Commons:Deletion requests/Archive/2009/04/28

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 28th, 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.

All DSS2 Images from wikisky

[edit]

from Special:LinkSearch/http://wikisky.org/wiki/Copyright - DSS2 images:

from Special:Search/DSS2:

from: Special:Search/SDSS:

from: Category:Digitized Sky Survey - DSS images are freely-useable for non-com that is not enough for Commons


DSS2 images from wikispy, Not free license, see wikisky:Copyright - DSS2 images and Commons_talk:Licensing#about_DSS2_images_from_wikispy shizhao (talk) 14:06, 28 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Agree. All DSS and DSS2 material is copyright and non-commercial TheDJ (talk) 10:53, 6 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
BTW, for a minute I was rather confused by the Hubble mentions in some of these images. This appears to be a user error, because as far as I can determine, wikisky does not yet feature a collection of Hubble imagery for viewing. TheDJ (talk) 13:22, 6 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I have to rebase my assessment. Both DSS and DSS2 contain Hubble data (These are the GSC subsets of the DSS project). This photographic data would be Public Domain and thus allowed. It's just difficult to assess. It can be done relatively easy if the "crop link" is present. In that case you can click the "edit" link and see if it is Hubble data or something else... TheDJ (talk) 13:41, 6 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Added one image that uses SDSS layer of wikimap. All other images are NASA works, that only use SDSS coordinate and things like that. TheDJ (talk) 13:30, 6 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I have gone trough all the images.
    • basemap means it uses the nonfree allsky basemap from the DSS(2) project.
    • POSS2 the Palomar Observatory subset of DSS(2) - copyrighted nonfree
    • Some are good as is
    • Some can be changed to become good, and we delete older versions
    • Some are ASTROPHOTO, of which i have no info yet.
    • There is one composite derivative. ESO specifically states that all their material is CC-BY-SA unless indicated otherwise in the credit byline (not the case here). I think we therefore should assume that DSS has been informed about ESO using their material and releasing it as free and agree. It's a respectable organization.

This is all I have been able to find so far. TheDJ (talk) 14:31, 6 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Important: DSS and DSS2 are two different projects. Be careful, please, and check which are DSS and which are DSS2. --Roberto Segnali all'Indiano 05:36, 10 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I went through some of the images in the Category:Digitized Sky Survey. Most of the images are actually DSS2 even if in description they mentioned as just DSS. I used on-line survey query by [4] to verify origin of the images. Some images are quite popular (i.e. File:Pleiades large.jpg). Is it wise to start killing them all? Friendlystar (talk) 03:50, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Somehow I was convinced that DSS1 is in public domain and only DSS2 is copyrighted. I wanted to verify it, but didn't find it [5]. Friendlystar (talk) 05:20, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Image:Pleiades large.jpg, check others. The Pleiades image, and possibly some others also appear on HubbleSite, whose copyright policy states that "Unless otherwise specifically stated, no claim to copyright is being asserted by STScI and it may be freely used as in the public domain in accordance with NASA's contract. However, it is requested that in any subsequent use of this work NASA and STScI be given appropriate acknowledgement. STScI further requests voluntary reporting of all use, derivative creation, and other alteration of this work...Individuals and institutions other than AURA/STScI and grantees of STScI whose work was funded by NASA are requested to state at the time they contribute materials for distribution on STScI websites whether they wish to claim any copyright restrictions. If they do not do so it will be assumed that no copyright restriction is claimed. Of course, such individuals and institutions will be given appropriate credit for their contributions. If they do claim copyright restrictions, an appropriate notice will be added to that particular material, and users who wish to down-load that material and distribute it further will have to obtain permission from the source of that material." There is no notice, ergo it is PD. This may apply to other images. --GW 11:07, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Does it mean that all images that appear on hubblesite.org are automatically become public domain (unless otherwise specifically stated)? Anyway the license on the image above states "This file is in the public domain because it was created by NASA" that is not true. I'd love to keep the image as well as some other beautiful images i.e. File:Antares 3deg DSS2 WikiSky.jpg - Friendlystar (talk) 14:03, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
No, it does not necessarily mean that. However, NASA does happen to be credited for that image, and the Palomar Observatory is noted as the source. Hence, its listing for deletion is a rather grave, if honest, mistake made to list it and request deletion. By looking at The image's credits, it lists NASA, the ESA, and AURA/Caltech as the authors... We all know that all telescope images from NASA are public-domain, and meanwhile, AURA's page does not list Palomar images among its FAQ, though it does mention HST images are made under contract to NASA, and hence public domain. The ESA's page for the HST notes that all their Hubble images are released under the Creative Commons Attribution 3.0 Unported license. Lastly, taking a look at The FAQ for the DSS, of which the POSS is a part of, and hence the image is a part of, we see that for "non-profit activities, you may use them freely" In short:
  • NASA images are public domain, unless stated otherwise.
  • AURA/Caltech telescope images belong to NASA, and hence are public domain.
  • ESA Hubble images are available under a CC Attribution license.
  • DSS images are freely-useable for non-profit purposes, which would include the Wikimedia Foundation, as it is a non-profit organization.
  • SDSS does not own the image.
As the image is NOT made using the SDSS telescope at Apache Point Observatory, it is hence NOT part of the SDSS or SDSS2 projects, (it pre-dates the SDSS's beginning in 2000) and hence is erroneously listed here, it should most certainly not have the request for deletion tag. Requesting the deletion of a freely-usable image under the false grounds that it is non-free is a serious mistake, one which I find deeply disturbing, and hence I recommend the request for the deletion of Image:Pleiades large.jpg, as well as all derived images, be closed immediately. I also recommend that extensive review be taken of all other listed images, to see if they are a part of the SDSS/SDSS2 at all, rather than other surveys, such as the DSS.
I agree, it is not our responsibility to watch over what NASA does. NASA's material incl, the material published on Hubblesite is public domain by default. They state they will indicate when this is not the case (and they have done so in the past). As such, we can only determine they have covered the copyrights for this specific image, even if they have not. THEIR mistake, THEIR responsibility and someone will contact us if this is not the case. (As recently the photographer of the STS-128 image did, which was also a BIG error by NASA). TheDJ (talk) 15:47, 13 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Well unless VERY obvious of course. But in my opinion, this case is just too vague to assume that NASA did not do their work. TheDJ (talk) 15:50, 13 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Finally, I urge everyone to be careful to tell which project each image is from. The SDSS/SDSS2 and the DSS are completely different surveys! The DSS was published in 1994, many years before SDSS survey began in 2000, let alone the SDSS2 in 2006. As I have outlined above, there is no question that the DSS photographs are free-use, even if there are questions about the SDSS/SDSS2 images. Thus, I urge everyone to be careful on making sure they attribute each image to the correct survey. In this case, all of the last list there, those from the DSS, are all free-use images because they are from the DSS. Nottheking (talk) 21:20, 12 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment:in this page permit use on wikimedia projectsAmir (talk) 08:27, 19 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You didn't read the page in its entirety:

This does not mean that these images can be used on Wikipedia however, per Wikipedia's own criteria for speedy deletion images that are only permited for non-commercial purposes or where only an exclusive permission for use on Wikipedia itself has been given will be speedy deleted.

And indeed, we have the same policy on Commons. –Tryphon 09:33, 19 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Status

[edit]

What is the status of Commons:Deletion requests/All DSS2 Images from wikisky? They appear to fall outside of Commons free use requirements. A note has been placed on Commons:Deletion requests/File:Mizar and Alcor.jpg requesting the image be moved back to the English Wikipedia. Could that be done for most of these? 84user (talk) 14:29, 13 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If it isn't allowed on Commons, then it isn't allowed on English Wikipedia either. I doubt this qualifies under en.wp's Fair Use policies. I'll ask on IRC if an admin can close this discussion. TheDJ (talk) 15:39, 13 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted. Since DSS/DSS2 does not allow commercial use the images are not free enough for Commons. The images must therefore be deleted. Some images have been taken out of this DR because the original source was not DSS/DSS2. These images are therefore not deleted in this DR. Also File:RCW120 submillimetre emission.jpg has ESO for source and are therefore not deleted in this DR. --MGA73 (talk) 16:19, 13 September 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.

Company/self promotion, out of scope. --OSX (talkcontributions) 05:49, 28 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted.Tryphon 05:51, 28 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.

Logo of Constitutional Court of Korea is not PD. Article 7 of Copyright law of Korea defines Constitution, Laws, Treaties and so on, but not for logo of Constitutional Court Kwj2772 (msg) 09:46, 28 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted. by Kameraad Pjotr Yann (talk) 17:58, 5 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.

Very poor licensing information, out of project scope. ChrisiPK (Talk|Contribs) 11:56, 28 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted by D-Kuru: out of scope (unused)

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.

(exist as Category:St. Nikolai (Fehmarn)) --Godewind (talk) 18:13, 28 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

 Delete see Category:St. Nikolai (Fehmarn) --anro (talk) 23:14, 4 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted. by AnRo0002 Yann (talk) 18:00, 5 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.

A reproduction of a three-dimensional copyrighted design. Freedom of panorama and de minimis are inapplicable. Dcoetzee (talk) 21:02, 28 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]


Kept. Car designs are not copyrightable. Yann (talk) 16:12, 2 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.

Image seems too good to be "own work"; methinks this is a copyvio, but I can't pin down the source... Tabercil (talk) 22:49, 28 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted.Tryphon 05:44, 5 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.

Empty file, corrupt --173.51.115.6 22:13, 28 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted. Yann (talk) 20:04, 29 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.

Empty file, corrupt --173.51.115.6 22:09, 28 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

 Delete The image exists here as File:Lukas bonnier.jpg. Although the gif was the original upload format to Flickr, it does not look better. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 06:39, 29 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted. Empty page. Yann (talk) 20:03, 29 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.

I seriously doubt this is "own work". Coyau (talk) 23:11, 28 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Smell like teen's copyvio : http://tineye.com/search/74180517ee9aa9d23e78b7422ec5aca023adec27 --Lilyu (talk) 23:17, 28 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted. Copyvio. Yann (talk) 20:05, 29 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.

(exist as Category:St. Nikolai (Fehmarn)) --Godewind (talk) 18:13, 28 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

 Delete see Category:St. Nikolai (Fehmarn) --anro (talk) 23:14, 4 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted. by AnRo0002 Yann (talk) 18:00, 5 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.

(It seems doesn't work - Uploaded another in jpg) --Silvio Gallio (talk) 14:21, 28 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted. Cecil (talk) 07:41, 6 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.

In this case Gamescore Blog writes themself, that they are not eligible to license the image under Creative Commons. The refer to the holder of copyrights Wire Image. Martin H. (talk) 00:49, 28 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

They refer to Wire Image, but wherefrom do you conclude that Gamescore Blog are not eligible to license the image under Creative Commons? --Bjs (talk) 07:44, 29 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
From Commons:Deletion requests/Image:Rihanna Xbox Live.jpg which was on on of their images. --Martin H. (talk) 12:37, 29 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted per Martin H. --AFBorchert (talk) 20:10, 6 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.

it is a corrupted image uploaded incorrectly by MrHarper (talk) --MrHarper (talk) 04:53, 28 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I re-uploaded it without the imported bitmaps, so it works now. However, the result is most likely not what it was meant to be, so perhaps it has to be deleted anyway. Let us know. –Tryphon 05:50, 28 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted per MrHarper as a broken upload which is nowhere used and unlikely to be used. --AFBorchert (talk) 20:14, 6 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.

too blurred to be used somewhere
D-Kuru (talk) 13:46, 28 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted, no objections. Out of focus, redundant, unused and not needed. -- Infrogmation (talk) 00:58, 8 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.

Derivative of a deleted file. See Commons:Deletion requests/Image:Cplp.gif 189.46.7.76 15:23, 28 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

 Disagree - This image can't be deleted in any circumstance! This image was elected in this election to be the main image (what stays at the top left of all pages) in celebration of the 500,000 articles in the Portuguese Wikipedia! Raafael (talk) 17:13, 28 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

 Comment - This argument is spurious, if the image is a copyvio, it must be deleted, regardless of its utility. Lechatjaune (talk) 17:45, 28 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
 Comment - It's just a comment about the case I made, so I believe the purpose of this voting is to, by ourselves, say what do we think and not to adjective or demote the subsequent comments. Raafael (talk) 22:13, 28 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
 Keep Vandalism HyperBroad 17:01, 29 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Kept as this is not a derived work of the CPLP logo. The image description credits the deleted file in regard to the set of flags and their order around a circle. But the arrangement of the CPLP logo is obviously not used. Instead this is a derived work of the Wikipedia logo such that {{CopyrightByWikimedia}} applies and various flags that are PD and therefore not a problem. --AFBorchert (talk) 20:42, 6 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.

Another photo by German photographer en:Heinrich Hoffmann. He died in 1957, so his works are copyrighted until 2028 in Germany. We have some Hoffmann photos on Commons from the Bundesarchiv, but this isn't one of them. -- Kam Solusar (talk) 15:51, 28 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted per Kam Solusar as this image is not public domain in its source country Germany. Per Commons:Licensing PD media are accepted only that are in the public domain in at least the United States and in the source country of the work. This image is possibly accepted at en-wp but should have not been transfered to Commons. --AFBorchert (talk) 21:02, 6 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

Images uploaded over the course of two weeks; OTRS pending for four weeks or more; unlikely to be uploader's own work --Stifle (talk) 19:04, 28 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted per Stifle. --AFBorchert (talk) 21:07, 6 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.

Copyvio. Uploader is not copyright holder. Not GFDL. Quadell (talk) 20:43, 28 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted per Quadell as author and source are missing and the license indeed appears to be dubious. Such cases do not require a regular DR but can be tagged No source or No permission. --AFBorchert (talk) 21:11, 6 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.

Nonfree derivative work of a copyrighted sculpture. Freedom of panorama in the United States encompasses buildings only, not 2D or 3D works of art, including sculptures. No evidence is given that the sculpture itself is released under a license acceptable on the Commons. Werewombat (talk) 21:13, 28 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted per Werewombat and Wsiegmund. --AFBorchert (talk) 21:16, 6 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.

The fact that the image shows players from Argentine doesn't make Argentine's copyright to apply here. As the description says, the image was made "en Brasil", where someother copyright law applies. Damiens.rf 22:37, 28 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]


Kept as in copyright law the first publication is to be considered. According to the source information, this image was published in El Gráfico, an Argentinian football magazine, and thereby Argentinian law applies even if this photograph has been taken in Brazil. --AFBorchert (talk) 21:23, 6 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

Fake license. Copyright law of Korea does not define what is made by Korean army as "unprotected work" --Kwj2772 (msg) 09:51, 28 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Copied from Commons talk:Deletion requests/Template:PD-KoreaGov-Military: Article 7, Subparagraph 2 of the Act states, 'Bulletins, public notifications, directives and others similar to them which are issued by the State or local governments' do not fall under the protection of the law. Is this objection solely coming from the fact that the article did not specify official flags, seals, insignias within its text? And who's legal authority is it to interpret 'others similar' must conform to legal or administrative text document in format?
The whole reason a flag, a seal or an insignia, especially of state agencies, exists is to serve the function of visual representation beyond the capacity of its text equivalent, say, the official designation of respective agency or its specific functions, intended for its members as well as the general public. Therefore, one can argue that such a visual representation performs the same function as any one of the examples listed in Subparagraph 2 and should be regarded as such. Republic of Korea Armed Forces are subordinated to the government of Republic of Korea, therefore governed by the same law unless any military laws and regulations concerning official flags, seals, insignias dictate otherwise. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Deltaeagle001 (talk • contribs) 29 April 2009 02:42 (UTC)
'Other similar' must be interpreted to legal or administrative text documents in Korean law.--Kwj2772 (msg) 05:54, 29 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
That is not even a proper counterargument. Something becomes legal or illegal just because YOU said it with the word 'must'? If there exists other article of law or regulation, court ruling or statement by the authority that can support your claim or interpretation, present it. Otherwise, unless you are a legitimately appointed judge at any level of court who is acting within official capacity or an equivalent ruling authority as dictated by Korean law, whatever you say is a mere personal opinion. Even if you have an admin privilege within this website, then you might be able to delete whatever you like or dislike, but that does not mean your interpretation is necessarily correct. Present explicit, definitive references for your statement regarding this particular Subparagraph, if any. If you cannot, you're in no position to dictate what must be or must not be.—Preceding unsigned comment added by Deltaeagle001 (talk • contribs) 3 May 2009 04:04 (UTC)
Even Republic of Korea Army, Navy, Air Force, Joint chief of Staffs, Ministry of National Defense state All contents under All rights reserved. How can we claim they are public domain?--Kwj2772 (msg) 05:34, 3 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Please note that there can be mistranslation and only authoritive version is Korean. I can't recognise logo, seal, insignia as notification.--Kwj2772 (msg) 12:27, 3 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I deleted this template after reviewing Korean Copyright law. If the law didn't specify it is not protected, It is automatically considered as all rights reserved.--Kwj2772 (msg) 05:45, 10 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.

Files uploaded by Deltaeagle001

[edit]

{{PD-KoreaGov-Military}} is invalid license in Korea. As I stated above, Article 7 doesn't define as unprotected works.--Kwj2772 (msg) 10:03, 28 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted. MichaelMaggs (talk) 21:49, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

content moved to page Nederland --Vincent Steenberg (talk) 12:06, 28 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

 Keep Do not delete, it may break links from projects; make a redirect if that would be better than the current page. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 13:52, 28 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
ok, I didn't think of that. Maybe a redirect to Nederland#Notable_Dutch_people_.2F_Beroemde_Nederlanders? Vincent Steenberg (talk) 14:14, 28 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Kept. and redirected. Pruneautalk 15:53, 27 June 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.

Change from speedy deletion. The reason was According to the Library of Congress they don't know if it is really PD. They have not checked yet. There should be a way to know if it is PD or not. Yann (talk) 21:07, 28 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The LOC wrote here that in that case people have to do their own evaluation. The thing is (and that's why I marked it as speedy): Abel was born in 1888 and she isn't young anymore on this image, so it definitely is not pre-1923. I'm not good at estimating age but I would put here in her late fifties, early sixties on that image, which also makes the image to young to be pd-old. So the only possible PD-licence left would be if this would be a government work. But one thing speak against this in my opinion. If this would have been some official portrait for her political position, then the LOC would have data about it. -- Cecil (talk) 03:31, 29 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It could be {{PD-US-no-notice}} or {{PD-US-no-renewal}}. Yann (talk) 16:16, 2 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Hrm. Information on portraits can often be lost, but... it is somewhat similar to another portrait of a Nebraska senator taken in 1954 (the year Abel was first elected I believe) by a photographic agency, so it could be the same case for this photo. It is definitely tangled... if it was commissioned by the U.S. government, then it is possibly PD-USGov (commissions were often treated differently prior to 1978 than they are now). Since it appears it was a Nebraska agency though, I'm not sure that was the case. If this was published in 1954, then the renewal records would be online, as it would have needed to be renewed in 1981 or 1982. Odds are copyright was not renewed, but I'm not sure there is enough information to make that determination. Carl Lindberg (talk) 15:08, 3 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted. Simply not enough information to determine copyright status. BanyanTree 12:53, 22 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]