Commons:Deletion requests/Archive/2008/11/16
 |
This is an archive, please do not edit. Post new cases at Commons:Deletion requests. You can visit the most recent archive here. |
 |
|
|
Erreur de nom de fichier Zitouni63 (talk) 20:10, 16 November 2008 (UTC)
Contains unfree elements. -Nard the Bard 16:22, 16 November 2008 (UTC)
- Hmm... I'm not sure de minimis can apply here, as the screen takes up a fair amount of the picture. I'll go for
Delete, and hope we get a version where it's switched off. -mattbuck (Talk) 18:27, 16 November 2008 (UTC) - delete, no dm, clear case --Isderion (talk) 20:03, 16 November 2008 (UTC)
Deleted by D-Kuru: copyvio - derivative work of the content on the monitor
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Seems to be an ad, not in scope Avron (talk) 17:26, 16 November 2008 (UTC)
Deleted by D-Kuru: copyvio - fair use (image description on no:E-læring says "Skjermbilde fra et språkprogram for å lære kinesisk." which is (according to the google translator) "Screenshot from a language program to learn Chinese." in english.
appears to be copy vio Snowmanradio (talk) 18:02, 16 November 2008 (UTC)
Keep Appears not to be a copy vio. -Nard the Bard 23:07, 16 November 2008 (UTC)
.JPEG){kind=link}
Deleted by D-Kuru: all rights reserved on flickr
Kept see Image talk:George Galloway.jpg --D-Kuru (talk) 15:28, 17 November 2008 (UTC)
Qualität ist viel zu schlecht Ceterum censeo capitalismum esse delendam (talk) 21:37, 16 November 2008 (UTC)
- Keep Stop complaining, this one is free, and the category shows no superior alternatives. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 21:41, 16 November 2008 (UTC)
- Keep No reason for deletion. --Rosenzweig δ 21:49, 16 November 2008 (UTC)
Kept Poor quality is no reason for deletion if there is no other alternative for this image --D-Kuru (talk) 15:40, 17 November 2008 (UTC)
just a fake brochure 85.108.129.91 22:05, 16 November 2008 (UTC)
- Keep Sourced and in use. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 22:12, 16 November 2008 (UTC)
- Keep historic document. J.smith (talk) 16:19, 17 November 2008 (UTC)
speedy kept: official Armenian document, 88 years old, no reason to delete Julo (talk) 18:42, 17 November 2008 (UTC)
Derivative work Multichill (talk) 22:13, 16 November 2008 (UTC)
Deleted by D-Kuru: copyvio - derivative work
non free logo --189.181.94.76 15:50, 16 November 2008 (UTC)
Deleted by Polarlys: copyright violation, see Commons:Licensing
Copyvio, cropped version of a scanpix picture. See http://www.nrksport.no/1.6311478 ZorroIII (talk) 18:09, 16 November 2008 (UTC)
Deleted as a clear copyright violation. There is no need to list such files here, just tag them with {{Speedy}}. --Kjetil_r 19:46, 16 November 2008 (UTC)
Probable Flickwashing. I did some looking and found this page which apparently credits Pacific Coast News as the source. Tabercil (talk) 00:40, 16 November 2008 (UTC)
- Delete This photo isn't consistent with the quality of the other photos in the flickr user's photostream and the photostream is full of copyvios, including various magazine covers. Obvious copyvio. Brynn (talk!) 15:27, 17 November 2008 (UTC)
Deleted. abf /talk to me/ 09:57, 23 November 2008 (UTC)
This image has been uploaded without permission from Hokkaido Government, Japan. The uploader of this image is not officially given the use of mascot.--Ykso (talk) 01:27, 16 November 2008 (UTC)
- Delete If you want to use this character, the Hokkaido government's permission is required. Does not allow free use. Even if you had permission to use the request to stop describing have been both. (http://www.pref.hokkaido.lg.jp/sk/jsk/shinseido/docyo-kun.htm)
- The signature had been forgotten. Sorry. --KAMUI (talk) 20:58, 16 November 2008 (UTC)
- Delete Character copyright violation. --Simonxag (talk) 12:06, 18 November 2008 (UTC)
Deleted. abf /talk to me/ 09:57, 23 November 2008 (UTC)
Non-free screenshot (Windows XP) (The best resolution would probably be to replace with a comparable screenshot of free software) nandhp (talk) 15:43, 16 November 2008 (UTC)
- Delete This image shows IrfanView wich is according to en:IrfanView freeware and not GPL --D-Kuru (talk) 15:19, 17 November 2008 (UTC)
- Comment: See Image:Geotagging gThumb.png, which might replace this image. --nandhp (talk) 21:32, 17 November 2008 (UTC)
Deleted. abf /talk to me/ 09:58, 23 November 2008 (UTC)
A book published in 1995 connected the poster with the artist's name Teofilo (talk) 15:47, 16 November 2008 (UTC)
- Auction.fr says that the poster is mentioned in 3 books :
- “Jean A. Mercier affichiste. Bibliothèque Forney” n°108, p.118
- «Cinéma Mercier 1925/1942» p.31
- “L'affiche de cinéma” p.53
- Priceminister.com, says that the first book in this list was published in 1995. Teofilo (talk) 16:02, 16 November 2008 (UTC)
- Delete Jean A. Mercier died 1999. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 19:32, 16 November 2008 (UTC)
Deleted. →Diti the penguin — 22:34, 23 November 2008 (UTC)
copyvio, not own work by uploader, see http://blog.sina.com.cn/miraclejy --1j1z2 (talk) 19:12, 16 November 2008 (UTC)
Deleted. →Diti the penguin — 22:30, 23 November 2008 (UTC)
source is http://www.beatlweb.com/instrumentos/lp7.htm, which is copyrighted, although I cannot find this image on the page --Snigbrook (talk) 22:13, 16 November 2008 (UTC)
- Copyvio. Summary is explicit: “Its a guitar used to make a beatles song. its a GNU free documentation licence because its only a guitar... not the beatles album nor the beatles.. […]”
Deleted. →Diti the penguin — 22:32, 23 November 2008 (UTC)
This image has been uploaded without permission from Toyohira ward office, Japan. The uploader of this image is not officially given the use of mascot. -Ykso (talk) 02:03, 16 November 2008 (UTC)
Deleted. Per COM:DW ~/w /Talk 17:09, 25 November 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Rename with more informative file name. Btphelps (talk) 02:29, 16 November 2008 (UTC)
Deleted. ~/w /Talk 17:10, 25 November 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
The copyright of the image is NOT expired. Towerman (talk) 05:02, 16 November 2008 (UTC)
Deleted. ~/w /Talk 17:10, 25 November 2008 (UTC)
License tag claims that the author "cannot be ascertained by reasonable enquiry". There's a clear signature ('James S. Mann') in the lower left corner. dave pape (talk) 05:37, 16 November 2008 (UTC)
- Delete Tag is clearly not valid. --MichaelMaggs (talk) 10:04, 16 November 2008 (UTC)
- Keep Please check at the source page. It shows that the image is in the public domain. Britannic (talk) 23:40, 16 November 2008 (UTC)
- The source page copyright statement is not correct: that is the point. --MichaelMaggs (talk) 16:56, 17 November 2008 (UTC)
Deleted. ~/w /Talk 17:14, 25 November 2008 (UTC)
Duplicate of Image:Holwellquarry.jpg TimTay (talk) 07:36, 16 November 2008 (UTC)
- Well spotted! Going by the Geolocation, Holwell Quarry is right. I've removed the image from the en:Colemans Quarry article. Angus McLellan (Talk) 21:56, 16 November 2008 (UTC)
Deleted. ~/w /Talk 17:14, 25 November 2008 (UTC)
No sign of release on source site. No sign that source site owns image, anyway, as it is filled with copyright violations and scans --190.4.72.45 11:38, 16 November 2008 (UTC)
Deleted. ~/w /Talk 17:38, 25 November 2008 (UTC)
version of Image:SpiderRock.jpg in absurd colors - out of scope. We have a number of good images of Spider Rock, most notably Image:Spider Rock.jpg h-stt !? 12:16, 16 November 2008 (UTC)
Deleted. ~/w /Talk 17:39, 25 November 2008 (UTC)
No information is provided on when the work was first published Teofilo (talk) 14:02, 16 November 2008 (UTC)
- Delete None of the source links work. -Nard the Bard 15:38, 16 November 2008 (UTC)
- Keep Source link preserved here: "LTA, Brüche-Nachlass; Abdruck honorarfrei" /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 19:51, 16 November 2008 (UTC)
Deleted. Abdruck honorarfrei means you are allowed to print the image without having to pay. This is not a release of any other rights on the image. ChrisiPK (Talk|Contribs) 00:03, 26 November 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
.JPEG&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.JPEG&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
Very unlikely original work of uploader. Uploader has a history of uploading copyrighted material and/or not being truthful about image sources. See uploader's logs. Paul_012 (talk) 01:00, 16 November 2008 (UTC)
.JPEG){kind=link}
- Sorry this is my own work and upload by myself, why do you want to delete it? --NBALIVE2551 (talk) 04:32, 16 November 2008 (UTC)
- You have previously claimed such ownership to other images, only to retract the claim (presumably because the evidence was clear to the contrary). I believe we have reason to distrust your claims. --Paul_012 (talk) 05:41, 18 November 2008 (UTC)
Deleted. A Reuters image. ©Reuters/Chaiwat Subprasom. Lupo 10:33, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
.JPEG){kind=link}
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Questionable self-made claim Denniss (talk) 02:01, 16 November 2008 (UTC)
Deleted. Lupo 10:38, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
Copyvio: Looks like a scanned image, small-sized, with no EXIF data. Diti (talk to the penguin) 22:21, 16 November 2008 (UTC)
Deleted per nomination. abf «Cabale?! Quelle Caballe?» 16:05, 15 January 2009 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
According to source at [1] the image is undated but was created by "Blackstone Studios". There's no particular reason to believe {{PD-old-70}} applies since Kodály lived until 1967. This image is probably from the 1940s or '50s. —Angr 16:21, 16 November 2008 (UTC)
- Delete Source site says: Reproduction of the images contained within this exhibit is forbidden due to copyright restrictions. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 19:21, 16 November 2008 (UTC)
- True; but I intentionally didn't mention that because a lot of websites make all sorts of spurious copyfraud claims. If there were good reasons to believe the image is public domain, I'd be happy to ignore that claim. But in this case, there is no particular reason to believe the image is PD. —Angr 21:05, 16 November 2008 (UTC)
Deleted. Sanbec (talk) 18:26, 12 March 2009 (UTC)
No information is provided on the presence or the absence of the photgrapher's name in From Nobel Lectures, Physics 1922-1941, Elsevier Publishing Company, Amsterdam, 1965, which is the source of the nobelprize.org internet page. Teofilo (talk) 10:39, 16 November 2008 (UTC)
- Keep The source url says that it was published in the yearly publication Les prix nobel. This should be Les prix nobel en 1933, published in Stockholm in 1935. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 11:10, 16 November 2008 (UTC)
- The problem is the same : was the photographer's name included in this "Les prix Nobel en 1933" ? And was the same photo not published elsewhere before 1935 or later, with the photographer's name ? The Terms of use say For uses of other photos, permission from the Nobel Foundation, and in certain cases from the photographer, is required. Teofilo (talk) 11:35, 16 November 2008 (UTC)
- According to this source, the artist was "A Bortzells", but that is just the graphical company A Börtzells Tryckeri. (Algernon Börtzell died 1918.) This is anonymous. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 11:37, 16 November 2008 (UTC)
- Anyway the picture is still copyrighted in the US because it was not in the Public Domain in its home country as of January 1 1996. Teofilo (talk) 12:53, 16 November 2008 (UTC)
- ?? Your sophistry is getting absurd. What home country do you mean? /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 13:05, 16 November 2008 (UTC)
- Was the picture not first published in Sweden ? Teofilo (talk) 13:30, 16 November 2008 (UTC)
- Probably, so {{PD-Sweden}}. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 13:41, 16 November 2008 (UTC)
- PD-Sweden is questionable. See Lupo's message on Template talk:PD-Sweden-photo. en:Directive harmonizing the term of copyright protection#Copyright restoration should apply to Sweden. Teofilo (talk) 14:44, 16 November 2008 (UTC)
- According to the Swedish copyright laws of 1960, photography was not protected by copyright, but it was protected for a period of 25 years after creation (or for 50 years if it had "artistic or scientific value"). So this 1933 photo was free in 1994 when new copyright laws were introduced in Sweden, laws that specifically said that expired copyrights would not be affected. So this was free also on January 1 1996, so it is free in the US. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 19:55, 12 March 2009 (UTC)
- PD-Sweden is questionable. See Lupo's message on Template talk:PD-Sweden-photo. en:Directive harmonizing the term of copyright protection#Copyright restoration should apply to Sweden. Teofilo (talk) 14:44, 16 November 2008 (UTC)
- Probably, so {{PD-Sweden}}. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 13:41, 16 November 2008 (UTC)
- Was the picture not first published in Sweden ? Teofilo (talk) 13:30, 16 November 2008 (UTC)
- ?? Your sophistry is getting absurd. What home country do you mean? /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 13:05, 16 November 2008 (UTC)
- Anyway the picture is still copyrighted in the US because it was not in the Public Domain in its home country as of January 1 1996. Teofilo (talk) 12:53, 16 November 2008 (UTC)
- According to this source, the artist was "A Bortzells", but that is just the graphical company A Börtzells Tryckeri. (Algernon Börtzell died 1918.) This is anonymous. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 11:37, 16 November 2008 (UTC)
- The problem is the same : was the photographer's name included in this "Les prix Nobel en 1933" ? And was the same photo not published elsewhere before 1935 or later, with the photographer's name ? The Terms of use say For uses of other photos, permission from the Nobel Foundation, and in certain cases from the photographer, is required. Teofilo (talk) 11:35, 16 November 2008 (UTC)
- Keep PD-Sweden, and also corporate-attributed work more than 70 years old. -Nard the Bard 14:10, 16 November 2008 (UTC)
- More than 70 years [ago] from now but not more than 70 years [ago] from January 1 1996. Teofilo (talk) 14:44, 16 November 2008 (UTC)
- When you get consensus to start enforcing PD-URAA then we can talk. Individual requests is not going to do it. And besides, you know little of US law if you think the protection is 70 years from 1996. -Nard the Bard 15:28, 16 November 2008 (UTC)
- Added "[ago]". Teofilo (talk) 09:07, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
- When you get consensus to start enforcing PD-URAA then we can talk. Individual requests is not going to do it. And besides, you know little of US law if you think the protection is 70 years from 1996. -Nard the Bard 15:28, 16 November 2008 (UTC)
- More than 70 years [ago] from now but not more than 70 years [ago] from January 1 1996. Teofilo (talk) 14:44, 16 November 2008 (UTC)
- Keep --Historiograf (talk) 00:55, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
No evidence is provided that the photographer died before 1938 so that the 70 years pma is expired Teofilo (talk) 11:45, 16 November 2008 (UTC)
- Keep Anonymous circa 1930 photo from a Cambridge collection (source). /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 20:38, 16 November 2008 (UTC)
- Published for the first time when and where ? Teofilo (talk) 10:18, 18 November 2008 (UTC)
Kept as {{Anonymous-EU}}. –Tryphon☂ 08:41, 23 March 2009 (UTC)
apparently old photo, but no information at all Deerhunter (talk) 12:02, 16 November 2008 (UTC)
Deleted. Missing essential source information. –Tryphon☂ 12:23, 23 March 2009 (UTC)
This picture is NOT of Jefferson Hall (listed address was incorrect) Andrew Jameson (talk) 13:11, 16 November 2008 (UTC)
- Note BTW that I am the uploader Andrew Jameson (talk) 13:12, 16 November 2008 (UTC)
Kept. This is not a reason to delete; it could be renamed if we know which building it is. In the meantime, I added a note to warn potential re-users. –Tryphon☂ 12:14, 23 March 2009 (UTC)
No information is provided on when the picture was first published Teofilo (talk) 13:27, 16 November 2008 (UTC)
- Delete There is no link to this actual photograph on that website. -Nard the Bard 15:23, 16 November 2008 (UTC)
- Keep Just write "Wegener" in the search window on that site and you will get a link here. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 20:00, 16 November 2008 (UTC)
- Keep As an active uploader, I wonder why I wasn't contacted, assuming good faith. I could have provided for the link. Regards, Woudloper (talk) 01:43, 17 November 2008 (UTC)
- You have been notified on your talk page on Commons, with {{subst:idw|Image:Alfred Wegener.jpg}}. We still have no information on when, and where the photo was first published. Teofilo (talk) 10:00, 18 November 2008 (UTC)
- Wegener died in a Greenland blizzard in 1930. If the photo had not been published before then, it must have been published in 1930 or 1931, when his body was found. Brockhaus uses this photo, but that encyclopedia just has at the end of its last volume a long list of image suppliers (without any clue of what images were supplied!). /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 16:14, 19 November 2008 (UTC)
- You have been notified on your talk page on Commons, with {{subst:idw|Image:Alfred Wegener.jpg}}. We still have no information on when, and where the photo was first published. Teofilo (talk) 10:00, 18 November 2008 (UTC)
Kept. According to [2], the author is anonymous, and it seems reasonable to assume that it was published before or shortly after the subject's death. –Tryphon☂ 12:30, 23 March 2009 (UTC)
Picture of the film Alkab (talk) 13:49, 16 November 2008 (UTC)
- Keep How do you know this was not taken on set? -Nard the Bard 15:35, 16 November 2008 (UTC)
- Keep A search on TinEye for this image shows it coming up in a number of places, among them is a listing for media.ford.com so I think it's safe to assume the photo is owned by Ford. The Flickr account from which this photo was taken looks to be that of the Ford Company's marketing division, based on the profile, so I don't think this is a case of Flickrwashing. Tabercil (talk) 22:52, 16 November 2008 (UTC)
Comment - Ratio is cinema screen. -mattbuck (Talk) 00:58, 17 November 2008 (UTC)- Delete That, plus the fact that even Ford may own the car, they don't own the movie, now belonging to Warner Bros. and Village Roadshow. As you can see on the Flickr page (and even here), the picture is at low size; it means that, even though the community rules of Flickr doesn't allow this, they (Ford?) most likely published it under the fair use act. And this is not allowed on Commons. Diti (talk to the penguin) 23:48, 17 November 2008 (UTC)
Deleted. Movie screenshot, doubtful that Ford owns the rights on this particular image. –Tryphon☂ 08:46, 23 March 2009 (UTC)
This photograph was perhaps never published. We don't know if the photgrapher died in 1937 or sooner so that the 70 years pma term would have expired. Teofilo (talk) 15:11, 16 November 2008 (UTC)
- Keep It's a signed gift, so we know at least one copy was given out. -Nard the Bard 15:42, 16 November 2008 (UTC)
- We need a historian here. I have no idea in which circumstances a general in an army would want a large size photographic portrait of himself to be taken, and to which kind of people he would like the portrait to be distributed, whether this would be a small group of selected people or a wide public. Teofilo (talk) 16:44, 16 November 2008 (UTC)
- Keep This person died 1918. And this rastered cropped image indicates that it was published. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 19:44, 16 November 2008 (UTC)
- Keep that is a not a simple print... that was a copy that was given out, with some stylized treatment. Carl Lindberg (talk) 05:20, 21 November 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
This is a photo from the '40s, and no source is provided. I doubt significantly that it is GFDL. --J Milburn (talk) 16:09, 16 November 2008 (UTC)
- The persons depicted are relatives, the photo was taken by my grandfather, I own the rights since my grandfather is dead and left me his photos. I've put all this into the photo description now. Do you need any more information? -- Arvind (talk) 15:29, 22 November 2008 (UTC)
Kept. Assuming good faith. –Tryphon☂ 12:59, 23 March 2009 (UTC)
no author, unclear licensing Avron (talk) 17:15, 16 November 2008 (UTC)
Deleted. Missing essential source information. –Tryphon☂ 12:53, 23 March 2009 (UTC)
seems to be an advertisment, not in scope, unclear license (copyright all over image) Avron (talk) 17:56, 16 November 2008 (UTC)
Reply by:(Goh Nai Ling here I'm a creator of Gpassenger, I will update my page with screen print, the application is under Writing and literary work Source codes of computer programs under international copyright law, For a work to be protected by copyright, it has to be original and expressed in a tangible form such as in a recording or in writing. Originality simply means that there is a degree of independent effort in the creation of the work. It is not a question of whether the work has creative merit. A copyright work created by a Singapore citizen or resident is protected in many countries overseas by virtue of international agreements. Generally, under these international agreements, the work of a Singapore citizen or resident would be protected in countries that signed the agreements as though the work was made there. provide for registration to facilitate proof of copyright in infringement proceedings.
>> The Berne Convention for the Protection of Literary and Artistic Works is a convention on copyright protection of literary and artistic works including films. It is administered by the World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO). A list of countries party to the Berne Convention may be found at the WIPO website.
>> The Agreement on Trade-Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights (TRIPS Agreement) (1994) of the World Trade Organization (WTO) is an international agreement on intellectual property rights including copyright, patents, and trade marks. A list of member countries of the WTO may be found at the WTO website.The Symbol © The use of the symbol is simply a notice of a claim by the copyright owner that copyright exists. It does not give the copyright owner any substantive right and is therefore not crucial to the enjoyment of copyright protection. Conversely, the non-use of the symbol does not imply a waiver or loss of copyright. It may, however, be a relevant fact in infringement proceedings. If an infringing party claims that he did not know that the material was protected under copyright law, the Court may take that into account and award lower damages. The use of the © symbol would generally stop the infringing party from successfully relying on such an argument.)--Microsco (talk) 17:08, 17 November 2008 (UTC)
- Delete "Copyright © 2008 Goh Nai Ling. All rights reserved" - We can't accept images that are "All rights reserved." In addition, the watermarking makes this image fairly useless. --J.smith (talk) 16:23, 17 November 2008 (UTC)
Reply by:(Goh Nai Ling here, with respect, i have change the picture with no water mark or copyright on it. I apreciated of your command and value your kind attention on my work. Thank you and Best regards. ) --Microsco (talk) 17:06, 17 November 2008 (UTC)
- Excellent, thank you for doing that! The image page is still a bit of a problem. It says "All rights reserved" all over the place. Do you agree to release your screen shot under the terms of the GFDL and/or the CC-By-SA 3.0 licenses? By doing so you give up some of your rights over the image, including being able to restrict who uses it and being able to forbid changes to it. They both guarantee your right to be credited for the image and they both require that any changes to the image be licensed under the same or similar license. Click on the links above to get the nitty-gritty details. --J.smith (talk) 17:48, 17 November 2008 (UTC)
Deleted. No permission. –Tryphon☂ 09:03, 23 March 2009 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
unclear permission Avron (talk) 17:58, 16 November 2008 (UTC)
Kept as {{PD-textlogo}}. –Tryphon☂ 12:21, 23 March 2009 (UTC)
To small to be on any use, no description Deerhunter (talk) 19:43, 16 November 2008 (UTC)
Kept. In scope. –Tryphon☂ 11:56, 23 March 2009 (UTC)
It isn't used, has no categories, a nondescriptive name, and no apparent encyclopedic use Jonjames1986 (talk) 20:23, 16 November 2008 (UTC)
- Delete No use, no point in keeping. How do you turn this on (talk) 15:32, 23 November 2008 (UTC)
- Keep. What's up? It's a photo of a time-out during the the women's handball match between Levanger HK and Larvik HK (Norwegian women's A series) on March 14, 2007. The photo shows the players of Levanger HK. Some names: Berit Hynne (2nd from left), Frida Johansson (#10, back to photographer), Silje Mari Berget (#15).[3] Maybe not the best photo, but at least could be used to crop out headshots of Hynne and Berget, if anyone ever wanted to write articles on them. Lupo 11:15, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
- Keep this is well within our project scope and can be used on handball related articles. --Kanonkas(talk) 22:24, 5 December 2008 (UTC)
Kept. In scope. –Tryphon☂ 08:49, 23 March 2009 (UTC)
Another in a line of SPAs uploading "self-licensed" pictures of a 20-years dead child actress. — pd_THOR | =/\= | 20:47, 16 November 2008 (UTC)
- What is an "SPA"? --Captain Infinity (talk) 01:05, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
Deleted. Certainly not own work. –Tryphon☂ 11:58, 23 March 2009 (UTC)
Possible copyvio: see Commons:Licensing#not_OK. Diti (talk to the penguin) 20:56, 16 November 2008 (UTC)
- Delete - no indication that copyright by the original graffiti artist has expired. Does Mexico have a law that puts anonymous works into the public domain? If so, then I might change my not-vote. --InfantGorilla (talk) 09:23, 12 January 2009 (UTC)
Deleted. Mexico has freedom of panorama, so the only question is whether the Batman logo is eligible for copyright or not; I'm not sure, but I think it is, which makes this image a copyvio. –Tryphon☂ 12:52, 23 March 2009 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
I specificed a poor filename and am uploading it again KeithBarrett (talk) 20:07, 16 November 2008 (UTC)
- Delete duplicate of File:AdventurersClubExterior.jpg. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 14:16, 7 July 2009 (UTC)
Deleted. Bidgee (talk) 08:18, 2 August 2009 (UTC)
