Commons:Deletion requests/Archive/2009/04/12

From Wikimedia Commons, the free media repository
Jump to navigation Jump to search
Commons logo
Commons logo

This is an archive, please do not edit. Post new cases at Commons:Deletion requests.

You can visit the most recent archive here.

Archive
Archive
Archive April 12th, 2009
This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

Images of tq2cute

[edit]

I believe that Flickr User:tq2cute's images should be remove for the following reasons:

  1. No source while multiple uploader upload it to wiki, the uploader only upload it to flickr under the license he/she wanted. Then delete the image on flickr after flickr bot checked it.
  2. Personality rights violation,well we can also put a personal right templates on the page
  3. There is no permission or anything regard to the women in the photo accepting to be upload to the wiki under that license.
  4. The uploader does not cite well source as with any of his/her images, this photo might be taking off from random internet.

Lennlin (talk) 01:17, 12 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

 Comment although the pictures have disappeared on flickr, the flickr review is positive. The flickr uploader still owns an account on Flickr, with his most recent uploads being professional quality looking pictures under "all rights reserved" available in full size. His last upload there was in february 2009. He links his flickr account to what seems to be his own website http://www.tq2cute.com/ . A lot of pictures dated 2006-2007 are present on http://www.tq2cute.com/photos/index.php . Because they seem to have no caption, I could not make a keyword search on its search engine. So it is difficult to know if the pictures uploaded on Commons could be there. That gallery is full of spam. I wonder what the meaning of the title "Trong Quyen" is. "Hình Quyền du lịch Việt Nam 2006-2007", written a little lower, on the main gallery page is difficult to translate with the google translate tool : while the full sentence is translated as "The right image tourism Vietnam 2006-2007", "Hình Quyền" alone becomes "Image rights". I wish a vietnamese speaking admin could process this request. "Photography - Collection of good and photographic pictures" written in English on the main gallery page is not a strong assertion that one is a photographer. On the other hand, why collect so many not-so-powerfully-beautiful pictures and near-duplicates if one is not the photographer oneself ? Teofilo (talk) 08:02, 12 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

 Comment The image resolution is suspiciously low for such professional images. Only a Vietnamese speaking Admin or trusted user can understand what the uploader is saying. --Leoboudv (talk) 10:20, 12 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
"Trọng Quyền" is the photographer's name. "Hình Quyền du lịch Việt Nam 2006-2007" means "photos taken by Quyền while traveling in Vietnam 2006-2007. Kauffner (talk) 15:29, 21 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
"Hình Quyền du lịch Việt Nam 2006-2007" -> Photoes that were taken by Quyền while [I'm] travelling Vietnam between 2006 and 2007.
Quyền is the photographer's name which means "Power" or "Authority" not "copyright" (bản quyền).--Amore Mio (talk) 15:06, 25 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

 Keep all per evidence given by Vietnamese-speaking admins. Guy0307 (talk) 10:12, 27 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Kept. BanyanTree 06:12, 22 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

File:Bivalyok.jpg

[edit]

sculptor VASTAGH GYÖRGY junior, credited on source website died less than 70 years ago Teofilo (talk) 11:51, 12 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

C'est déja publié en 1906. Vois la source, cette une source libre! Hello. --Teroses 13:46, 14 April 2009 (UTC)
Ce qui compte, c'est l'année de décès du sculpteur. Category:György Vastagh, Jr. : (1868–1946). 1946 +70 = 2016, donc cette image sera libre à partir du 1er janvier 2017. Pas avant. Teofilo (talk) 18:57, 14 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Cette sculpture est dans La Collection des Beaux-arts du Musée d'Agriculture Hongroise, où je travaille. Je vais demander la permission de l'héritière. Merci! Salut!----Teroses 11:07, 18 April 2009 (UTC)--•Terosest'écoute 18:07, 18 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep it in English! In absence of a permission or source for age, delete. Hekerui (talk) 19:29, 2 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, obtaining permission was unsuccessful (copyrights were inherited by Vastagh Csilla whom Teroses couldn't contact). --Tgr (talk) 08:06, 14 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted. Wknight94 talk 02:06, 19 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Restored: as per [1]. Yann (talk) 11:49, 2 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

File:Frankish Foederatus .png

[edit]

The unsourced map File:Frankish Foederatus .png claims that the en:Franks originated in modern day Central Netherlands and were surrounded by "Barbarian" (German-ic) lands. According to related File:Frankish Expansion.png, they then expanded form there. Smells of Dutch nationalism. --Matthead (talk) 22:48, 12 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

 KeepSource has been added., and I would be the last to know how Dutch nationalism smells. But thanks for the compliment.HP1740-B (talk) 23:16, 12 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
updated: http://www.tacitus.nu/historical-atlas/francia.htm was added as source. So its a copyvio from that private website, which is also unsourced.
 Delete as nominator --Matthead (talk) 00:19, 13 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Re-opened and re-listed because some comments had been removed when I closed it. –Tryphon☂ 14:53, 21 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
 Delete Indeed, own work, no source, and somewhat contradicted by File:50nc ex leg copy.jpg and File:800nc ex leg.jpg. And, eh, yes, HP1740-B will probably be the last to know how Dutch nationalism smells, someone working at a stables only knows the smell of manure after they quit their job. Erik Warmelink (talk) 21:53, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted. BanyanTree 11:59, 22 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

File:Frankish Expansion.png

[edit]

The unsourced map File:Frankish Foederatus .png claims that the en:Franks originated in modern day Central Netherlands and were surrounded by "Barbarian" (German-ic) lands. According to related File:Frankish Expansion.png, they then expanded form there. Smells of Dutch nationalism. --Matthead (talk) 22:53, 12 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

 Keep Source has been added., and I would be the last to know how Dutch nationalism smells. But thanks for the compliment.HP1740-B (talk) 23:16, 12 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
updated: http://www.tacitus.nu/historical-atlas/francia.htm was added as source. So its a copyvio from that private website, which is also unsourced.
and the sourced File:Franks expansion.gif is already available
 Delete as nominator --Matthead (talk) 01:07, 13 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Re-opened and re-listed because some comments had been removed when I closed it. –Tryphon☂ 14:54, 21 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Does commons keep pictures of personal delusions, which (for obvious reasons) don't tell what the colours mean? Erik Warmelink (talk) 21:29, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
BTW, that dark green area isn't modern day Central Netherlands, perhaps it was during the time of the en:Burgundian Netherlands, when Gelre, het Sticht and Friesland where not yet occupied. Erik Warmelink (talk) 21:29, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted. BanyanTree 11:59, 22 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

File:Helge_og_Yrsa.jpg

[edit]

Copyrighted in the country of origin. Botev (talk) 23:40, 12 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

 Delete Old, but Jenny Nyström died 1946. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 17:47, 13 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted. BanyanTree 06:13, 22 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

File:Historisches deutsches Sprachgebiet.PNG

[edit]

I came across this image today; which I found to be incredibly inaccurate. I looked at the talk page and apparently I wasn't the only one. I came to the conclusion that deletion is the only solution for this image. The below pro-deletion arguments are based on the talk page discussion and a previous deletion request.

1. Original (German) creator; Postmann Michael, was banned from the German Wikipedia on May 25th 2006 for; "POV from doubtful sources and trivializing National Socialism. (link)
2. Image claims to be based on the 1910 national census of the German Empire;
  • It however shows huge portions of land outside of the German Empire (which could impossibly be included in a German national census; such as Russia, the Netherlands, Belgium, Luxembourg, Switzerland, France and the Austro-Hungarian Empire. Given that it are those areas which form the borders of the German language in this map; it is completely without valid source, though a myriad of text fragments in poor English try to obscure this.
3. Image (falsely) shows a number of separate language as being German. Namely;
4. Incorrect previous keep decision.
  • 7 Users support its deletion.
  • 10 oppose its deletion; but:
    • 3 are unregistered users/ IP-adresses.
    • 1 user, (Kjetil_r) changes opinion during discussion; without changing his formal stance.
    • Of the remaining 6 users opposing its deletion, 3 did so provided that the image be fixed. Which has not happened since.
Conclusion: This image has no valid source, made by a banned POV-pusher; is a constant source of troubles [it has been reverted/changed a total of 18 times, with only one (Movieevery) pro-image user]; is highly offensive to Poles, Czechs, Dutchmen and Frisians, and can serve/serves as a platform for Nazi/German nationalist misrepresentation of history.-HP1740-B (talk) 11:55, 12 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

{{vd}} A copy of a map dated from 1910 showing the ideology of some publishers at that time might be a useful historical document, but we usually do not publish new unpublished studies. As such this file should be deleted. Teofilo (talk) 18:27, 12 April 2009 (UTC) I need a to think about this again. Teofilo (talk) 23:38, 12 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This isn't a copy. This is a modern map; fueled by modern political motives which claims to be based on a 1910 study; which is impossible given the representation.HP1740-B (talk) 18:32, 12 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

 Delete Per nom.HP1740-B (talk) 18:32, 12 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

 Keep Content of the map is backed up by old and modern sources, see e.g. map 2001 dtv-Atlas Deutsche Sprache. The creator had machine-translated his sources from German into English, which is a mess, but I've tried to weed it out, see here. Besides, the nominator User:HP1740-B himself had uploaded 3 files which are now all nominated for deletion, and this map here had been attacked before by users (user accounts) with strong Dutch-based POV. Deja-vu. --Matthead (talk) 23:24, 12 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note that the map in that link differs enormously from the map in question here. It is not correct to fabricate a new map from tiny bits of other maps (over a wide range of subjects and time periods) and dubious sources, which suit your personal ideology.HP1740-B (talk) 23:48, 12 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

 Delete The map Matthead links to is different (so if anything it's evidence in favor of deletion), the map was created in order to push POV by a banned user, it is inaccurate (Dutch and Frisians counted as German, areas with small minorities of German speakers portrayed as if they were German language dominated, etc.), the map has unclear sources and as far as I can tell is a cherry picked form of OR to construct as large a German speaking area as possible.Radeksz (talk) 00:16, 13 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

 Keep of course, the file is in use on various projects, and it's not for us to decide if it is accurate or not (see COM:NPOV). Besides, there has already been a DR for this image (for pretty much the same reason) and it has been kept. –Tryphon☂ 02:40, 13 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If you look at my rationale, point 4, you will see that that decision was incorrect.HP1740-B (talk) 08:27, 13 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
DRs are no polls, we don't count votes. The closing decision is based on policy and on the arguments given in the DR; but 10 people voting delete with the exact same argument (or no argument at all) are less likely to get the image deleted than one person with a good argument based on policy. –Tryphon☂ 09:46, 13 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

 Keep As much as I don't like the inaccuracies in this map, we have to keep it, since after all many historical maps on Commons created by amateur contributors contain various errors, and if we started to delete them all on that basis, we would loose a lot of valuable contributions. Nevertheless, given how much controversy this map has generated and the harm it has thus caused, the correct approach would be to:

  • Clearly indicate in the description of this file that the accuracy of the information it presents has been questioned. Some kind of a prominent, visible tag would do well here. Adding a note to that effect on talk pages of all Wikipedia articles where the map is used would also help.
  • In the near future generate a better map which reflects historical reality and then attach a pointer tag in this map's description to that new map.

This should be a general approach for all Commons maps which claim to represent true facts but fail to adequately do so. balcer (talk) 02:52, 13 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I dislike the idea that we should keep a map; (which isn't authentic thus has no historical value as an incorrect map) with flaws just because "a lot of maps are flawed". If a map is (seriously flawed; and we're not talking about a misspelled city-name here) it should be corrected (which has not been done since the previous nomination; and 1 user keeps reverting it) or deleted. We don't allow nonsense (this is nonsense, not POV) on the Wikipedia's; why should commons be different?HP1740-B (talk) 08:31, 13 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Keep It appears the Dutch-speaking areas are shaded in differently, so I do get what "is flawed" about this map. Dutch is, in fact, a Germanic language, so I think it was wise of the author to shade the Dutch regions. However, the title should be Germanic languages, not German language. Whereas you could accuse him of doing this to push a "we're all the same" Greater-German argument, one could say you are trying to do the opposite, and deny that Dutch is, in fact, from the Germanic family of languages and IMHO, about as close to German as Alsace German is to High German. Either way one could say it is POV, so the solution - the best solution - would be to make note of what "Dutch" is...in the caption.--88.73.225.122 16:53, 13 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
(Noting that the above IP adress has only 1 edit;) The image doesn't shade Danish, English or Swedish; while those are Germanic languages as well. Nor does it explain why Dutch and Frisian are. Germanic does not mean German.HP1740-B (talk) 18:02, 13 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

 Delete Inaccurate and confusing. Misinformation should not be kept. Bessel Dekker (talk) 19:15, 13 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

 Delete This map provides misinformation and therefore should be removed. --JanB (talk) 19:38, 13 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

 Delete Balcer convinced me: we should keep nonsense in order to avoid losing more nonsense? Such a problem, if it exists, should be solved by correcting the factual errors and in no other way. Otherwise, I have little to add to what has been said previously; the map has unclear sources, provides erroneous information in claiming that German (as distinct from Germanic) was spoken in the Netherlands and Belgium in 1910, and may (!) be intended for pushing a nationalist agenda. Ucucha (talk) 20:17, 13 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Please everyone, read COM:SCOPE and COM:NPOV before you comment on this DR. A file that is in use on other projects is automatically in our scope, so we won't delete it. If the map is inaccurate, then maybe the sister projects shouldn't use it, but we just cannot make that decision for them. Keep in mind we don't have the same policy as wikipedia regarding NPOV. Some quotes: If you feel strongly that a map, emblem, flag or other file hosted here is “wrong” in some way please try to persuade your local wiki community to make use of the version you prefer instead. [...] Of course, if the author has made a factual mistake that is not seriously disputed, the image (if not in use) may fail the test of being useful for an educational purpose, and can be deleted on that basis. But where an alleged error generates significant dispute the image should be kept and the dispute left to the individual wiki communities to resolve. –Tryphon☂ 22:38, 13 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
People coming to Commons expect (and should be able to expect) accurate material; not propaganda. Leaving maps like this one, means it will continue to confuse and quite likely spawn other material based on it. It sounds almost as if it were cancer. The source lies here, and the source of the problem must be attacked.HP1740-B (talk) 23:14, 13 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I would actually guess that this falls under "a factual mistake that is not seriously disputed": there seem to be no mainstream sources confirming this image's claims. Ucucha (talk) 06:50, 15 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I'm glad at least one person here took the time to read our policy... You're probably right, and in this case, it could be deleted if not in use. Since the file is in use, it will be kept, no matter how wrong people here think it is. The only course of action is to "try to persuade your local wiki community to make use of the version you prefer instead" (it shouldn't be that hard if the map is really completely wrong; but please work with the communities, don't go around removing the map from articles unilaterally). –Tryphon☂ 07:03, 15 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Excuse me? How could you possibly claim that the factual accuracy of this map isn't disputed? It is HIGHLY disputed;HP1740-B (talk) 16:39, 15 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Now I'm confused, you're saying we should keep it now? Because COM:NPOV clearly says that disputed content will not be deleted from Commons on that basis, but is rather a matter for individual projects: "Images having particular national, political or religious significance including flags, emblems and maps can arouse strong passions, but Commons is not the place to decide which of various competing versions is the correct or official version." Only mistakes that are not disputed can be dealt with on Commons, if the image is not in use: "Of course, if the author has made a factual mistake that is not seriously disputed, the image (if not in use) may fail the test of being useful for an educational purpose, and can be deleted on that basis."
I'm still under the impression that you didn't read our NPOV policy and that you're relying on some wikipedia policy in your arguments. This very situation is cited as an example on COM:NPOV. I apologize if you already read it but somehow misunderstood the point, but I really feel like I'm talking for nothing here; you need to start basing your arguments on policy rather than your personal opinions. –Tryphon☂ 20:04, 15 April 2009 (UTC) PS.: I never said it wasn't disputed: it is disputed, and it is in use; two good reasons to keep it.[reply]
Take a look at all the comments.None of the people here voting "keep" (except for the Matthead guy; but his arguments are unfounded - see above) doubt the inaccuracy of this map.HP1740-B (talk) 20:35, 15 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
This is becoming ridiculous. Do I have to use bolding for you to actually read what I'm saying? Is it a language issue? I'm taking this to your talk page so that we can try and understand each other without cluttering this page. –Tryphon☂ 21:31, 15 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

 Delete Inaccurate and confusing. Misinformation should not be kept.

On the Dutch wikipedia this map has been used to promote incorrect ideas about race and linguistics with a rather disturbing character. (Pan-Germanism) One would hope that such ideas would be generally condemned. S.Kroeze (talk) 23:08, 13 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

 Delete I had my share of discussions with the creator of this map on several articles in de.wikipedia before he was banned. His edits were based on ideology and false sources respectively ones he quoted very selectively to fit his agenda - as is this map. It is not accurate. On the contrary it is purposefully manipulative. Keeping it, simply because there are other inaccurate maps as well, seems rather absurd to me. --Tsui (talk) 01:58, 14 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

 Delete - The Dutch language area can be included in the German one: that's not the main problem (it depends on how "German" is defined: the "generous" definition, including Dutch, is not very uncommon — in German at least. See also Wikipedia.de. Maybe "Deutsch" and "German" do not mean the same: in that case there is no English equivalent for the "generous" meaning of Deutsch. But the image has a name in German!). The remaining problem however is that the map is fuzzy, incomplete and unreliable. See File_talk:Historisches_deutsches_Sprachgebiet.PNG#Unsolved questions. -Fransvannes (talk) 08:03, 14 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • I'd beg to differ slightly there, Frans. In German usage, the more encompassing sense may still be acceptable; however, in English it has been obsolete since, roughly, the year 1600 — see SOED sub "German". So the "generous" interpretation does not hold water in English, as admittedly you imply. Bessel Dekker (talk) 02:10, 15 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • That means that the English translation of the German text should be improved. That's one more issue to solve, apart from the unexplained colour difference, the incorrect source for the Dutch (... Belgian, Russian, Swiss..) data, the missed Germanophones in the Baltic area (and elsewhere) and the missing information about the relative number of "German" speakers in the marked areas. Fransvannes (talk) 07:52, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

 Delete - The map can't be right. At least three languages [or if you prefer the term dialects] (Dutch, Flemish and Frisian) appear to be the same as German. Highly POV (i.e. not neutral) is the most soft comment I can make. Patio (talk) 13:29, 14 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

 Delete - This is a revisionist pipe-dream with even a single German living in a foreign town, hailed as "German spoken here". Without percentage points the map has to go. --Poeticbent talk 14:56, 14 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

 Delete - The Dutch/Flemish/German-discussion aside, this map provides misinformation, simply because the West Frisian language (even today spoken by at least a few hundred thousands of people in the Netherlands, most of them living in the province of Friesland) is not, as this map implies, some kind of German, but an Anglo-Frisian language (although it is a Germanic language, but that is not the same). Stating otherwise is both historically and linguistically incorrect. Wutsje (talk) 18:29, 18 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Exactly. Anglo-Frisian is a branch of (Common) Germanic. Bessel Dekker (talk) 15:51, 19 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

 Keep (very weak) if it's corrected and clearly marked, delete otherwise. A possible source to use in correction of this map could be this one: it includes German language only, clearly marks isolated areas and doesn't suggest that German was dominant in any area it was spoken. Halibutt (talk) 23:28, 18 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Using that map as the basis for an alternative would be an option. However, the map presents historical data, no longer valid (nor has this been the situation for centuries now). And if historical languages such as "Niederfrankisch" are included, then for completeness' sake "Ingvaeonic" (Coastal Germanic) ought to be included, too. I'd tend to shy away from adopting this map! Regards, Bessel Dekker (talk) 15:56, 19 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

 Keep Commons has no NPOV requirements and no censorship. Even if the map included Russia, we have to conserve such a political/historical POV. --Foroa (talk) 21:51, 19 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

 Keep to delete this is censorship, this map merely presents a point of view, the map is in use and so make people on different language wikis must see the value in this data Movieevery (talk) 04:59, 20 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If this image were to be kept again, it should be clearly marked as factually inaccurate, taken out of the categories German language and Linguistic maps of the German language and recategorised as Political propaganda. It is then suitable for articles about that subject. As a linguistical map it is blatantly incorrect. Wutsje (talk) 08:02, 20 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

 Keep But I think it would be better with Russia in it. Rocket000 (talk) 08:36, 20 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

 Delete Out of scope. Can't be used in encyclopedia articles and Commons is not a place to freely spread original research and propaganda. If it was a historical map that was originally published somewhere else, I'd vote to keep it, as it could potentially be used in some article about propaganda etc. But this seems to be just a try by a single user to use Wikipedia/Commons to spread false information. --Kam Solusar (talk) 03:03, 21 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Instead of resorting to rhetorics and/or voting, let's see what the policy says. I will emphasize certain points of the policy.

Commons is not Wikipedia, and files uploaded here do not necessarily need to comply with the Neutral point of view and No original research requirements imposed by many of the Wikipedia sites. Commons acts amongst other things as a common media file resource for all Wikimedia projects, and we stand apart from the rules that may be imposed locally by each of those individual projects.
Of course, if the author has made a factual mistake that is not seriously disputed, the image (if not in use) may fail the test of being useful for an educational purpose, and can be deleted on that basis. But where an alleged error generates significant dispute the image should be kept and the dispute left to the individual wiki communities to resolve. As stated above, files that are in use in another Wikimedia project are in any event considered in scope and are not liable to deletion on the grounds that they are "wrong" in some way.

The last I checked, the image was used in the article namespace of at least the English Wikipedia. While that is the case we may not delete the image. However, I wonder if the people at English Wikipedia (and others if there are) are aware of the disputed factual accuracy of the image. I propose that we do not close this discussion before our sister projects have made their decision on whether they will use the image or not. After that, we are ready to make our decision. Samulili (talk) 07:56, 21 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see why we should wait, what more can be added to this DR? The only reason to keep this open is if there is still a debate here on Commons. But clearly, everything that needed saying has been said, so time to close now. –Tryphon☂ 14:54, 24 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Kept as this image is properly licensed and at this time within COM:SCOPE as it is used on 44 pages in 19 projects in various articles. Examples are de:Volksdeutsche, en:Germany (terminology), fr:Pangermanisme (look at the caption!), it:Großdeutschland, als:Deutsche Sprache, and es:Alemanes étnicos. Please note that factual correctness of maps or other media is not considered here at Commons as long as an image is used or is likely to be used. Everyone is invited to discuss the factual correctness of this map on its talk page and to open discussions regarding the appropriate use of this image in the individual projects with the aim to replace this map by something better, to remove it from the corresponding articles, or to improve the captions (consider this example). A deletion of this image at Commons can be reconsidered as soon as this image is nowhere used (not counting references in talk pages etc) and is unlikely to be used in the future. Now we have no option but to keep this image, as already pointed out by Tryphon, according to Commons policy, namely COM:SCOPE and COM:NPOV. --AFBorchert (talk) 16:22, 24 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

File:Historisches deutsches Sprachgebiet.PNG

[edit]

No evidence of a verifiable release for the underpinning map. Regardless of reuse, this must be verifiable per COM:PRP and COM:L. Fæ (talk) 16:44, 26 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

 DeleteAs I already wrote in the previous dsicussion above (01:58, 14 April 2009): had my share of discussions with the creator of this map on several articles in de.wikipedia before he was banned. His edits were based on ideology and false sources respectively ones he quoted very selectively to fit his agenda - as is this map. It is not accurate. On the contrary it is purposefully manipulative. If the content was text within an article on Wikipedia it would have been removed long ago because it violates our fundamental rule of NPOV. I see no reason why we should have to keep a map, that is equally false, or fake, as one may call it nowadays. --Tsui (talk) 20:02, 26 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  •  Keep this is a textbook case for COM:NPOV. We take a hands-off approach with such matters. If you don't like it, replace it on the local projects with another. Magog the Ogre (talk) (contribs) 21:48, 27 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    It is a fact that there is no verifiable release for the (complex) underpinning map. NPOV has nothing to do with it.
    The exceedingly impenetrable text under "licensing" says The available map is based mainly on the language map "Fischer of the information Atlas Federal Republic of Germany" (Fischer paperback publishing house, S. 63) from the year 1990., presumably publisher did not make this 1990s book copyright free. If you can provide a link to a public domain statement by the Fischer publishing house, and a copy of this same map to verify against, that would be super.
    If you want to keep this file because you know it is not a copyvio, please provide verifiable evidence that the map complies with COM:L. Thanks --Fæ (talk) 14:52, 28 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    On the talk page is a link given to the map published by Fischer Verlag: [2]. --AFBorchert (talk) 22:31, 28 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for pointing out the link. This appears to show:
  1. The links given in the text appear unrelated to the map uploaded to Commons, possibly just added to cause confusion. Anyone can see this, just put the web.archive kartefisherinformation map on a screen next to this map uploaded to Commons, there is no relationship, in fact there are barely any similarities in details or outline of the country.
  2. The Fischer Verlag map quoted as a source appears still under copyright, the provided scan does not seem to provide any verifiable evidence of copyright.
As Tsui comments above, the sock farm is purposefully manipulative and use false sources. It is disappointing to see so many volunteers attempting to keep uploads by the abusive sock farm, we should be taking out the trash, not trying to ignore how bad it smells.
Conclusion: Copyright violation. --Fæ (talk) 02:52, 29 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Firstly, there are serious concerns about the bias of the uploader and the correctness of the map. His bias got him blocked at de:wp. Secondly, I see no evidence for the uploader having sockpuppets or being member of an abusive “sock farm”. In particular, I see no proof of Postmann Michael~commonswiki being related to User:WorldCreaterFighter. Thirdly, Postmann Michael appears to have listed the Fischer map mainly as proof that well known publications included the Dutch speaking areas as well. There was a heated debate (and edit war) regarding whether the Dutch speaking areas are to be included or not. Finally, someone noted the similarity of the outlines of the map to those of F. W. Putzgers Historischer Schul-Atlas (named after Friedrich Wilhelm Putzger) where older editions are already in the public domain. This observation seems to have some merit. In summary, we have here a case of a biased user whose maps are not reliable. This is known since more than a decade. But this is still a case of COM:NPOV and as long as this map is used in the main space of some project, we would keep it. As of now, it appears to be used only at bg:Фолксдойче. All the other uses (see my closure of this DR from 2009) are gone. But I do not see an indication of a copyright violation in this case. --AFBorchert (talk) 06:40, 29 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
"I do not see an indication of a copyright violation", great. Please provide a credible link for the underpinning map, the one link provided is a radically different map, with the coastal outline showing different features and a different resolution of detail, even the islands shown are different.
The blocked account did not create this from their imagination. --Fæ (talk) 08:34, 29 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Have a look at the Zuiderzee, the map shows the state before the Zuiderzee Works, a project that started in 1916. Hence, whatever the source map has been, it is not a recent one. --AFBorchert (talk) 11:06, 29 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Fair point, however if, as seems likely, the map has been generated from a mapping tool, then it may well be that developers or institutions have a valid claim of IP on the vector maps that it relies on, regardless of the map itself being historic in nature. The issue here is whether in the absence of credible sources and in the context of deliberate obfuscation, AGF is warranted for a notorious blocked account, or whether COM:PRP is enforced as it would be for any new user.
This still has no sources, this is still a derived work, the outcome is still that copyright has not been validated, by anyone.
The file fails COM:PRP, COM:HOST, COM:DW.
BTW, the single use you highlighted has been replaced with a map where copyright is verified, and in line with Wikipedia policy requirements there is no original research. Consequently there is no COM:INUSE to debate. --Fæ (talk) 11:28, 29 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: deleted on the basis that it is not used anywhere in the main namespace and has claiums in terms of accuracy. --rubin16 (talk) 12:57, 12 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: In retrospect, this file was rightfully deleted. But the representation of the historical German-speaking area is important. Therefore I will create a new map of the same name on the basis of the map: "Distribution and spatial structure of the German and Dutch language as dialect of the rural population in Central Europe around 1900" (Verbreitung und Raumstruktur der deutschen und niederländischen Sprache als Dialekt der Landbevölkerung in Mitteleuropa um 1900, Regionalssprache.de). This will represent the closed German-speaking area; I don't know yet whether I will represent the German language clusters Iglau, Gottschee, etc.

The borders of the states will be those of 1922 so that the question of how far the German language cluster in Poland, Hungary, Romania, etc. will not arise, since the new map focuses exclusively on the closed language area of the German cultural language. -- MicBy67 (talk) 20:46, 12 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

File:Poli.jpg

[edit]

Looks like a screen cap from a TV show Tabercil (talk) 00:55, 12 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted, copyviol -- Infrogmation (talk) 15:34, 12 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

File:Buckonine_xgames.jpg

[edit]

A poor resolution image which was never passed by the flickr review bot and is used on only 1 wiki page. This is the uploader's second and final image here and he did not bother to name the author. Its rather suspicious. Leoboudv (talk) 04:17, 12 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted. MBisanz talk 01:20, 18 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

File:Central_Park_NewYork24.jpg

[edit]

image is used on only 1 wiki page. It never passed flickr review (image was deleted according to the flickr bot) and there are 145 other images to replace it. Leoboudv (talk) 04:25, 12 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  •  Delete Per nom. No confirmation of free license. (The Flickr user credited has many Central Park images on their photo stream, but I saw none matching this, and all the user's photos I looked at were copyrighted all rights reserved.) Too bad, it is a good photo, but as Leobudv notes we have lots of other photos of Central Park in New York City and it is not hard to get more. -- Infrogmation (talk) 16:07, 12 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted. MBisanz talk 01:19, 18 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

File:BIKIN_(12).jpg

[edit]

small image. slightly tilted and moire. scanned from a book/magazine? 85.179.165.34 05:55, 12 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

 Comment looks like a scan. Unused (although it was uploaded more than 1 year ago). I don't read arabic. I wonder if anything written on the image might hint to the fact that the picture is possibly free, although I doubt it. If available, it would be better to have this request processed by an arabic speaking admin. Teofilo (talk) 06:48, 12 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
 Delete No source given, no proper reasoning for the picture being public domain. Hekerui (talk) 19:14, 18 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted. Missing essential source information. –Tryphon☂ 11:40, 19 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

File:Hirosima-Dabóczi.jpg

[edit]

No evidence is given that either the photographer or the sculptor Dabóczi Mihály (1905-1980) agree with the terms of the Free art license Teofilo (talk) 06:33, 12 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Pardon! Je vois, que ce n'est pas vraiment une source libre! Cette image j'ai effacé sous du titre Dabóczi. Salut! --Teroses 14:47, 16 April 2009 (UTC)--•Terosest'écoute 18:08, 18 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted. No permission. –Tryphon☂ 11:43, 19 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

File:Ahriman.jpg

[edit]

I don't see a caption for this photograph on the source website. Even if the attribution of the sculpture to en:Rudolf Steiner ( - 1925) is correct, this picture must be deleted because the name of the photographer and the copyright status of the photography are missing Teofilo (talk) 07:10, 12 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted. Missing source information (photographer's name), and {{PD-Art}} doesn't apply to 3D artwork. –Tryphon☂ 11:45, 19 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

File:Fekvő_nő-Dabóczi_Mihály.jpg

[edit]

sculptor Dabóczi Mihály died in 1980. No FOP for indoor photography in Hungary : COM:FOP#Hungary ; photographer uncredited Teofilo (talk) 08:30, 12 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted. –Tryphon☂ 11:46, 19 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

File:Ivan-cerventes-isde-greece-08.jpg

[edit]

At the source [3], I don’t see “copyright free when mentioning photographer”, but “Royalty free images for editorial use only. […] All other rights reserved.” And that is not an acceptable license here. Mormegil (talk) 08:39, 12 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

 Delete Copyright violation. Hekerui (talk) 19:10, 18 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted. –Tryphon☂ 11:51, 19 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

File:Kopasz_Márta_Euterpe.jpg

[edit]

hu:Kopasz Márta is probably still alive. Contemporary artist. Copyrighted work. Teofilo (talk) 08:58, 12 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Cette graphique détenue par moi aussi. --Teroses 08:34, 17 April 2009 (UTC)--•Terosest'écoute 18:10, 18 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted. Owning the picture doesn't mean that you are the copyright holder. If for some reason you have full rights over this image, please send proof to OTRS. –Tryphon☂ 11:58, 19 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

File:Sangam_worldcup_stadium_2005.jpg

[edit]

There are 2 images of the Seoul Stadium by this user. This image is very poor and the stadium is barely visible over the gloom. It must have been taken on a dark day. This other image by the same uploader is so much better: File:Sangam worldcup stadium 2006.jpg --Leoboudv (talk) 09:02, 12 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

 Keep Same stadium but different angle. I have just retouched the picture to make it brighter. Leoboudv, when you think a file is too dark, you can tag it with {{underexposed}} or go to Commons:Graphics village pump asking for help making a picture brighter. Teofilo (talk) 09:33, 12 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
 Comment It looks much better now. I don't know if you have many software specialists like Marku1988 doing this task on Commons. --Leoboudv (talk) 10:17, 12 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
If you can't find help on Commons, try fr:Wikipédia:Atelier graphique/Images à améliorer : most of the people there are friendly and can speak English, I suppose. Teofilo (talk) 11:03, 12 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
 Keep I, the nominator, ask this to be closed. Teofilo has now fixed the problem with the photo. Thank You, --Leoboudv (talk) 00:06, 13 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Kept, problem solved; deletion nominator request. -- Infrogmation (talk) 04:06, 13 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

File:Lovasszekér-Conrad_Gyula.jpg

[edit]

Designer died in 1959. copyrighted. Teofilo (talk) 09:02, 12 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted. –Tryphon☂ 11:59, 19 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

File:Paikert_Alajos.jpg

[edit]

Painter's death year is unclear. The model died in 1948. Possibly copyrighted. Teofilo (talk) 09:53, 12 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Est déjà publiée!!!
[edit]
Le model est le directeur du Musée d'Agriculture au Budapest en 1923-1930. L'image est déjà publiée.
  • 1-ère fois: Dans l'atelier du musée au exposition permanent.
  • 2-ème fois: dans Les Articles du Musée d'Agriculture 1998-2000. 213. p.
  • 3-ème fois: Vois [4]

Salue! --Teroses 14:10, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

"L'image est déjà publiée." Oui, mais ce n'est pas important. Ce qui est important c'est que l'auteur (le peintre) soit mort depuis plus de 70 ans. Or nous n'avons actuellement aucune information sur la date de décès du peintre Szokol Willibald. 31. § (1) A szerzői jogok a szerző életében és halálától számított hetven éven át részesülnek védelemben. (2) A hetvenéves védelmi időt a szerző halálát követő év első napjától, szerzőtársak esetében az utoljára elhunyt szerzőtárs halálát követő év első napjától kell számítani. [...] Ez alapján 2008-ban az 1937-ben vagy előtte előtt elhunyt szerzők művei szabadon felhasználhatóak. hu:Wikipédia:Szabad források.

Quand Szokol Willibald est-il mort ? Teofilo (talk) 18:49, 14 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Je ne sais pas malheureusement, mais il est né en 1888. Alors effacez! Mais, comme je l'ai dis cette image on voit dans une exposition permanente depuis 5 ans. Salut! -- Special:Contributions/80.99.34.181|80.99.34.181]] 05:04, 17 April 2009 (UTC)C'est á dire:--•Terosest'écoute 18:14, 18 April 2009 (UTC)[[[reply]

(fr) Donc il avait 51 ans il y a 70 ans en 1939. (en) So he was 51 years old, 70 years ago in 1939. Teofilo (talk) 07:30, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted. No proof that {{PD-old}} applies. –Tryphon☂ 12:03, 19 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

File:Flag_of_Cuba_(constructios).png

[edit]

All instances of this .png file have been replaced by its vector (.svg) counterpart. See Image:Flag of Cuba (constructios).svg. Cflm001 (talk) 09:31, 12 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted. Unused, completely redundant, no attribution path issue (same author, public domain). –Tryphon☂ 12:09, 19 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

File:Happy.jpg

[edit]

Based on what I gleaned from TinEye, this seems to be from Team Fortress 2, but I can't find proof... Tabercil (talk) 12:53, 12 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Also, yoinked from website with no copyright info, clearly bogus tag (no one who has been dead more than 70 years was creating computer animated characters) and silly nonsense in description fields. Prank image used for vandalism on es:Wikipedia. -- Infrogmation (talk) 15:50, 12 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted -- Infrogmation (talk) 15:50, 12 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

File:Happy.jpg

[edit]

Implausible redirect 74.221.203.103 21:27, 10 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: Out of scope personal image. --Gbawden (talk) 06:28, 18 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

File:Mariah_Carey_at_the_Grammys_2007.jpg

[edit]

This photo is from TIMOTHY A. CLARY, AFP, see Gettyimages #56790839. The Flickr user is more than questionable and his images needing a review. Martin H. (talk) 16:47, 12 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted, per message from the Flickr user. Other uploads are ok. --Martin H. (talk) 20:03, 12 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

File:Louzy_vitrail_église.JPG

[edit]

Contemporary-looking stained glass in France. Probably copyrighted. Teofilo (talk) 18:08, 12 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

OK pour la suppression. --Père Igor (talk) 19:15, 12 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted. –Tryphon☂ 12:14, 19 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

File:Mauzé-Thouarsais_église_Rigné_vitrail_(3).JPG

[edit]

Contemporary-looking stained glass in France. Probably copyrighted. Teofilo (talk) 18:14, 12 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

OK pour la suppression. --Père Igor (talk) 19:16, 12 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted. –Tryphon☂ 12:14, 19 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

File:CeBIT_2006_Chi_Mei_Optoelectronics_56LCD_QuadHDTV_by_HDTVTotalDOTcom.jpg

[edit]

Derivative work of copyrighted screen image. ChrisiPK (Talk|Contribs) 18:15, 12 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted. –Tryphon☂ 12:15, 19 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

File:CeBIT_2006_Philips_3D_Display_42_3D6W01_WOW_Richardson_Electronics_KUKFilm_1298_by_HDTVTotalDOTcom.jpg

[edit]

Derivative work of copyrighted screen image. ChrisiPK (Talk|Contribs) 18:21, 12 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted. –Tryphon☂ 12:16, 19 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

File:Mauzé-Thouarsais_église_vitrail_(6).JPG

[edit]

Contemporary-looking stained glass window in France. Possibly copyrighted. Teofilo (talk) 18:45, 12 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

OK pour la suppression. --Père Igor (talk) 19:17, 12 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted. –Tryphon☂ 12:17, 19 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

File:Missé_vitrail.JPG

[edit]

Contemporary-looking stained glass window in France. Most likely copyrighted. Teofilo (talk) 18:53, 12 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

OK pour la suppression. --Père Igor (talk) 19:17, 12 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted. –Tryphon☂ 12:17, 19 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

File:EscudoKeliano.jpg

[edit]

It isn't used and has no categories Jonjames1986 (talk) 19:18, 12 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

 Delete Its basically out of scope. --Leoboudv (talk) 04:18, 13 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted. Out of scope. –Tryphon☂ 12:19, 19 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

Category:Historic sites of Michigan

[edit]

Vague category name (how do we decide if a site is historic or not?), and it contains nor files nor pages nor categories. --Nyttend (talk) 20:50, 12 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted. Empty. Rocket000 (talk) 11:33, 19 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

File:Jakarta25.jpg

[edit]

sourced on en.wiki to http://www.skyscrapercity.com/showthread.php?t=110748&page=8 with no permission from site to release PD Skier Dude (talk) 04:53, 11 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted. Copyright violation. –Tryphon☂ 12:23, 19 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

File:Bottom_of_the_Ninth.oga

[edit]

This is a 3GP video of an animated light display on a wall. Besides being in an inappropriate file format (which in itself would be easily fixable), I don't believe freedom of panorama extends to such works in the U.S. —Ilmari Karonen (talk) 17:11, 12 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Please delete as it didn't upload or I incorrectly tried to upload it. Xnatedawgx (talk) 23:31, 14 April 2009 (UTC) (Comment copied from talk page. —Ilmari Karonen (talk) 23:39, 14 April 2009 (UTC))[reply]

Deleted. Non-free file format. See COM:FT. –Tryphon☂ 12:24, 19 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

File:Canadianassault.jpg

[edit]

This image appears to have been taken from: http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/world/europe/bpe.htm or some other site and is not the uploader's own work as is claimed. Globalsecurity.com claims copyright over its content. Nick-D (talk) 23:16, 12 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted. –Tryphon☂ 12:38, 19 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

File:Rahul_Sharma.JPG

[edit]

Not realistically useful for an educational purpose. Hekerui (talk) 12:31, 12 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted. MichaelMaggs (talk) 20:06, 24 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

File:Diphallia.gif

[edit]

Images in UK are copyrighted 70 pma, not 50 pma as stated, so PD-old-50 does not apply. Botev (talk) 23:33, 12 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted. MichaelMaggs (talk) 20:07, 24 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

File:Kincsem-a_csodalo.jpg

[edit]

Sculptor died in 1946. Indoor photography : no FOP Teofilo (talk) 10:00, 12 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Une petite patience! Je vais demander la permission de l'héritière. Merci! Salut! --Teroses 10:52, 18 April 2009 (UTC)--•Terosest'écoute 18:11, 18 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, obtaining permission was unsuccessful (copyrights were inherited by Vastagh Csilla whom Teroses couldn't contact). --Tgr (talk) 08:07, 14 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted. MichaelMaggs (talk) 17:26, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]


This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

File:Marha.jpg

[edit]

Copyright violation on 2 grounds 1) the sculptor died in 1946 and this is an indoor photo where FOP cannot apply 2)the picture seems to be copied from the following website : http://jelesnapok.oszk.hu/prod/unnep/a_hortobagyi_nemzeti_park_megalapitasa__1973#KEP/marha_jpg where photographer Gottl Egon is credited. archive.org shows that the picture was present on jelesnapok.oszk.hu as early as Dec 26, 2007, while the file was uploaded on Wikimedia Commons on 11 November 2008. Teofilo (talk) 10:32, 12 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Cette sculpture est dans La Collection des Beaux-arts du Musée d'Agriculture Hongroise, où je travaille. Je vais demander la permission de l'héritière. Merci! Salut!--Teroses 10:59, 18 April 2009 (UTC)--•Terosest'écoute 18:11, 18 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, obtaining permission was unsuccessful (copyrights were inherited by Vastagh Csilla whom Teroses couldn't contact). --Tgr (talk) 08:06, 14 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted. MichaelMaggs (talk) 17:26, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

File:Beöthy_László_sírszobra.jpg

[edit]

The grave was made in 1931 or later. No evidence is given that the photographer died more than 70 years ago (or that the picture was published anonymously more than 70 years from now)

The file is marked both as "own work" and "PD-old (...) author died more than 70 years ago" : the uploader must be a ghost. Teofilo (talk) 10:53, 12 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted. Mormegil (talk) 21:13, 30 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

File:Ehrenhalle.jpg

[edit]

Derivative work of window (?) in background and sculpture. ChrisiPK (Talk|Contribs) 14:13, 12 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted. MichaelMaggs (talk) 11:31, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

File:David_roberts.jpg

[edit]

Higher res version: File:David_Roberts_portrait.jpg is available Diaa abdelmoneim (talk) 07:31, 12 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted. MichaelMaggs (talk) 11:34, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

File:Charles_Baugniet02.jpg

[edit]

Higher res verion : Image:David_Roberts_portrait.jpg is available Diaa abdelmoneim (talk) 07:31, 12 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Kept. We should keep both, as the low res version shows foxing and other details that have been cleaned up in the other version. MichaelMaggs (talk) 11:33, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

All works by Miskolczy Ferenc

[edit]

Miskolczy Ferenc died in 1994. copyrighted. Teofilo (talk) 08:37, 12 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ces images sont en ma propriété, parce que le peintre était un amis á mon père. Salut.--Teroses 14:40, 14 April 2009 (UTC)--•Terosest'écoute 18:09, 18 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
If you own the rights to these paintings, you need to send permission to OTRS. But please be aware that owning the images does not necessarily means that you are the copyright holder; there would need to be some kind of inheritance or explicit transfer of the rights. –Tryphon☂ 11:55, 19 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
OK. J'ai demandée la permission pour la publication du musée Türr István à Baja, où se trouve l'héritage de Miskolczy. Patience, s. v. p.!--•Terosesje t'écoute 15:02, 19 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted. It has been over two months since anything happened here. If something changes, contact COM:OTRS and they can restore. Wknight94 talk 15:07, 27 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Commons:Deletion_requests/Archive/2009/04/12&oldid=27632787"