www.tate.org.uk/tateetc/issue8/erasurerevelation.htm
- Yep, that's right.
http://www.oldgazette.ru/pravda/29011939/01-1.html http://www.oldgazette.ru/pravda/29011939/03-1.html http://www.oldgazette.ru/pravda/10051945/04-1.html http://www.oldgazette.ru/pravda/29031942/02-1.html http://www.oldgazette.ru/pravda/18011939/02-1.html --Jaro.p (talk) 12:01, 18 August 2008 (UTC)
- Was there only one newspaper in the big Soviet Union? :-). And why a newspaper? The pics from the source and from the David King Collection are much better.
- For the uncensored version have a look into: (German transcription):
- Maxim Gorki and others: Belomorsko-Baltijskij kanal imeni Stalina, Moscow 1937. There you will find the photographer - or not. I don't know, I don't possess this book. Mutter Erde (talk) 12:52, 18 August 2008 (UTC)
- This is rare book. I fund scanned as djvu. Stalin is on page 2 and 555. Many other people; Yagoda, Gorki, Kirov, Molotov. No picture with Yezhov. No this picture too. When it is needed I can upload this book an rapidshare.com--Jaro.p (talk) 14:33, 2 September 2008 (UTC)
Kept. PD-Russia OK Yann (talk) 20:51, 3 September 2008 (UTC)
I, Matasg, the author and uploader of this image, wish to delete this picture from Wikimedia Commons. --Matasg talk 09:57, 7 August 2008 (UTC)
- Can you explain why you want your images deleted, please? --MichaelMaggs (talk) 21:42, 7 August 2008 (UTC)
Kept. No reply. MichaelMaggs (talk) 06:42, 5 September 2008 (UTC)
I, Matasg, the author and uploader of this image, wish to delete this picture from Wikimedia Commons. --Matasg talk 09:57, 7 August 2008 (UTC)
It's a rather nice image and currently used on lt:Darželinis jazminas. --Túrelio (talk) 10:13, 7 August 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
I, Matasg, the author and uploader of this image, wish to delete this picture from Wikimedia Commons. --Matasg talk 09:56, 7 August 2008 (UTC)
- Hmm, featured picture candidate in 2007. I do not think that the license is revokable. -- carol (talk) 10:16, 7 August 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
I, Matasg, the author and uploader of this image, wish to delete this picture from Wikimedia Commons. --Matasg talk 09:56, 7 August 2008 (UTC)
- Why? It was free licenced a year ago. --V.Riullop (talk) 09:05, 8 August 2008 (UTC)
Delete:- I already asked about the status of stamps of Argentina here but no one replied, so I suggest deleting this image because the author cannot give this recent a stamp a PD licence. The author's statement: "As the Correo Oficial is the Official Post Service of Argentina, its post stamps are Public Documents and therefore under the Public Domain as long as the authorship of the piece is recognized and properly attributed" is not sustainable in any way that I can see and while there is no specific stamp template here for Argentinian stamps except for the PD-old template that could suit this image, I have not seen any specific discussion either here or here about Argentina stamp status. Ww2censor (talk) 15:56, 7 August 2008 (UTC)
Deleted. MichaelMaggs (talk) 06:46, 5 September 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
- Image:WC86 ENG-PAR.jpg
- Image:WC86 ESP-BRA.jpg
- Image:WC86 DAN-ESP.jpg
- Image:WC86 FRA-GER.jpg
- Image:WC86 GER-MEX.jpg
- Image:WC86 ITA-FRA.jpg
- Image:WC86 MOR-GER.jpg
These images are stamp, probably copyright violation.--Kwj2772 Disc. kowiki. 00:24, 7 August 2008 (UTC)
- Keep:- Paraguay stamps are PD according to Commons:Stamps/Public_domain#Paraguay and should use the appropriate template from this page. Ww2censor (talk) 16:31, 7 August 2008 (UTC)
- @ kowiki: The template cites Commons:Stamps/Public_domain#Paraguay as justification - Did you read this? --Fabi 17:01, 9 August 2008 (UTC)
- sorry I didn't read that section. Withdrawn by nominator. non-admin closure.--Kwj2772 Disc. kowiki. 12:33, 11 August 2008 (UTC)
Stamps of Cuba
[edit]Cuba has exempt section for stamps? --Butko (talk) 08:59, 7 August 2008 (UTC)
- Image:Timbre-poste 3 chats.jpg
- Image:Stamp working bee.jpg
- Image:Stamp queen bee.jpg
- Image:Stamp drone bee.jpg
- Image:Stamp bees.jpg
- Image:Stamp bees defending.jpg
- Image:Cuba34a.gif
- Image:Cuban postage stamps with paintings by Wifredo Lam.jpg
- Delete:- Cuba does not have any specific PD status that I know of, so even though I don't know the exact age of this stamp and cover which is dated 2004 it is not over 70 years which would be the age needed without any specific PD licence being available here. Where do you get the exempt status from? Please supply details and I will support a Keep. Ww2censor (talk) 16:46, 7 August 2008 (UTC)
Deleted. Anonymous101 talk 14:11, 14 August 2008 (UTC)
Stamps of Hervam
[edit]This stamps is realy in public domain «because defunct government»? --Butko (talk) 10:57, 7 August 2008 (UTC)
- Image:Stamp of Hervam.Lonchura molucca.jpg
- Image:Stamp of Hervam.Lonchura nevermanni.jpg
- Image:Stamp of Hervam.Lonchura teerinki.jpg
- Delete. These are en:cinderella stamps. I have some myself, purporting to be from Nagaland for instance - haven't heard of "Hervam" though. The lack of a denomination is one clue that these can't ever have been valid anywhere. So copyright rests with whoever made up these pretty colored stickers, and so we have the dual problem that a) we don't know the copyright holder, and b) most likely they are not freely licensed. Stan Shebs (talk) 06:05, 21 August 2008 (UTC)
Deleted. MichaelMaggs (talk) 06:46, 5 September 2008 (UTC)
Louvre Pyramide
[edit]There is no COM:FOP in France. In these pictures the Louvre Pyramide is the main motive of the image and not just an inevitable part of an image of the museum Louvre.
- Image:Louvre 03.jpg
- Image:Louvre Pyramid at night.jpg
- Image:Louvreintherain2.jpg
- Image:Museo_de_Louvre_Paris_04_07_21_8x6.jpg
- Image:Parigi-piramidi_louvre.jpg
- Image:Paris_louvrepyramid.jpg
- Image:Pyramid-louvre.JPG
- Image:Pyramide_du_Louvre.jpg
- Image:The glass pyramid at the Louvre at evening.jpg
- Image:Louvre pyramid geometry.jpg (indoors)
- Image:Louvre.jpg (indoors)
- Image:Louvre,_Blick_aus_der_Eingangspyramide_des_Louvre.jpg (indoors)
--Cecil (talk) 16:47, 7 August 2008 (UTC)
- Delete This subject comes up regularly, and often people unjustifiably argue that the photograph is of the Louvre building itself which just "happens" to have the pyramid centre-frame. This legal case is relevant. --MichaelMaggs (talk) 19:00, 7 August 2008 (UTC)
- Delete French laws are clear. This building is too recent to be included in DP. --Pymouss Tchatcher - 20:41, 7 August 2008 (UTC)
- I was unaware of such restriction, but clearly most of the pictures above have as only motive the pyramid(s). However, the pic Image:Museo_de_Louvre_Paris_04_07_21_8x6.jpg falls under a different situation, as the monument is in the first plane, the main pyramid is in the middle (and not fully shown in the picture) and the building in the background, showing the French flag as an integral part of the picture. Also please notice that the image shows plenty of tourists, which are also reducing the highlight of the pyramid. My intention when taking this photograph was precisely to include all five elements listed before. So I do request to have a differentiated evaluation of this picture in particular, as it is showing the normal environment in the place, and not the pyramid as the central element. I request the two previous editors who already voted for deletion to make a specific reference to this request.
- Therefore, if my vote counts, it is Keep for Image:Museo_de_Louvre_Paris_04_07_21_8x6.jpg and Delete for the others, as they indeed have the pyramid(s) as the central element in the image. --Mariordo (talk) 17:05, 9 August 2008 (UTC)
- We still have a lot of images where the pyramid is on, because you actually can't really make a picture of the Louvre without the pyramid. But all those others have together that it is obvious that the fotographer wanted an image of the Louvre, and the pyramid just being in the way and being just a small part of the whole picture (even though usually in the middle of it like Image:Louvre_2007_02_24_c.jpg), but with those which I nominated here I could not see that problem for any of them. Fact is, the main part of the image is still the pyramide and the only reason you can see the Louvre is that the pyramid is transparent. Even the rain picture (which clearly just wanted to picture the pyramid since the Louvre is in the back of the photographer) shows the pyramid in a less prominent and dominant way than your pic. -- Cecil (talk) 17:42, 9 August 2008 (UTC)
- Therefore, if my vote counts, it is
Deleted all per nomination. With regard to the one image that had a keep vote, the pyramid still took up more pixels than any other single element in the scene. Durova (talk) 18:18, 12 August 2008 (UTC)