Commons:Deletion requests/Archive/2009/10/13
 |
This is an archive, please do not edit. Post new cases at Commons:Deletion requests. You can visit the most recent archive here. |
 |
|
|
(reason for deletion)
Reason for deletion: created by mistake. Initiator of deletion: 20:57, 12. Okt. 2009 83.27.210.164 --Fixing request:--El-Bardo (talk) 08:10, 13 October 2009 (UTC)
Deleted. Captain-tucker (talk) 11:23, 13 October 2009 (UTC)
empty, useless; screenshots and other media related to this software cannot be uploaded to Commons because they aren't free --Yerpo (talk) 08:22, 13 October 2009 (UTC)
Deleted by Foroa: content was: '{{delete|empty, useless}} {{En|Muziic is a media player and related website. The player directly accesses media files on YouTube. As the name suggests, the project is primarily focused on music-related content.}}...'
bad name, see Category:Sveta Nedjelja, Hvar. --LavanderMan (talk) 19:10, 13 October 2009 (UTC) --- Deleted typo. -- Deadstar (msg) 07:51, 14 October 2009 (UTC)
May be copyvio SpaceFlight89 (talk) 20:07, 13 October 2009 (UTC)
Deleted by Dodo: Commons:Deletion requests/File:Jacqueline.Honulik.jpg: May be copyvio
May be copyvio SpaceFlight89 (talk) 20:08, 13 October 2009 (UTC)
Deleted by Dodo: Commons:Deletion requests/File:HONULIK.jpg: May be copyvio
File has a wrong file name. Correct file name is File:18201 Meiningen Kuppelrad 01092007.JPG. -- Urmelbeauftragter (msg) 11:37, 13 October 2009 (CEST)
Delete please use {{Duplicate}} or {{Bad name}} next time. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 06:11, 14 October 2009 (UTC)
Deleted by Shizhao: Dupe of Image:18201 Meiningen Kuppelrad 01092007.JPG
This image is not free, is a book escaned ferbr1 (talk) 00:54, 13 October 2009 (UTC)
- It doesn't look like this is copyrightable, to me. It's just basic text, nothing creative. Powers (talk) 01:37, 13 October 2009 (UTC)
Keep per Powers. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 05:48, 13 October 2009 (UTC)
What world do you live, Ferbr1? That's a cover of a book, nothing more. What is the substance of the discussion?--Clemam (talk) 20:34, 13 October 2009 (UTC)
Kept (non-admin). Relicense as {{PD-text}}. –blurpeace (talk) 20:53, 20 October 2009 (UTC)
No COM:FOP for modern buildings in France. The architect must be dead for 70 years which is not possible here. Leoboudv (talk) 06:14, 13 October 2009 (UTC)
- Delete, per nom. The building is clearly the main focus. –Tryphon☂ 13:16, 13 October 2009 (UTC)
- Delete per nom --Simonxag (talk) 17:53, 16 October 2009 (UTC)
Deleted. –Juliancolton | Talk 20:19, 20 October 2009 (UTC)
Copyviol from http://www.mondodigitale.net/Rivista/07_numero_2/Henin_p._50-57.pdf --Triquetra (talk) 07:41, 13 October 2009 (UTC)
Keep Similar looking tables but not the same. The information is not copyrightable. --Simonxag (talk) 18:01, 16 October 2009 (UTC)
Kept. –Juliancolton | Talk 20:19, 20 October 2009 (UTC)
Category is empty. -- Urmelbeauftragter (msg) 11:34, 13 October 2009 (CEST)
Deleted. –Juliancolton | Talk 20:20, 20 October 2009 (UTC)
Category is empty. -- Urmelbeauftragter (msg) 11:31, 13 October 2009 (CEST)
Deleted. –Juliancolton | Talk 20:20, 20 October 2009 (UTC)
Derivative work of the Dyson vacuum cleaner, which is a copyrighted work of art. See [1]: "It is not a stretch to consider [James Dyson's] home appliances works of art. The San Francisco Museum of Modern Art displays his vacuum in its galleries". Sandstein (talk) 10:57, 13 October 2009 (UTC)
- Keep Oh do you really think the opinion of a blogger is enough to call this an artwork? Legally, its not since its a utilitarian object. ViperSnake151 (talk) 11:41, 13 October 2009 (UTC)
- What matters for copyright protection is whether this vacuum cleaner design surpasses the en:threshold of originality. It being exhibited in museums is a pretty good indication that it does. Sandstein (talk) 13:27, 13 October 2009 (UTC)
Keep Has Sandstein checked if the San Francisco Museum is exhibiting it as art or as an example of design? If it's an example of design then his argument collapses. "A pretty good indication" is way too imprecise for a deletion request! PS I'm a little bit biased, I took the picture of this "Work of art" in a local art museum (sorry, I meant house) - Arpingstone (talk) 18:26, 13 October 2009 (UTC)
- Keep A vacuum cleaner may be art, but that does not stop it from also being a utilitarian object, not copyrightable. -Nard the Bard 19:45, 13 October 2009 (UTC)
- Keep Vacuum cleaners, like automobiles, might be called "works of art" by some people when they are well designed, but from a legal standpoint they are still utilitarian objects and may be photographed without violating copyright laws. Infrogmation (talk) 15:03, 15 October 2009 (UTC)
- Keep We keep having this discussion whenever someone sees a coffee pot or whatever in a style magazine or design section of a museum. If courts did start to uphold such copyrights much of modern photography would become impossible, as we live in such a heavily designed world. --Simonxag (talk) 18:21, 16 October 2009 (UTC)
Kept. –Juliancolton | Talk 20:21, 20 October 2009 (UTC)
(unsure about licencing) --Oslo1234 (talk) 14:31, 12 October 2009 (UTC)
Deleted - No licensing provided. Tiptoety talk 06:59, 21 October 2009 (UTC)
File:The_Holocaust_Memorial_at_the_California_Palace_of_the_Legion_of_Honor,_San_Francisco.jpg
[edit]
Statue dedicated/unveiled in the US post 1978 is not convered by freedom of panorama - this is a derviative work. Previous discussion is being cited at Commons:Deletion requests/File:The Holocaust Memorial at the California Palace of the Legion of Honor, San Francisco 1.jpg is about a different image of the plaque which contains non copyrightable text. This image of the statues themselves is not exempted by the same reasoning. Mfield (talk) 16:32, 13 October 2009 (UTC)
- Keep by this. This particular Memorial is not found in the registry and according to this is in a public domain.--Mbz1 (talk) 16:47, 13 October 2009 (UTC)
- I now looked at bits of Template talk:PD-US-statue/proposal and American copyright is just too complicated to try to understand. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 18:40, 16 October 2009 (UTC)
- Keep I see no reason for this to be deleted, except of course hate, but that isn't a real reason. From my experiance with public artwork, owners typically wave copyright in educational situations, which Wikipedia is, especially when the educational situation will not make anyone money, oh wait, Wikipedia is that too. Nezzadar (talk) 19:12, 13 October 2009 (UTC)
- Delete Placing a statue in public post 1978 is not "publication" for the purposes of the copyright act, so it is protected as an unpublished work and registration is not required. -Nard the Bard 19:22, 13 October 2009 (UTC)
InfoMore than a months ago I contacted San Francisco art commission (the owner of the Memorial) to find out, if the Memorial is copyrighted, and who is the copyright holder. Up to know they were not able to figure that out. I'm 100% sure that, if the artist were alive, he would have not minded the image kept, and I am 100 % sure that whoever( if anybody) holds the copyrights for that memorial will not mind it either.--Mbz1 (talk) 20:48, 13 October 2009 (UTC)- InfoSome of the comments here are troubling. "I see no reason for this to be deleted, except of course hate" and "I'm 100% sure that, if the artist were alive, he would have not minded the image kept" are missing the point completely and display a lack of understanding of how copyright and freedom of panorama works or a lack of having read commons' own guidelines on FOP. Post 1978, unless the work was explicitly released it remains copyrighted. A derivative work cannot then be re-released under a creative commons license. If it is being claimed as public domain that is a whole different issue - but are wiki contributors in a place to guess the intentions of an artist and use them to justify the hosting of a derivative work without explicit permission? No. "I contacted San Francisco art commission (the owner of the Memorial) to find out, if the Memorial is copyrighted, and who is the copyright holder. Up to know they were not able to figure that out" well then it needs to be deleted until such time as they do figure it out. The guidelines are very clear on the FOP status of US statues post 1978 - for artworks not OK. It would have been speedily deleted as an FOP copyvio as it was tagged fop-cv (along with the many other statues in the same situation that i have tagged in the past few months), except that the photograher removed the speedy tag and forced this to be brought here. Mfield (talk) 17:41, 16 October 2009 (UTC)
- Info Few days ago I emailed to George and Helen Segal Foundation with copyright question. Today there still was no response, so I called them. Guess what, they told me they are not sure who is the copyright holder of the Memorial, but they did promise to try to find that info out and get back to me "in a couple of days". San Francisco art commission (the owner of the Memorial) have also promised to get back to me in a couple of days. It was more than a month ago. Let's hope George and Helen Segal Foundation will be faster with their response.--Mbz1 (talk) 16:26, 19 October 2009 (UTC)
- Update: I've got the response from George and Helen Segal Foundation. They are the copyright holder of the image. They have no problems with keeping the image on Commons and using in Wikipedia articles, but they are not so sure about allowing other use of the image. I explained to them that, if the reproduction of the image is not allowed the image cannot be kept. They said they would make their final decision in the beginning of the next week. If the decision is negative, I will ask the image to be speedy deleted. Thanks.--Mbz1 (talk) 22:46, 23 October 2009 (UTC)
Deleted by Túrelio: No freedom of panorama in the source country: replaced "delete" with "speedy" after email from copyrights holder)
uploader's request
Deleted by Shizhao: Dupe of Image:Indira Vladić-Mujkić, Jelsa, Hvar, Croatia, 30.08.2008. (1).jpg
File of unknown source and bad license. -Nard the Bard 19:17, 13 October 2009 (UTC)
Deleted. User:Zscout370 (Return fire) 05:58, 10 November 2009 (UTC)
Source website says copyright, all rights reserved. -Nard the Bard 19:18, 13 October 2009 (UTC)
Deleted. User:Zscout370 (Return fire) 05:58, 10 November 2009 (UTC)
Source website says copyright, all rights reserved. -Nard the Bard 19:37, 13 October 2009 (UTC)
- Nard, I noticed all of the Austrian insignia images also come from this website. Want to lump them all in here? User:Zscout370 (Return fire) 19:06, 21 October 2009 (UTC)
- Either here or another mass DR, sure. -Nard the Bard 17:21, 23 October 2009 (UTC)
- Some I found to be a copyvio and had them speedied as that. User:Zscout370 (Return fire) 17:47, 23 October 2009 (UTC)
- Either here or another mass DR, sure. -Nard the Bard 17:21, 23 October 2009 (UTC)
Deleted. Per nom. Killiondude (talk) 05:57, 10 November 2009 (UTC)
COM:DW, a photograph taken from a television screen Huib talk 17:18, 13 October 2009 (UTC)
Deleted. Nilfanion (talk) 23:31, 20 November 2009 (UTC)
This is not a photograph and there is no copyright exempt Pibwl (talk) 19:10, 13 October 2009 (UTC) the same with File:Pinka.JPG, File:Wodnik.JPG, File:Król Dawid.JPG.
- Delete all of these. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 05:51, 14 October 2009 (UTC)
Deleted. Nilfanion (talk) 23:31, 20 November 2009 (UTC)
Out of scope 80.220.135.43 10:41, 13 October 2009 (UTC)
Avant toute choses merci de commencer par donner un motif VALABLE et ensuite nous aviserons.Merci--Barney44 (talk) 22:27, 13 October 2009 (UTC)
Deleted by Okki: Copyright violation: Lot of copyvios from this user
This is modern Bulgarian art (post 1957) but there is no COM:FOP in Bulgaria. Leoboudv (talk) 04:17, 13 October 2009 (UTC)
Deleted. Pruneautalk 16:35, 29 January 2010 (UTC)
Eosinophils, like ANY animal cell, lack cell wall. They only have cell membrane. 24.47.245.75 04:23, 13 October 2009 (UTC)
- Wouldn't it be much simpler to change the word "wall" to "membrane" and reupload? --Yerpo (talk) 08:24, 13 October 2009 (UTC)
- In any case, there is no deletion template on the file. - Jmabel ! talk 06:05, 14 October 2009 (UTC)
Keep used. May need improving. --Simonxag (talk) 17:52, 16 October 2009 (UTC)
Kept. If there is an issue with the label, correct it and reupload it. Pruneautalk 16:36, 29 January 2010 (UTC)
It is a duplicate file Tempesta d'amore book trailer - Camocardi.ogg Pollice (talk) 13:44, 10 October 2009 (UTC)
Deleted. Pruneautalk 16:40, 29 January 2010 (UTC)
Utah Division of Wildlife Resources is not the federal government and is not public domain. copyright violation. Mangostar (talk) 13:03, 13 October 2009 (UTC)
Deleted. The Evil IP address (talk) 14:52, 11 February 2010 (UTC)
Utah Division of Wildlife Resources is not the federal government and is not public domain. copyright violation. Mangostar (talk) 13:04, 13 October 2009 (UTC)
- Also nominating File:SPILOGALE GRACILIS.jpg, File:LEPUS TOWNSENDII.jpg, File:SPERMOPHILUS ELEGANS.jpg Mangostar (talk) 13:06, 13 October 2009 (UTC)
Deleted, no permission. --The Evil IP address (talk) 14:56, 11 February 2010 (UTC)
Tree of Life (Disney)
[edit]- File:Animal Kingdom Tree of Life.jpg (edit · last · history · watch · unwatch · global usage · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel · Delinker log)
- File:ArbolAnimalKingdom.jpg (edit · last · history · watch · unwatch · global usage · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel · Delinker log)
- File:TOL PA170001.JPG (edit · last · history · watch · unwatch · global usage · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel · Delinker log)
- File:TOL PA170002.JPG (edit · last · history · watch · unwatch · global usage · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel · Delinker log)
- File:Tree of Life close up.jpg (edit · last · history · watch · unwatch · global usage · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel · Delinker log)
- File:Tree of Life.jpg (edit · last · history · watch · unwatch · global usage · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel · Delinker log)
Pursuant to Commons:Deletion requests/File:AK TreeOfLife.JPG, which served as a test case for the rest of these images, I believe these images must all be considered derivative of the Tree of Life sculpture. There is no FOP for works of art in the United States, and the Tree was constructed in the 90s so no copyright notice is needed. Powers (talk) 00:18, 13 October 2009 (UTC)
- Note: I was unable to track down the original author of File:Tree of Life.jpg to provide notification of this discussion. Assistance would be appreciated. Powers (talk) 00:32, 13 October 2009 (UTC)
- This is a building not a sculpture. In spite of its shape it is still a building complex with a movie theatre inside. Therefore there is Freedom of Panoram see here. Deror avi (talk) 07:48, 13 October 2009 (UTC)
- Keep. Most likely Commons:Freedom of Panorama#United States, as the Tree of Life is really a building completed in 1997, visible from a public place. I believe the U.S. legal understanding of "public place" includes private property normally accessible to the public, and that's the question that would determine this matter. Same for Commons:Deletion requests/File:AK TreeOfLife.JPG also. --Closeapple (talk) 15:45, 13 October 2009 (UTC)
- Delete This is not a building in the normal sense of the word. -Nard the Bard 19:47, 13 October 2009 (UTC)
- Keep @Closeapple, @Deror avi. The sculpture is incidental to the building/landmark nature of the tree. --bdesham ★ 00:43, 14 October 2009 (UTC)
- Note. The majority of this structure is simply that, a structure; the movie theater is housed in the base, as far as I'm aware. That's why I didn't really consider it a building. Still, if these images are kept, the other file that I used as a test case should probably be undeleted. Powers (talk) 15:55, 14 October 2009 (UTC)
- Delete I would not dare to market a postcard of this structure. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 06:40, 15 October 2009 (UTC)
- Delete It even looks like a sculpture. Images of it are obvious derivative works. How could anyone hope to go to court and argue anything else. --Simonxag (talk) 17:50, 16 October 2009 (UTC)
Deleted, per Commons:Project scope/Precautionary principle. Diti the penguin — 16:39, 27 October 2009 (UTC)
COM:DW. sугсго 06:32, 13 October 2009 (UTC)
Delete The artist died in 1997. There's no evidence of permission from his estate. --Simonxag (talk) 17:56, 16 October 2009 (UTC)
Keep As per information supplied. --Simonxag (talk) 00:43, 17 October 2009 (UTC)
Dear moderator, Paulo Freire wasn't a painter! He was the most important brazilian professor, and during all his life had figheted against the military dictators in our country (1964-1985), against the analfabetism and hungry. I had painted the mural, I had taken the photography and I can prove that the CEFORTEPE is a public space in Campinas-SP: you can enter in the site of the Prefecture and find the space inside the Education Secretary: www.campinas.sp.gov.br
Congratulations.
Luiz Carlos Cappellano
Não acredito que esta imagem deva ser apagada pois é inteiramente de minha autoria: tanto a pintura, quanto a fotografia. Para maiores esclarecimentos, sugiro que se assista a vídeo explicativo sobre o painel no YOUTUBE: [[2]]. Além de todos estes argumentos, o painel está instalado permanentemente num espaço público. Luiz Carlos Cappellano
COM:DW sугсго 06:32, 13 October 2009 (UTC)
- Keep uploader's own painting; also COM:FOP#Brazil. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 06:15, 14 October 2009 (UTC)
- if the painter died in 1997 how did he manage to upload this? Also what's the evidence that this is is in a public place in Brazil? --Simonxag (talk) 17:58, 16 October 2009 (UTC)
- This is not a painting by Paulo Freire... it was painted 2008 by Luiz Carlos Cappellano. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 18:05, 16 October 2009 (UTC)
- Sorry my mistake --Simonxag (talk) 00:41, 17 October 2009 (UTC)
- This is not a painting by Paulo Freire... it was painted 2008 by Luiz Carlos Cappellano. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 18:05, 16 October 2009 (UTC)
- if the painter died in 1997 how did he manage to upload this? Also what's the evidence that this is is in a public place in Brazil? --Simonxag (talk) 17:58, 16 October 2009 (UTC)
Dear moderator, Paulo Freire wasn't a painter! He was the most important brazilian professor, and during all his life had figheted against the military dictators in our country (1964-1985), against the analfabetism and hungry. I had painted the mural, I had taken the photography and I can prove that the CEFORTEPE is a public space in Campinas-SP: you can enter in the site of the Prefecture and find the space inside the Education Secretary: www.campinas.sp.gov.br Congratulations.
Não acredito que esta imagem deva ser apagada pois é inteiramente de minha autoria: tanto a pintura, quanto a fotografia. Para maiores esclarecimentos, sugiro que se assista a vídeo explicativo sobre o painel no YOUTUBE: [[3]]. Luiz Carlos Cappellano
Image is watermarked "photosearch.com". it looks as though user's other uploads (similarly named "1" and "2" were deleted. -- Deadstar (msg) 08:57, 13 October 2009 (UTC)
Delete Funny watermarks to have on X-rays you took yourself. --Simonxag (talk) 18:03, 16 October 2009 (UTC)
Deleted. Tiptoety talk 06:59, 21 October 2009 (UTC)
This looks like a scan of a printed matter to me and not like own work ALE! ¿…? 08:38, 13 October 2009 (UTC)
- Yes, this is a scan from a photo of 80's of mine.--Opus88888 (talk) 16:05, 14 October 2009 (UTC)
- Could you then please provide a high-res scan of this photo? Thank you! --ALE! ¿…? 08:50, 15 October 2009 (UTC)
- Yes, of course, let me search the photo. --Opus88888 (talk) 03:02, 16 October 2009 (UTC)
- Could you then please provide a high-res scan of this photo? Thank you! --ALE! ¿…? 08:50, 15 October 2009 (UTC)
Deleted. No proof provided in over 4 months. Stifle (talk) 16:17, 7 March 2010 (UTC)
no licence Al-capone-36 (talk) 16:09, 30 May 2009 (UTC)
- It has no license because you removed the source license and other info yourself. However I note you are also the uploader. I don't think the way you listed it is a particularly appropriate way to go about it. No use of image in Wikimedia found. As image is unused and I am unaware of how it might be useful in project scope, I have no objection to deletion. Infrogmation (talk) 15:08, 15 October 2009 (UTC)
Unused, requested by author — Deleted. Stifle (talk) 16:18, 7 March 2010 (UTC)
Do not think it is free content, Peadara (talk) 12:08, 13 October 2009 (UTC)
Deleted. Stifle (talk) 16:18, 7 March 2010 (UTC)
royal alberta museum images are not public domain - copyright violation. Mangostar (talk) 12:57, 13 October 2009 (UTC)
Deleted. Stifle (talk) 16:18, 7 March 2010 (UTC)
royal alberta museum images are not public domain - copyright violation. Mangostar (talk) 12:59, 13 October 2009 (UTC)
Deleted. Stifle (talk) 16:24, 7 March 2010 (UTC)
File was removed from Flickr, unknown copyright status A1Cafel (talk) 07:59, 18 February 2020 (UTC)
- Keep Image seems to be cropped from File:Imageslike.com-original-lasvegas-mammals-05032-olive-backed-pocket-mouse-perognathus-fasciatus-g.jpg and if I read the year correct it is from 1838. That should make it PD. But I would like someone else to have a look. --MGA73 (talk) 21:52, 25 February 2020 (UTC)
- Keep It's obviously in public domain due to age. I couldn't find I. C. Werner's biography but it's nearly no chance that he worked in 1838 and lived till 1950. Mithril (talk) 01:27, 14 May 2020 (UTC)
Kept: no valid reason for deletion. (non-admin closure) --Mdaniels5757 (talk) 03:15, 13 June 2020 (UTC)
royal alberta museum images are not public domain - copyright violation. Mangostar (talk) 12:59, 13 October 2009 (UTC)
Deleted. Stifle (talk) 16:24, 7 March 2010 (UTC)
royal alberta museum images are not public domain - copyright violation. Mangostar (talk) 13:00, 13 October 2009 (UTC)
Deleted. Stifle (talk) 16:24, 7 March 2010 (UTC)
royal alberta museum images are not public domain - copyright violation. Mangostar (talk) 13:00, 13 October 2009 (UTC)
Deleted. Stifle (talk) 16:24, 7 March 2010 (UTC)
royal alberta museum images are not public domain - copyright violation. Mangostar (talk) 13:04, 13 October 2009 (UTC)
Deleted. Stifle (talk) 16:24, 7 March 2010 (UTC)
May be copyvio SpaceFlight89 (talk) 20:09, 13 October 2009 (UTC)
Deleted. Stifle (talk) 16:25, 7 March 2010 (UTC)
Suspected copyvio SpaceFlight89 (talk) 20:10, 13 October 2009 (UTC)
Deleted. Stifle (talk) 16:25, 7 March 2010 (UTC)
There is no evidence that the author died more than 70 years ago, only that it was published in 1932 --86.0.102.29 01:23, 13 October 2009 (UTC)
- How do you know told, that there are no copyright notices in this book? Delete. sугсго 06:38, 13 October 2009 (UTC)
- Delete, an author for the photographs is even written on that page, the "no author disclosure" was a bad guess. --Martin H. (talk) 04:16, 8 March 2010 (UTC)
--- Deleted, insufficient source information. --The Evil IP address (talk) 14:15, 24 March 2010 (UTC)
The scientific name of willet was changed as per the 47th Supplement to the American Ornithologists' Union Check-list of North American Birds, 2006. The images that were in this category have been moved to the Tringa semipalmata category. This change makes commons consistent with Wikipedia and Wikispecies.
Initiator of deletion: 08:20, 13. Okt. 2009 Davefoc --Fixing request:--El-Bardo (talk) 08:51, 13 October 2009 (UTC)
- This isn't the place to discuss category names, should be at Commons:Categories for discussion, no? - Jmabel ! talk 05:54, 14 October 2009 (UTC)
- Or if you are sure it is uncontroversial, just take it straight to User talk:CommonsDelinker/commands. - Jmabel ! talk 05:57, 14 October 2009 (UTC)
- Keep Make it a category redirect. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 06:13, 14 October 2009 (UTC)
Redirect added. -- User:Docu at 17:22, 30 December 2009 (UTC)
I've requested speedy deletion of this image because it's of the wrong house. Compare this image to the nonfree image found here, which is an official picture for the house, and which appears here; you can see that they're radically different. I cannot imagine a use for this image (especially as it's misnamed), so this image is outside our scope. Nyttend (talk) 02:36, 13 October 2009 (UTC) From the talk page of the image; turned into a DR by me. –Tryphon☂ 20:09, 13 October 2009 (UTC)
Deleted, out of project scope. Kameraad Pjotr 15:54, 11 April 2010 (UTC)
