Commons:Deletion requests/Archive/2009/08/18
 |
This is an archive, please do not edit. Post new cases at Commons:Deletion requests. You can visit the most recent archive here. |
 |
|
|
This picture was painted in 1979,not 1700 --Zhxy 519 (talk) 16:48, 18 August 2009 (UTC)
- Speedy delete per copyvio, this image was first seen on a 1979 comic book.--Jimmy xu wrk (talk) 16:54, 18 August 2009 (UTC)
- Please show me your evidence of the copyright. okay? --Walter Grassroot (talk) 17:09, 18 August 2009 (UTC)
Deleted by Abigor: per COM:SPEEDY
Out of scope as being textual in nature. Eusebius (talk) 18:38, 18 August 2009 (UTC)
- I retract my nomination. I looked too quickly at the image, sorry. --Eusebius (talk) 18:50, 18 August 2009 (UTC)
Kept. Eusebius (talk) 18:51, 18 August 2009 (UTC)
Out of scope as being textual in nature. Should be replaced by formatted text on the WP page where it is used. Eusebius (talk) 18:39, 18 August 2009 (UTC)
Keep In use; not entirely textual. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 18:41, 18 August 2009 (UTC)
- I retract my nomination. I looked too quickly at the image, sorry. --Eusebius (talk) 18:50, 18 August 2009 (UTC)
Kept. Eusebius (talk) 18:51, 18 August 2009 (UTC)
It is not likely that uploader Smartlion is also the author of this page, and therefor he can not release this as CC Atr 3 --Jan Arkesteijn (talk) 09:32, 18 August 2009 (UTC)
Delete Cover.--Unai Fdz. de Betoño (talk) 09:38, 18 August 2009 (UTC)- Delete Magazine {{Cover}} — df| 19:26, 18 August 2009 (UTC)
- Keep As declared on my [talk page], being the Editor-Publisher of Complete Wellbeing magazine, I am the copyright owner of the cover image listed under deletion requests. --Smartlion (talk) 06:04, 20 August 2009 (UTC)
- Ok Smartlion, please follow the Commons:OTRS procedure. Kind regards, Jan Arkesteijn (talk) 08:43, 20 August 2009 (UTC)
- Jan, I have sent permission to Wikimedia by email for the said image as outlined in the Commons:OTRS procedure. Thanks for your help. Best regards, Smartlion (talk) 08:39, 21 August 2009 (UTC)
- Ok Smartlion, please follow the Commons:OTRS procedure. Kind regards, Jan Arkesteijn (talk) 08:43, 20 August 2009 (UTC)
Kept. Masur (talk) 10:53, 21 August 2009 (UTC)
Permission received. OTRS 2009082110019204. Masur (talk) 10:53, 21 August 2009 (UTC)
byte-for-byte copy from image supplied in online edition of PMID 18804823; no evidence commercial journal publisher has released it as PD DMacks (talk) 01:36, 18 August 2009 (UTC)
Comment Low quality and inappropriate file type anyway. --Leyo 05:50, 18 August 2009 (UTC)
- Delete Now free vector version available. --NEUROtiker ⇌ 19:14, 25 August 2009 (UTC)
Deleted. Leyo 20:31, 25 August 2009 (UTC)
Converted from a speedy deletion. Signed artwork, could someone indentify the artist? Sv1xv (talk) 08:59, 18 August 2009 (UTC)
Comment If deleted on Commons, it must be uploaded on en-wiki, as it is PD in the USA. Sv1xv (talk) 09:02, 18 August 2009 (UTC)
- Keep Art by Walter Sauer, 1889-1927. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 09:24, 18 August 2009 (UTC)
- Keep "used with the permission of the Bruton Galleries" - GabrielVelasquez (talk) 05:00, 25 August 2009 (UTC)
Kept. –Juliancolton | Talk 21:18, 25 August 2009 (UTC)
Looks out of scope to me. Eusebius (talk) 18:40, 18 August 2009 (UTC)
- Delete - per Eusebius. This file is probably a copyvio too since it seems to be a disc cover. — df| 19:30, 18 August 2009 (UTC)
Deleted. –Juliancolton | Talk 21:17, 25 August 2009 (UTC)
Looks out of scope to me. Eusebius (talk) 18:40, 18 August 2009 (UTC)
- Delete - I agree with Eusebius. — df| 19:32, 18 August 2009 (UTC)
Deleted. –Juliancolton | Talk 21:16, 25 August 2009 (UTC)
Looks out of scope to me. Eusebius (talk) 18:40, 18 August 2009 (UTC)
- Delete - per nom. — df| 19:32, 18 August 2009 (UTC)
Deleted. –Juliancolton | Talk 21:15, 25 August 2009 (UTC)
Looks out of scope to me. Unused. Eusebius (talk) 18:40, 18 August 2009 (UTC)
Deleted. –Juliancolton | Talk 21:15, 25 August 2009 (UTC)
Looks out of scope to me. Unused. Eusebius (talk) 18:41, 18 August 2009 (UTC)
- Delete - per nom. — df| 19:34, 18 August 2009 (UTC)
Deleted. –Juliancolton | Talk 21:15, 25 August 2009 (UTC)
Looks out of scope to me. Unused. Eusebius (talk) 18:45, 18 August 2009 (UTC)
- Delete - per nom. — df| 19:34, 18 August 2009 (UTC)
Deleted. –Juliancolton | Talk 21:15, 25 August 2009 (UTC)
Personal pic, unused. Eusebius (talk) 18:45, 18 August 2009 (UTC)
- Delete - out of scope. — df| 19:33, 18 August 2009 (UTC)
Deleted. –Juliancolton | Talk 21:15, 25 August 2009 (UTC)
Out of scope, personal photo used for vandalism on en-wiki Multixfer (talk) 23:49, 18 August 2009 (UTC)
Deleted. –Juliancolton | Talk 21:14, 25 August 2009 (UTC)
It's a photograph of me, i don't want it to be on the internet anymore and it has now value for an encyclpedia. Ilprincipe (talk) 10:16, 17 August 2009 (UTC)
- Delete Author's request. -- Deadstar (msg) 14:28, 18 August 2009 (UTC)
- Delete Subjet's request and out of scope. (He's not the author of the picture, he's the person portrayed on it.) -- Asclepias (talk) 17:51, 18 August 2009 (UTC)
- Comment erm yes, that's what I meant too :) -- Deadstar (msg) 07:46, 19 August 2009 (UTC)
- Delete Per request of the subject. Tiptoety talk 19:13, 18 August 2009 (UTC)
Deleted. as per above: out of scope, subject's request. Yann (talk) 17:27, 28 August 2009 (UTC)
Very low resolution picture, easily replaceable. Personnal picture. Abujoy (talk) 09:33, 18 August 2009 (UTC)
Deleted. as per Abujoy Yann (talk) 17:29, 28 August 2009 (UTC)
Low quality pic, probably personnal. Abujoy (talk) 09:39, 18 August 2009 (UTC)
Deleted. as per Abujoy. Yann (talk) 17:28, 28 August 2009 (UTC)
Non-free image, published at Gibson.com first => requires OTRS confirmation message GreyCat (talk) 05:20, 18 August 2009 (UTC)
Deleted. No permission. Yann (talk) 17:32, 28 August 2009 (UTC)
Sculptor died in 1966; statue not in the Public Domain yet. Apalsola t • c 10:07, 18 August 2009 (UTC)
Deleted. No FOP in Finland. Pruneautalk 17:44, 29 August 2009 (UTC)
Sculptor died in 2003; monument not in the Public Domain yet. Apalsola t • c 10:20, 18 August 2009 (UTC)
Deleted. No FOP in Finland. Pruneautalk 17:45, 29 August 2009 (UTC)
It is not realistically useful for an educational purpose. These are not actually Mormon missionaries, as the uploader has admitted at Wikipedia:Talk:Missionary (LDS Church). It is just two people who have tried to "dress up" like Mormon missionaries. This looks like two average people trying to get their picture on Wikimedia: belongs at Flickr, not here. Good Olfactory (talk) 09:37, 18 August 2009 (UTC)
This image portrays a satire of two missionaries. I posted this in the popular culture section. They are simply dressing up as missionaries as actors would in movies and other types of popular culture. I see nothing wrong with this picture in the section. Dlull1 (talk) 01:39, 19 August 2009 (UTC)
- How is the photo useful for an education purpose? To demonstrate that people can play "dress-up"? At a very minimum, the name of the file is misleading and would need to be changed. Good Olfactory (talk) 02:19, 19 August 2009 (UTC)
- Delete - no educational purpose - is fraudulent in that it claims to depict missionaries when in fact they are not missionaries. The article w:en:Missionary_(LDS_Church) has many educational pictures already and there are plenty of properly licensed pictures from which to pick something that more accurately and educationally represents the subject. --Trödel 12:38, 1 September 2009 (UTC)
- Delete -- or rename to reflect reality! Dlull1 was open that this was a satire or dress up picture, but the title and usage in the article is inappropriate. If these are 'LDS Young Men' -- that would be a better title and might be useful in other LDS related articles. If they are simply young men dressing up -- no Wikipedia value at all. WBardwin/71.219.157.205 22:23, 1 September 2009 (UTC)
- Keep as presently constituted. Please note that this file was updated with a new, more accurate image on 1 September 2009. WBardwin/71.219.157.205 04:49, 14 September 2009 (UTC)
- Delete -- for reasons already mentioned. 71.207.23.19 13:36, 2 September 2009 (UTC)
It's quite a mess that a different image was uploaded over the one requested for deletion here, while the rfd was still ongoing. --Túrelio (talk) 07:25, 14 September 2009 (UTC)
- Yes, that was not a good move. Good Olfactory (talk) 22:50, 14 September 2009 (UTC)
- Sorry about that - but after 2 weeks of the picture being up without a decision, I wasn't patient enough for the deletion process. Plus from the backlog, I didn't know when it would be reviewed. I'm ok with the picture I uploaded being deleted as well. --Trödel 02:09, 15 September 2009 (UTC)
- The newer version seems to be accepted; so, I'll try to delete the original version.
- Sorry about that - but after 2 weeks of the picture being up without a decision, I wasn't patient enough for the deletion process. Plus from the backlog, I didn't know when it would be reviewed. I'm ok with the picture I uploaded being deleted as well. --Trödel 02:09, 15 September 2009 (UTC)
- Yes, that was not a good move. Good Olfactory (talk) 22:50, 14 September 2009 (UTC)
Deleted the original version (that is subject of this rfd) as the image didn't really show what it pretended to show. Image can easily be replaced by the version that was uploaded later under the same name. --Túrelio (talk) 06:18, 15 September 2009 (UTC)
Most likely, propaganda shot made by German photographer. EugeneZelenko (talk) 15:27, 18 August 2009 (UTC)
- Comment Exactly what is the problem? /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 19:33, 26 September 2009 (UTC)
- German copyrights law defines term of 70 years after photographer death. Shot was made in 1941 - 1944. --EugeneZelenko (talk) 19:39, 26 September 2009 (UTC)
Note: Photo by Walter Frentz, 1907-2004. Reference: Ullstein, 00409241. --Martin H. (talk) 23:50, 3 June 2011 (UTC)
Deleted by Shizhao: No permission since 18 August 2009
Personnal picture, low quality Abujoy (talk) 08:57, 18 August 2009 (UTC)
Deleted. Wknight94 talk 00:54, 8 October 2009 (UTC)
PNG file too big, returns error creating thumbnail... I have uploaded the same file in JPG format. --Sv1xv (talk) 20:14, 18 August 2009 (UTC)
- Comment This DR was filed by User:Iron Bishop, I just fixed the format. Sv1xv (talk) 06:31, 19 August 2009 (UTC)
Deleted. Wknight94 talk 00:59, 8 October 2009 (UTC)
Images uploaded by Kevin riverpc look pretty much identical to images from official Fender's website (such as http://www.fender.com/products/prod_images/guitars/0115100727_xl.jpg), but slightly larger in size. Most probably they come from a press kit that Fender distributes on request. Images on Fender's site were published ages ago, so image ownership and "public domain by owner" is very much doubtable in this case. I suggest deletion of all these Fender guitar images, if no proof would be provided. GreyCat (talk) 19:44, 18 August 2009 (UTC)
Related other Fender images uploaded by Kevin riverpc:
- File:Thurston_Moore_Fender_Jazzmaster.jpg (edit · last · history · watch · unwatch · global usage · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel · Delinker log)
- File:J._Mascis_Fender_Jazzmaster.jpg (edit · last · history · watch · unwatch · global usage · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel · Delinker log)
- File:Elvis Costello Fender Jazzmaster.jpg (edit · last · history · watch · unwatch · global usage · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel · Delinker log)
- File:Fender Jazzmaster (2).jpg (edit · last · history · watch · unwatch · global usage · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel · Delinker log)
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit){kind=link}
.jpg&diff=0){kind=link}
.jpg&action=history){kind=link}
.jpg&action=watch){kind=link}
.jpg&action=unwatch){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg&action=purge){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&preload=Commons:Deletion_requests/preload){kind=link}
.jpg&action=delete){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
Deleted by Túrelio: Copyright violation: it was taken from SameDayMusic.com. The site's logo can be seen in the bottom left hand corner and the original image can be viewed here: http://cachepe.samedaymusic.com/media/quality,85/brand,sameday/0115100727v1_hi-21f14ca
Copyvio. The seal is owneed by the Archdiocese of Jaro, not the person who uploaded it. Multixfer (talk) 18:43, 18 August 2009 (UTC)
Deleted by Zirland: In category Copyright violations; no license
this image not uploader made shizhao (talk) 16:19, 17 August 2009 (UTC)
- Speedy keep per [1], Article 6 GraYoshi2x►talk 22:12, 17 August 2009 (UTC)
- it not PD-self --shizhao (talk) 12:35, 18 August 2009 (UTC)
- Could you be more specific about what section of that document you claim would make the image free ? -- Asclepias (talk) 18:06, 18 August 2009 (UTC)
- Is this an "official document"? ViperSnake151 (talk) 14:53, 18 August 2009 (UTC)
Delete : In the absence of a verifiable OTRS confirmation, I have serious doubts about the uploader's claim that he is the owner of the copyright of this image. -- Asclepias (talk) 18:06, 18 August 2009 (UTC)
- But however, the law of the country seems to suggest that among other things, "official documents" are PD. ViperSnake151 (talk) 19:58, 18 August 2009 (UTC)
- It does not suggest that. It merely says that collections such as collections of texts of laws, judgments or the like, and where said collections are not themselves characterized by additional originality or effort, then such collections are not entitled to their own additional copyright. This image has nothing to do with that, for three reasons. Firstly, a single work is not a collection of works. Secondly, images and currencies are far from the type of documents in question. Thirdly, the originality and effort is not absent from the drawing. -- Asclepias (talk) 02:38, 19 August 2009 (UTC)
- Ah, but currency would also be considered "public property", no? GraYoshi2x►talk 14:16, 20 August 2009 (UTC)
- It does not suggest that. It merely says that collections such as collections of texts of laws, judgments or the like, and where said collections are not themselves characterized by additional originality or effort, then such collections are not entitled to their own additional copyright. This image has nothing to do with that, for three reasons. Firstly, a single work is not a collection of works. Secondly, images and currencies are far from the type of documents in question. Thirdly, the originality and effort is not absent from the drawing. -- Asclepias (talk) 02:38, 19 August 2009 (UTC)
Deleted, copyright violation. Kameraad Pjotr 21:12, 1 January 2010 (UTC)
The uploader being the subject, he cannot be the photographer. One of the many problematic pictures this user has uploaded. Eusebius (talk) 07:42, 18 August 2009 (UTC)
Deleted, per nominator. Kameraad Pjotr 21:16, 1 January 2010 (UTC)
The uploader being the subject, he cannot be the photographer. One of the many problematic pictures this user has uploaded Eusebius (talk) 07:46, 18 August 2009 (UTC)
Deleted, per nominator. Kameraad Pjotr 21:23, 1 January 2010 (UTC)
The uploader being the subject, he cannot be the photographer. One of the many problematic pictures this user has uploaded Eusebius (talk) 07:46, 18 August 2009 (UTC)
Deleted, per nominator. Kameraad Pjotr 21:25, 1 January 2010 (UTC)
The uploader being the subject, he cannot be the photographer. One of the many problematic pictures this user has uploaded Eusebius (talk) 07:46, 18 August 2009 (UTC)
Deleted, per nominator. Kameraad Pjotr 21:31, 1 January 2010 (UTC)
The uploader being the subject, he cannot be the photographer. One of the many problematic pictures this user has uploaded Eusebius (talk) 07:47, 18 August 2009 (UTC)
- Other pictures in the same case:
- File:Mesa de Diego Cosgaya.jpg (edit · last · history · watch · unwatch · global usage · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel · Delinker log)
- File:Piragua en el club Palentino de Piragüismo.jpg (edit · last · history · watch · unwatch · global usage · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel · Delinker log)
- File:DIEGO SEGUIN Y HERNANZ.jpg (edit · last · history · watch · unwatch · global usage · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel · Delinker log)
- File:COSGAYA MERCHAN EPRENDES 9 CPTO ESPA AUTON 010608.jpg (edit · last · history · watch · unwatch · global usage · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel · Delinker log)
- File:Diego Cosgaya .jpg (edit · last · history · watch · unwatch · global usage · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel · Delinker log)
- File:Diego Cosgaya Piestany.jpg (edit · last · history · watch · unwatch · global usage · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel · Delinker log)
- File:Javier y Diego Cosgaya .jpg (edit · last · history · watch · unwatch · global usage · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel · Delinker log)
- File:GV61360.jpg (edit · last · history · watch · unwatch · global usage · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel · Delinker log) (see the copyright watermark)
- File:Diego Cosgaya y Jose Seguin en el Cpto. Mundo Junior en Hungría ´05.jpg (edit · last · history · watch · unwatch · global usage · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel · Delinker log)
- File:Diego cosgaya.jpeg (edit · last · history · watch · unwatch · global usage · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel · Delinker log)
- NB: use is indefblocked (multiple copyvio, copyvio re-creation, sockpuppetry) and deemed problematic on his home wiki (self-promotion). --Eusebius (talk) 07:50, 18 August 2009 (UTC)
All deleted, per nominator. Kameraad Pjotr 21:35, 1 January 2010 (UTC)
It's not really sharp, there are better photographs of dee dee bridgewater, it's not used in an article Ilprincipe (talk) 10:17, 17 August 2009 (UTC)
Deleted, per nominator. Kameraad Pjotr 21:54, 1 January 2010 (UTC)
kein aussagekräftiges bild, wird von keinem artikel verwendet Ilprincipe (talk) 12:10, 17 August 2009 (UTC)
Mal ehrlich Ilprincipe, wenn ich mir Deine wenigen Bilder ansehe - was soll denn das ? 188.102.213.68 17:42, 28 November 2009 (UTC)
Kept, within project scope. Kameraad Pjotr 19:46, 3 January 2010 (UTC)
Source website says "Please obtain written copyright permission from the author before reproducing any information and images for print or digital use. Thank you." We have no evidence that the file was published before 1959 (so that Template:PD-Malaysia could apply) Teofilo (talk) 08:05, 18 August 2009 (UTC)
Deleted, per nominator. Kameraad Pjotr 19:48, 3 January 2010 (UTC)
Painter died in 1940, so this is not PD yet --Jan Arkesteijn (talk) 09:20, 18 August 2009 (UTC)
Deleted, per nominator. Kameraad Pjotr 19:52, 3 January 2010 (UTC)
Restored as the depicted work is PD since 1 January 2011. --AFBorchert (talk) 12:25, 1 January 2011 (UTC)
This image is copyrighted by Weifang city Gov. shizhao (talk) 12:34, 18 August 2009 (UTC)
- Keep - Like I pointed out in the edit summary, [2] shows that this isn't copyrightable. I would advise you to please stop the forum-shopping for every image you believe is a copyvio by nominating it for deletion every time there is a dispute about whether it is PD or not. GraYoshi2x►talk 20:27, 19 August 2009 (UTC)
- Delete That link doesn't seem to show any such thing. I think this design has some originality and so is copyrightable. --Simonxag (talk) 12:21, 21 August 2009 (UTC)
Deleted, per nominator. Kameraad Pjotr 19:53, 3 January 2010 (UTC)
The site listed as the source is likely not the owner of these police mugshots. Licensing incorrect. Not sure how these would be licensed -- Deadstar (msg) 14:23, 18 August 2009 (UTC)
Deleted, per nominator. Kameraad Pjotr 20:02, 3 January 2010 (UTC)
Sculptor died in 1988; statue not in the Public Domain yet. Apalsola t • c 14:35, 18 August 2009 (UTC)
Deleted, per nominator. Kameraad Pjotr 20:04, 3 January 2010 (UTC)
No Commons:Freedom of panorama in Belarus. Installed in 2008. EugeneZelenko (talk) 15:15, 18 August 2009 (UTC)
Deleted, per nominator. Kameraad Pjotr 20:05, 3 January 2010 (UTC)
No Commons:Freedom of panorama in Belarus. Installed in 2006. EugeneZelenko (talk) 15:20, 18 August 2009 (UTC)
Deleted, per nominator. Kameraad Pjotr 20:05, 3 January 2010 (UTC)
Bessere Version/better version: 50px -89.49.60.187 17:34, 18 August 2009 (UTC)
Kept, images are quite identical (the one of the DR is bigger). Kameraad Pjotr 20:07, 3 January 2010 (UTC)
This is a deceptive bit of "Synthesis"; Given the actual use is to suggest a single radius when it has be described in the article (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gliese_581_c#Radius) itself that there is no data on the actual composition of the planet and therefore the planet has a wide range of possible radii (I count six from Sara Seager), not just the singular possibility suggested by this image. --GabrielVelasquez (talk) 20:29, 18 August 2009 (UTC)
- Delete per request reasoning.GabrielVelasquez (talk) 02:14, 6 September 2009 (UTC)
- Keep Nominator is disruptive. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 07:39, 6 September 2009 (UTC)
Kept, file is within project scope. Kameraad Pjotr 20:10, 3 January 2010 (UTC)
This is a deceptive bit of "Synthesis"; Given the actual use is to suggest a single radius when it has be described in the article (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gliese_581_c#Radius) itself that there is no data on the actual composition of the planet and therefore the planet has a wide range of possible radii (I count six from Sara Seager), not just the singular possibility suggested by this image. --GabrielVelasquez (talk) 20:32, 18 August 2009 (UTC)
- Inaccuracy or erroneousness is never a reason for deletion of an image from Wikimedia Commons. Besides the image (used in the Polish version of the article) is accompanied with the sentence "The image assumes that Gliese581c is a solid rock planet and not an «ice-planet»". Please remove the request because there is no valid reason to delete the image. You can however remove it from the Polish article if you believe it is unnecessary or deceptive. BeŻet (talk) 22:40, 25 August 2009 (UTC)
Kept, within project scope. Kameraad Pjotr 20:06, 4 January 2010 (UTC)
This is a deceptive bit of "Synthesis"; Given the actual use is to suggest a single radius when it has be described in the article (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gliese_581_c#Radius) itself that there is no data on the actual composition of the planet and therefore the planet has a wide range of possible radii (I count six from Sara Seager), not just the singular possibility suggested by this image. --GabrielVelasquez (talk) 20:35, 18 August 2009 (UTC)
Delete I translated that pic from english but I agree with your point. Ugo14 (talk) 15:56, 20 August 2009 (UTC)
Kept, file is within project scope. Kameraad Pjotr 20:07, 4 January 2010 (UTC)
This is a very outdated image that should no longer be available for use; the detection of a 4th planet at Gliese 581 and the publication of scientific papers refuting the inclusion of any planets in the habitable zone, and the removal of speculative statments about Epsilon Reticuli b being in the habitable zone which were way out of line, make this image deceptive. --GabrielVelasquez (talk) 20:19, 18 August 2009 (UTC)
Deleted, per nominator. Kameraad Pjotr 20:08, 4 January 2010 (UTC)
reason= This is a very outdated image that should no longer be available for use; the detection of a 4th planet and the publication of scientific papers refuting the inclusion of any planets in the habitable zone make this image deceptive. GabrielVelasquez (talk) 19:45, 18 August 2009 (UTC)
Deleted, per nominator. Kameraad Pjotr 20:11, 4 January 2010 (UTC)
This is a very outdated image that should no longer be available for use; the detection of a 4th planet and the publication of scientific papers refuting the inclusion of any planets in the habitable zone make this image deceptive. --GabrielVelasquez (talk) 19:51, 18 August 2009 (UTC)
Deleted, per nominator. Kameraad Pjotr 20:12, 4 January 2010 (UTC)
This is a very outdated image that should no longer be available for use; the detection of a 4th planet at Gliese 581 and the publication of scientific papers refuting the inclusion of any planets in the habitable zone, and the removal of speculative statments about Epsilon Reticuli b being in the habitable zone which were way out of line, make this image deceptive. --GabrielVelasquez (talk) 20:15, 18 August 2009 (UTC)
- Keep It's a SVG. Update it. Rocket000 (talk) 14:57, 1 January 2010 (UTC)
Deleted, per nominator. Kameraad Pjotr 20:13, 4 January 2010 (UTC)
This is a very outdated image that should no longer be available for use; the detection of a 4th planet and the publication of scientific papers refuting the inclusion of any planets in the habitable zone make this image deceptive. --GabrielVelasquez (talk) 21:12, 18 August 2009 (UTC)
Deleted, per nominator. Kameraad Pjotr 20:15, 4 January 2010 (UTC)
This is a very outdated image that should no longer be available for use; the detection of a 4th planet and the publication of scientific papers refuting the inclusion of any planets in the habitable zone make this image deceptive. --GabrielVelasquez (talk) 21:11, 18 August 2009 (UTC)
Deleted, per nominator. Kameraad Pjotr 20:16, 4 January 2010 (UTC)
Derivative work of an explanatory poster in Stasi museum ChrisiPK (Talk|Contribs) 20:57, 18 August 2009 (UTC)
Deleted, per nominator. Kameraad Pjotr 20:17, 4 January 2010 (UTC)
reason= This is a deceptive bit of "Synthesis"; Given the actual use is to suggest a single radius when it has be described in the article (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gliese_581_c#Radius) itself that there is no data on the actual composition of the planet and therefore the planet has a wide range of possible radii (I count six from Sara Seager), not just the one suggested by this image. GabrielVelasquez (talk) 19:39, 18 August 2009 (UTC)
- As noted here this is not a valid reason to delete the image from Wikimedia Commons. BeŻet (talk) 22:42, 25 August 2009 (UTC)
Kept, file is within project scope. Kameraad Pjotr 20:03, 4 January 2010 (UTC)
