Commons:Deletion requests/Archive/2010/02/05
 |
This is an archive, please do not edit. Post new cases at Commons:Deletion requests. You can visit the most recent archive here. |
 |
|
|
It was a test! Jdaisy (talk) 14:05, 5 February 2010 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
Deleted by Nilfanion: copyvio, deriv work of Star Wars
derivate work from http://www.arwen-undomiel.com/images/eowyn/Eowyn_ROTK.jpg --Otourly (talk) 19:44, 5 February 2010 (UTC)
- I'm the uploader of the image. Seen the photo I don't knew before, I conclude it's really derivative. Delete. --Rondador (talk) 12:16, 6 February 2010 (UTC)
- link above has been disable but it is the same as [1] Otourly (talk) 12:23, 6 February 2010 (UTC)
Deleted by Otourly: Per Commons:Deletion_requests/File:Éowyn_con_espada.jpg
unused since 2006, unusable, no exif data - only edit of this user - out of scope Cholo Aleman (talk) 05:51, 5 February 2010 (UTC)
- Delete, useless. Nyttend (talk) 20:50, 5 February 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. —Anonymous DissidentTalk 12:19, 12 February 2010 (UTC)
experimental picture, unused, poorly described - out of scope, only edit of this user Cholo Aleman (talk) 05:53, 5 February 2010 (UTC)
- Delete, useless. Nyttend (talk) 20:49, 5 February 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. —Anonymous DissidentTalk 12:19, 12 February 2010 (UTC)
extremely bad quality and largely out of COM:SCOPE; formerly used in an deleted article on :en --Túrelio (talk) 08:02, 5 February 2010 (UTC)
- Delete, useless because of poor quality. As an admin on en:wp, I've checked the deleted article; there's no reason to believe that any Wikipedia could have a decent article on her; consequently, I expect that it's also unlikely that this will be usable for an educational purpose. Nyttend (talk) 20:52, 5 February 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. —Anonymous DissidentTalk 12:19, 12 February 2010 (UTC)
not used, much to small to be useful --Amada44 (talk) 12:47, 5 February 2010 (UTC)
- Delete, useless. Nyttend (talk) 20:56, 5 February 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. —Anonymous DissidentTalk 12:19, 12 February 2010 (UTC)
out of scope --Amada44 (talk) 12:50, 5 February 2010 (UTC)
- Delete, fan art doesn't belong at Commons. Nyttend (talk) 20:56, 5 February 2010 (UTC)
- Delete--Pullus In Fabula (talk) 17:06, 7 February 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. —Anonymous DissidentTalk 12:19, 12 February 2010 (UTC)
unused personal images --Amada44 (talk) 12:52, 5 February 2010 (UTC)
- Delete, badly out of scope. Nyttend (talk) 20:57, 5 February 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. — Dferg (talk) 12:47, 12 February 2010 (UTC)
File:4DEH1LCAS5R8O7CATU5DZ2CADOWMEVCACKVRQFCA7MISXKCASQZF2MCASOZWHECAN6FW49CA8HP7F7CANQL29PCAAN61WHCAQAO0HVCAXCG21RCAJM81FECAMHWTH4CAA17YD5CAMG40BXCA6Z4UQG.jpg
[edit]
somebody had fun with the filename. Much to small to be useful --Amada44 (talk) 15:58, 5 February 2010 (UTC)
- Delete, useless. Nyttend (talk) 20:48, 5 February 2010 (UTC)
Delete: Smells like a copyvio. Furthermore, I believe that such filenames with 156 (!) characters not separated with a space should be blocked by the title blacklist, as they're just plain useless. --The Evil IP address (talk) 20:51, 5 February 2010 (UTC)- Maybe this filename is some kind of secret code ;-) --PaterMcFly (talk) 16:07, 7 February 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. —Anonymous DissidentTalk 12:23, 12 February 2010 (UTC)
Unused and useless private image. ■ MMXX talk 22:33, 5 February 2010 (UTC)
- Delete, agree, was uploaded first with an offending description. --Martin H. (talk) 22:53, 5 February 2010 (UTC)
- Delete speedy delete this also violates personality rights and could have been an attack image. I replaced the image that was up with some nonsense Andyzweb (talk) 17:50, 7 February 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. – Kwj2772 (msg) 07:02, 12 February 2010 (UTC)
Unless I'm missing something, uploader is not the copyrightholder, so cannot grant these licenses. No indication that www.oficinaurbana.com.ar has granted any of these. Needs OTRS, but more likely just delete. Jmabel ! talk 02:26, 5 February 2010 (UTC)
Deleted as we have no proof that this image has been released under {{GFDL}} and {{Cc-by-sa-all}}. --AFBorchert (talk) 23:36, 12 February 2010 (UTC)
Unless I'm missing something, uploader is not the copyrightholder, so cannot grant these licenses. No indication that www.oficinaurbana.com.ar or MZM arquitexctos has granted any of these. Needs OTRS, but more likely just delete. Jmabel ! talk 02:28, 5 February 2010 (UTC)
Deleted as we have no proof that this image has been released under {{GFDL}} and {{Cc-by-sa-all}}. --AFBorchert (talk) 23:37, 12 February 2010 (UTC)
Unless I'm missing something, uploader is not the copyrightholder, so cannot grant these licenses. No indication that www.oficinaurbana.com.ar has granted any of these. Needs OTRS, but more likely just delete. Jmabel ! talk 02:28, 5 February 2010 (UTC)
Deleted as we have no proof that this image has been released under {{GFDL}} and {{Cc-by-sa-all}}. --AFBorchert (talk) 23:37, 12 February 2010 (UTC)
Unless I'm missing something, uploader is not the copyrightholder, so cannot grant these licenses. No indication that www.oficinaurbana.com.ar or MZM Arquitectos has granted any of these. Needs OTRS, but more likely just delete. Jmabel ! talk 02:29, 5 February 2010 (UTC)
Deleted as we have no proof that this image has been released under {{GFDL}} and {{Cc-by-sa-all}}. --AFBorchert (talk) 23:38, 12 February 2010 (UTC)
Unless I'm missing something, uploader is not the copyrightholder, so cannot grant these licenses. No indication that www.oficinaurbana.com.ar has granted any of these. Needs OTRS, but more likely just delete. Jmabel ! talk 02:29, 5 February 2010 (UTC)
Deleted as we have no proof that this image has been released under {{GFDL}} and {{Cc-by-sa-all}}. --AFBorchert (talk) 23:38, 12 February 2010 (UTC)
Unless I'm missing something, uploader is not the copyrightholder, so cannot grant these licenses. No indication that www.oficinaurbana.com.ar has granted any of these. Needs OTRS, but more likely just delete. Jmabel ! talk 02:30, 5 February 2010 (UTC)
Deleted as we have no proof that this image has been released under {{GFDL}} and {{Cc-by-sa-all}}. --AFBorchert (talk) 23:39, 12 February 2010 (UTC)
Unless I'm missing something, uploader is not the copyrightholder, so cannot grant these licenses. No indication that www.oficinaurbana.com.ar has granted any of these. Needs OTRS, but more likely just delete. Jmabel ! talk 02:30, 5 February 2010 (UTC)
Deleted as we have no proof that this image has been released under {{GFDL}} and {{Cc-by-sa-all}}. --AFBorchert (talk) 23:40, 12 February 2010 (UTC)
Unless I'm missing something, uploader is not the copyrightholder, so cannot grant these licenses. No indication that www.oficinaurbana.com.ar has granted any of these. Needs OTRS, but more likely just delete. Jmabel ! talk 02:31, 5 February 2010 (UTC)
Deleted as we have no proof that this image has been released under {{GFDL}} and {{Cc-by-sa-all}}. --AFBorchert (talk) 23:40, 12 February 2010 (UTC)
Unless I'm missing something, uploader is not the copyrightholder, so cannot grant these licenses. No indication that www.oficinaurbana.com.ar has granted any of these. Needs OTRS, but more likely just delete. Jmabel ! talk 02:31, 5 February 2010 (UTC)
Deleted as we have no proof that this image has been released under {{GFDL}} and {{Cc-by-sa-all}}. --AFBorchert (talk) 23:40, 12 February 2010 (UTC)
Unless I'm missing something, uploader is not the copyrightholder, so cannot grant these licenses. No indication that www.oficinaurbana.com.ar has granted any of these. Needs OTRS, but more likely just delete. Jmabel ! talk 02:32, 5 February 2010 (UTC)
Deleted as we have no proof that this image has been released under {{GFDL}} and {{Cc-by-sa-all}}. --AFBorchert (talk) 23:36, 12 February 2010 (UTC)
This is a photograph during the Nazi Germany era and it is not certain if this is actually PD in Germany. User:Zscout370 (Return fire) 05:28, 5 February 2010 (UTC)
Deleted as there is no proof that this image is {{PD-old}}. As copyright holder the name Russell Blatt is given who is just running the source site http://www.lifeinlegacy.com. The source site does not provide any details about the photographer, the date of the photographer, or from where it was obtained. In Germany, a work gets {{PD-old}} after the life of the author plus 70 years. Because of this, most photographs from the Nazi era are still copyrighted. --AFBorchert (talk) 00:02, 13 February 2010 (UTC)
rubbish --Amada44 (talk) 16:15, 5 February 2010 (UTC)
- Delete, blatantly out of scope. Nyttend (talk) 20:48, 5 February 2010 (UTC)
unusable Deleted. Mbdortmund (talk) 17:25, 13 February 2010 (UTC)
unused, no category, bad quality, etc Frédéric (talk) 18:04, 5 February 2010 (UTC)
unusable Deleted. Mbdortmund (talk) 17:25, 13 February 2010 (UTC)
Nonsense image + no source ■ MMXX talk 22:35, 5 February 2010 (UTC)
see Mmxx Deleted. Mbdortmund (talk) 17:27, 13 February 2010 (UTC)
Clearly marked as "LOONEY TUNES: TM & (C) Warner Bros.", which probably doesn't mean that is under any free license. Moreover, afair, NASA website claims that some of their logos aren;t in PD, like other content. I'd consider it as a clear example of FU. Masur (talk) 20:20, 5 February 2010 (UTC)
- You are absolutely right. I found a better resolution version of an image that was already in Wikimedia Commons, but it should not have been put there in the first place, it seems. Bye bye. Ccady (talk) 23:25, 5 February 2010 (UTC)
- Delete copyrighted --rtc (talk) 12:22, 9 February 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Masur (talk) 19:49, 16 February 2010 (UTC)
No free logo of Google : perhaps remove logo is enough Manu (talk) 09:31, 5 February 2010 (UTC)
- I would rather you just cut the first page as it really isn't necessary to the book anyway, and because I have already started proofreading it on wikisource, but I don't know how to do that. I might be able to get someone to do it for me, but I will have to check on that.--Xxagile (talk) 14:13, 5 February 2010 (UTC)
- Also in Category:Scanned English books in DjVu you will notice that quite a few books have that google beginning page so that is why I thought it was an acceptable way to upload. --Xxagile (talk) 14:16, 5 February 2010 (UTC)
Keep, obviously free (like File:Google wordmark.svg too). Cdlt, VIGNERON * discut. 16:19, 5 February 2010 (UTC)
- Keep If the front page is a problem, we have a wider issue than solely this work. We would need to do an amount of work to tidy a sizeable number of works. Such an effort would be better addressed at Village pump, and we would want to have a bot undertake the work. billinghurst sDrewth 13:46, 7 February 2010 (UTC)
- Keep, The google logo (just up for discussion in this deletion discussion) is IMHO PD-inelligible, so any works that display it, don't have a problem, either. --PaterMcFly (talk) 16:05, 7 February 2010 (UTC)
Kept. Consensus is that the Google logo is too simple to be copyrighted. Pruneautalk 10:24, 17 February 2010 (UTC)
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
Author died in 2005. No proof of permission. MGA73 (talk) 18:35, 5 February 2010 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
Same thing here File:Scholder future clone bronze 2006 nmai ggh.jpg --MGA73 (talk) 18:38, 5 February 2010 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
- Delete as nominated, also the other photo. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 11:06, 14 February 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Pruneautalk 10:25, 17 February 2010 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
Maybe I'm mistaken, but this looks like an artist's rendering, not a photo. "Own work" seems unlikely. Jmabel ! talk 02:03, 5 February 2010 (UTC)
- Delete, we host some own-work artists' renderings (File:Holly Bluff Lake George site HRoe 2009.jpg, for one), but this isn't likely to be it. Nyttend (talk) 20:54, 5 February 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Polarlys (talk) 19:36, 8 March 2010 (UTC)
I checked en.wikipedia, there is no listed source for this image. I checked online and I could not find a source for the image, let a lone a date for this one. User:Zscout370 (Return fire) 05:33, 5 February 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. No source. Polarlys (talk) 20:43, 8 March 2010 (UTC)
Unused and unlikely to be useful. Current file name is offensive, if renamed the file history section will still show the comments in the original description --Snigbrook (talk) 20:58, 5 February 2010 (UTC)
- A rename has already been requested but for somereason the bot has not renamed it. Notability is not a requirement for media on commons. Images of nonentities are useful for filler.--JIrate (talk) 21:06, 5 February 2010 (UTC)
- Delete No educative value or any other value criteria as required by Commons — billinghurst sDrewth 07:26, 2 March 2010 (UTC)
- There is no rename bot, the CommonsDelinker is a tool that is utilised by administrators to undertake some of the legwork around fixing remote links at wikis that point to the file. The renaming and moving is all done by administrators. — billinghurst sDrewth
Deleted. Polarlys (talk) 20:42, 8 March 2010 (UTC)
Unused and unlikely to be useful. Was renamed, as previous file name (now a redirect) was offensive, however the file history section will still show the comments in the original description --Snigbrook (talk) 20:58, 5 February 2010 (UTC)
- Delete the offensive bit and leave the image. Otherwise any picture of any random person becomes a candidate for deletion. Significance of the individual in an image i not a criteria for inclusion on Commons.--JIrate (talk) 21:03, 5 February 2010 (UTC)
- Possible usages? uploader's intention? who is the person in image? if these are not answered then Speedy delete ■ MMXX talk 22:46, 5 February 2010 (UTC)
- Simple someone I know. I took a picture of one day when I saw them. Illustrate an article about people wearing suits for work, men with long hair etc etc.--JIrate (talk) 14:16, 6 February 2010 (UTC)
- Delete How is this realistically useful for educational purposes? Pruneautalk 10:31, 17 February 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Polarlys (talk) 20:42, 8 March 2010 (UTC)
replaced by File:Wappen Seitingen-Oberflacht.svg --Calle Cool (talk) 20:50, 5 February 2010 (UTC)
Keep. No reason for deletion, as the deletion of superseded images has been discontinued, see Commons:Superseded images policy. This raster image was the base for the creation of the SVG image (they're both from the same coa book), so we should keep it for reference. --Rosenzweig δ 09:13, 6 February 2010 (UTC)
Certainly not the logo as designed by André Citroën (hence not {{PD-old}}), and not {{PD-textlogo}} either. –Tryphon☂ 13:24, 5 February 2010 (UTC)
Deleted per non-free / fair-use –Krinkletalk 00:43, 12 April 2010 (UTC)
replaced by File:ChandrasekharLimitGraph.svg--Calle Cool (talk) 20:02, 5 February 2010 (UTC) --Calle Cool (talk) 20:45, 5 February 2010 (UTC)
- Delete, replaced by SVG version. Spacepotato (talk) 21:14, 19 April 2010 (UTC)
Kept. SVG-version is not a reason to delete. MGA73 (talk) 19:51, 23 April 2010 (UTC)
Poor quality and lower-resolution version of File:Chillicothe ohio main street 2006.jpg; no reason someone would use this picture instead of the other Nyttend (talk) 20:45, 5 February 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. MGA73 (talk) 19:54, 23 April 2010 (UTC)
replaced by File:Wappen Oberflacht.svg --Calle Cool (talk) 20:53, 5 February 2010 (UTC)
Kept. SVG is not a reason to delete. MGA73 (talk) 19:55, 23 April 2010 (UTC)
This image does not have proper tagging since it is stripped from an online video and is made obselete by Marc W. Buie's February 4th, 2010 HST-NASA OFFICIAL release --Kheider (talk) 00:01, 5 February 2010 (UTC)
- Keep It's not rendered obsolete until we have something better in Commons.--Prosfilaes (talk) 03:59, 5 February 2010 (UTC)
- OBSOLETE! ==> File:Pluto-map-hs-2010-06-c180.jpg and File:Pluto-map-hs-2010-06-b90.jpg -- Kheider (talk) 06:43, 5 February 2010 (UTC)
- Delete Much better alt. images--DieBuche (talk) 14:28, 17 May 2010 (UTC)
Deleted, superseded by the two replacement images, out of project scope. Kameraad Pjotr 19:18, 28 May 2010 (UTC)
This image does not have proper tagging since it is stripped from an online video and is made obsolete by Marc W. Buie's February 4th, 2010 HST-NASA OFFICIAL release --Kheider (talk) 00:12, 5 February 2010 (UTC)
- Keep It's not rendered obsolete until we have something better in Commons.--Prosfilaes (talk) 03:59, 5 February 2010 (UTC)
- OBSOLETE! ==> File:Pluto-map-hs-2010-06-c180.jpg and File:Pluto-map-hs-2010-06-b90.jpg -- Kheider (talk) 06:42, 5 February 2010 (UTC)
- Keep, but the uploader needs to add a license. 클리어 워터 14:46, 19 February 2010 (UTC)
Deleted, no license & superseded (out of project scope). Kameraad Pjotr 19:20, 28 May 2010 (UTC)
Looks like a work of art and no FOP in the us (COM:FOP#United_States). MGA73 (talk) 19:13, 5 February 2010 (UTC)
- It is a normal photo outside. No reason to delete the file.--Prankster (talk) 20:34, 5 February 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Per nomination. This could have been a {{Copyvio}}. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 13:17, 29 May 2010 (UTC)
There is no image source as requested in the current template. Also, there is no information shown that indicates when the photograph was taken or published. Both are factors needed for proper application of the license template. Rockfang (talk) 10:09, 5 February 2010 (UTC)
Hi Rockfang, I am not the person who uploaded the image but follow this page on my Watch list. The picture seems to be in the public domain re:
|
This photograph is in the public domain in Japan because its copyright has expired according to Article 23 of the 1899 Copyright Act of Japan (English translation) and Article 2 of Supplemental Provisions of Copyright Act of 1970. This is when the photograph meets one of the following conditions:
|
 |
 |
To uploader: Please provide the source and publication date.
|
I wonder, couldn't we reasonably assume that the photo would have been taken before 1946, as the war was over by then? Respectfully, RomaC (talk) 10:35, 5 February 2010 (UTC)
- I will concede that the photo was taken prior to 1946. The date the image was published is also needed though.--Rockfang (talk) 10:59, 5 February 2010 (UTC)
- Not necessarily. Assuming that the photo was indeed taken before 1946, for it to be public domain it had to not be published for ten years afterwards. That is why a publication date is needed.--Rockfang (talk) 16:36, 6 March 2010 (UTC)
- But the template also says that photos published before 1957 are free. Strange. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 16:39, 6 March 2010 (UTC)
- Yes. Either way, we need the publish date.--Rockfang (talk) 05:39, 7 March 2010 (UTC)
And a source.--Rockfang (talk) 07:28, 7 March 2010 (UTC)- Whatever the date of publication was, this image is free. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 07:54, 7 March 2010 (UTC)
- That is indeed a possibility. Do you have any proof to back it up though?--Rockfang (talk) 15:28, 7 March 2010 (UTC)
- Math, of course. The image was taken before 1946 per the subject matter. Case 1: Published before 1956. -> PD. Case 2: Not published before 1956 -> taken before 1946, not published for 10 years -> PD. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 14:42, 17 March 2010 (UTC)
- That is indeed a possibility. Do you have any proof to back it up though?--Rockfang (talk) 15:28, 7 March 2010 (UTC)
- Whatever the date of publication was, this image is free. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 07:54, 7 March 2010 (UTC)
- Yes. Either way, we need the publish date.--Rockfang (talk) 05:39, 7 March 2010 (UTC)
- But the template also says that photos published before 1957 are free. Strange. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 16:39, 6 March 2010 (UTC)
- Not necessarily. Assuming that the photo was indeed taken before 1946, for it to be public domain it had to not be published for ten years afterwards. That is why a publication date is needed.--Rockfang (talk) 16:36, 6 March 2010 (UTC)
- Keep free and important image. Polylepsis (talk) 22:16, 9 March 2010 (UTC)
- Keep @Rockfang: Seems reasonable to assume that this image would not have been published between 1946 and 1956, unless as part of a War Crimes trial which would make it a government publication. 70.19.202.244 22:23, 9 March 2010 (UTC)
- Comment There is a bigger problem on the image. See this one. The same image with different name. If you want to know more about the image, please use Google translate and read these. [2] and [3]. Thank you. Oda Mari (talk) 16:19, 16 March 2010 (UTC)
- Delete as a duplicate; the other image has a thorough discussion on its provenance. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 16:54, 16 March 2010 (UTC)
- Delete as a duplicate per Pieter. Keep the other version, of course. Is there some support for automatically updating references to a deleted version with those to the duplicate? --Stephan Schulz (talk) 14:44, 17 March 2010 (UTC)
- Automatic replacement is maybe not so good in this case. The link with Ishii is uncertain. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 15:07, 17 March 2010 (UTC)
- Delete as an incorrect name/caption. It's not a simple duplication. en:Jinan Incident has nothing to do with en:Unit 731 nor en:Shirō Ishii. The incident happened in 1928 and Ishii was visiting Western countries from 1928 to 1930. The image was used as Ishii's vivissection in highly criticized bestseller en:The Rape of Nanking (book) by en:Iris Chan. So it seems that the misunderstanding of the image spread widely. I removed the image from the Unit 731 article. Oda Mari (talk) 17:06, 17 March 2010 (UTC)
- Delete As Oda Mari has stated. Not only is the file a duplicate, it also has a misleading name. --Raubfreundschaft (talk) 14:03, 27 March 2010 (UTC)
- Delete As duplicate and misleading --Uncle Milty (talk) 15:12, 26 April 2010 (UTC)
- Delete Per Oda Mari. It is repeatedly abused by malicious sockpuppet users.[4][5][6] Requesting immediate deletion.―― Phoenix7777 (talk) 02:47, 27 April 2010 (UTC)
Deleted, no source/date of first publication, misleading title and replaced with a better version. Kameraad Pjotr 17:15, 29 May 2010 (UTC)
There is a newer version of this picture - with covered number plates - File:BMW_in_Sofia_2009_IMG_3562a.JPG; it is better not to show the numer plates, I am the author of both versions. --95.33.152.238 20:24, 5 February 2010 (UTC)
Deleted, 14:55, 6 March 2010 Túrelio (Talk | contribs | block) deleted "File:BMW in Sofia 2009 IMG 3562.JPG" (Uploader request: there is a newer version of this picture - with covered number plates - File:BMW_in_Sofia_2009_IMG_3562a.JPG; it is better not to show the numer plates, I am the author of both versions --[[Special:Contributions/91.97.72.22|91.97.72). Kameraad Pjotr 17:16, 29 May 2010 (UTC)
Needs information to support license claim - if this is a deleted scene, when and where was it actually published? dave pape (talk) 20:36, 5 February 2010 (UTC)
Deleted, no date of first publication, unable to confirm PD-status. Kameraad Pjotr 17:22, 29 May 2010 (UTC)
replaced by File:Size IK Peg.svg --Calle Cool (talk) 20:27, 5 February 2010 (UTC) --Calle Cool (talk) 20:40, 5 February 2010 (UTC)
- Oppose—The replacement is an inferior image because it has removed the granularity from the stellar surfaces and the radial gradient is of lower quality. It also lacks a certain volume, and frankly just looks like the lights from some narrow beam lamps. So I'm opposed to the replacement until those issues can be addressed. Sorry.—RJHall (talk) 16:12, 20 February 2010 (UTC)
Kept, both are of the same quality, but different enough to be kept, per Superseded images policy. Kameraad Pjotr 17:26, 29 May 2010 (UTC)
replaced by File:Alpha centauri size.svg. --213.30.234.26 13:51, 5 February 2010 (UTC) --Calle Cool (talk) 20:46, 5 February 2010 (UTC)
- Oppose—As per IK Peg, the replacement is an inferior image because it has removed the granularity from the stellar surfaces and the radial gradient is of lower quality. It also lacks a certain volume, and frankly just looks like the lights from some narrow beam lamps. So I'm opposed to the replacement until those issues can be addressed. Sorry.—RJHall (talk) 16:12, 20 February 2010 (UTC)
- Oppose too poor of quality sorry --162.84.165.221 14:52, 25 April 2010 (UTC)
Kept, per Commons:Deletion requests/File:Size IK Peg.png. Kameraad Pjotr 17:28, 29 May 2010 (UTC)
replaced by File:Wappen Seitingen.svg --Calle Cool (talk) 20:51, 5 February 2010 (UTC)
Kept, used as a source for the .svg-image. Kameraad Pjotr 17:31, 29 May 2010 (UTC)
Images of User:Frachet
[edit]for
- File:Lyon_St_Vincent3.JPG (edit · last · history · watch · unwatch · global usage · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel · Delinker log) derivated work
and
- File:Lyon Place du pont1.JPG (edit · last · history · watch · unwatch · global usage · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel · Delinker log) in Lyon
- File:Lyon_L'arbre_multicolore.JPG (edit · last · history · watch · unwatch · global usage · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel · Delinker log)
- File:Bourg Exposition place de la mairie.JPG (edit · last · history · watch · unwatch · global usage · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel · Delinker log) in w:Bourg-en-Bresse
- File:Lyon Saint-Exupéry 5.JPG (edit · last · history · watch · unwatch · global usage · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel · Delinker log) in w:PLace Bellecour (this monument has been added for the century of the birth of w:Antoine de Saint-Exupery (probably File:Petit-Prince-Bellecour.JPG too but not the same autor)
- File:Divonne Mappemonde.JPG (edit · last · history · watch · unwatch · global usage · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel · Delinker log) in w:Divonne-les-bains
No commons:FOP#France. Otourly (talk) 20:07, 5 February 2010 (UTC)
Deleted, no FOP in France. Kameraad Pjotr 17:20, 29 May 2010 (UTC)