Commons:Deletion requests/Archive/2011/03/26
 |
This is an archive, please do not edit. Post new cases at Commons:Deletion requests. You can visit the most recent archive here. |
 |
|
|
_-_1909.jpg){kind=link}
89.40.118.136 17:23, 26 March 2011 (UTC)
Speedy kept, talk page still active as of earlier this month; anon drive by deletion request with no reason stated and no obvious reason to delete evident. Infrogmation (talk) 17:39, 26 March 2011 (UTC)
Błagam, usuńcie to zdjęcie / ten plik, bo nie wiem jak, nie chciało mi się szukać CD ze starym zdjęciem (są pogrupowane datami) i zgrałam WŁASNE z Flickra http://www.flickr.com/photos/aorg1961/collections/ , http://www.flickr.com/photos/aorg1961/collections/72157624201608682/ (zrobiłam tam albumy wg gatunków), omyłkowo wstawiłam tam 2 razy to samo zdjęcie podaję linki jako inną wersję : http://www.flickr.com/photos/aorg1961/4172771916/in/set-72157624089867939/ i http://www.flickr.com/photos/aorg1961/4172771910/in/set-72157624089867939/ Anna Organiściak (talk) 14:28, 26 March 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: duplicate sfu (talk) 20:50, 27 March 2011 (UTC)
Panorama niepotrzebna, prośba własna Marek013 (talk) 18:58, 26 March 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: user request sfu (talk) 20:57, 27 March 2011 (UTC)
I dont want to show off my certification anymore Mussen4me (talk) 10:05, 24 March 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: out of scope Ezarateesteban 00:30, 31 March 2011 (UTC)
Text only, not in project scope Martin H. (talk) 00:01, 26 March 2011 (UTC)
text article, not in project scope Martin H. (talk) 00:01, 26 March 2011 (UTC)
Personal text, not in project scope. Commons:Alcance_del_proyecto#Contenido educativo excluido. Martin H. (talk) 00:03, 26 March 2011 (UTC)
recent text, not in project scope. Martin H. (talk) 00:19, 26 March 2011 (UTC)
text only, not in project scope Martin H. (talk) 00:19, 26 March 2011 (UTC)
Out of scope; orphaned and unused, with no specific educational value indicated. :| TelCoNaSpVe :| 00:48, 26 March 2011 (UTC)
- Oppose-Scope was never defined that way! Educational value does not have to be indicated. --ClemRutter (talk) 08:34, 26 March 2011 (UTC).
- OpposeNot out off scope at all, a good image Oxyman (talk) 11:34, 26 March 2011 (UTC)
- Comment The only thing I see wrong with this image is that the filename is not descriptive I would suggest the name be changed to something like File:Scrap vehicles at Barry Docks - geograph.org.uk - 1210654.jpg not sure how to do this while it's nominated for deletion Oxyman (talk) 13:30, 26 March 2011 (UTC)
- keep. In scope. I'll take the red one ... actually, both of them. NVO (talk) 20:06, 26 March 2011 (UTC)
Keep junk yard, in scope, now categorized. MKFI (talk) 16:34, 27 March 2011 (UTC)
copyvio http://nl.pokernews.com/live-reporting/2011-pokerstars-net-ept-snowfest/main-event/day1B/?tag=Kevin+Vandersmissen Kattenkruid (talk) 02:16, 26 March 2011 (UTC)
copyvio http://nl.pokernews.com/live-reporting/2011-pokerstars-net-ept-snowfest/main-event/day1B/?tag=Kevin+Vandersmissen Kattenkruid (talk) 02:16, 26 March 2011 (UTC)
Donated to public domain? Seems dubious. It's an album cover. At any rate the "PARENTAL ADVISORY" sticker isn't public domain (I suppose), therefore the work cannot be ENTIRELY public domain, right? Herostratus (talk) 04:18, 26 March 2011 (UTC)
Delete The Parental Advisory sticker is just PD-text, but we do generally need OTRS for something like this. The fact that it's not in use anywhere also disturbs me; is it a real album cover by a notable band, or is it a fake or something used by a garage band that's been deleted off Wikipedia?--Prosfilaes (talk) 23:57, 26 March 2011 (UTC)
This is this guy's logo - did he really mean to donate it to the public domain? Seems unlikely. The uploaders only other upload was also supposedly his own work donated to the public domain, but (I infer) contains non-public domain elements (See Commons:Deletion requests/File:EMC9593CD.jpg), so I'm not to confident in this user's veracity. Don't you need an OTRS ticket to donate an artist's logo to the pubic domain, or do you just take the person's word for it? Herostratus (talk) 04:22, 26 March 2011 (UTC)
out of scope Prince Kassad (talk) 22:24, 26 March 2011 (UTC)
copyright violation Prince Kassad (talk) 22:29, 26 March 2011 (UTC)
No foreseeable educational usage. SchuminWeb (Talk) 23:42, 26 March 2011 (UTC)
- Keep. The photo is insufficiently described but is quite good and can find good place among other photos documenting signs, markings, writing etc. I think, technics of identification marking of goods or facilities is a relevant encyklopedic theme. It's improvident to want to delete all photos which momentarily are not used or not perfectly described. --ŠJů (talk) 23:57, 26 March 2011 (UTC)
Appears to be outside project scope. No foreseeable educational use. SchuminWeb (Talk) 23:52, 26 March 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: per nom Ezarateesteban 01:20, 2 April 2011 (UTC)
- AND: File:Superfoods.jpg
1: http://recipes.howstuffworks.com/chocolate.htm/printable says "Photo courtesy Hawaiian Vintage Chocolate". Doubtful the uploader is the author with his source given...
2: is e.g. from http://www.gettyimages.com/detail/AA026339 --Saibo (Δ) 12:23, 26 March 2011 (UTC)
There is an obvious error in this proposed deletion process. The image referenced in the 'reason' is to that of chocolate, the original image proposed, but, never accepted, and, therefore, is one that does not even exist as an accepted image in the article. Therefore, the elimination of that image shown in "Reason for the deletion request: http://recipes.howstuffworks.com/chocolate.htm/printable says "Photo courtesy Hawaiian Vintage Chocolate". Doubtful the uploader is the author with his source given..." has already taken place, before the final image of blueberries was accepted and before this proposal for deletion was begin. With no chocolate image in the article, from where does this deletion proposal originate? I made the correction with the original editor after an exchange on the merits, or lack thereof, of chocolate as a superfood. Then, referencing the part of the existing article already mentioning blueberries, I simply added my image of blueberries.
Please follow the link to the 'reason' link and note that none of the images in that article are used by me.
To reiterate - this reason applies to an image of chocolate, not an image of blueberries. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Goldentiger (talk • contribs) 2011-03-28T01:27:44 (UTC)
- Thank you for your answer!
- I fixed the deletion warning on File:Superfoods.jpg. Should be better understandable now for you. I propose both photos (the blueberries and the chocolate) for deletion as they do not seem to be photographed by you. You grabbed them from some random web pages didn't you? You need to respect COM:L when uploading images here.
- And to clarify: this deletion request is not related in any way to the use in your article (well, except if the images are deleted you obviously cannot use them anymore in your article). Cheers --Saibo (Δ) 02:08, 28 March 2011 (UTC)
- "...some random web pages didn't you?.."
- Actually, no. I was careful not to attempt what would amount to copyright infringement against commercial property.
However, I have since noticed that this very image is available in a source which would be considered as public domain, for use in any public or private purpose; that source being a general image library from a commonly used product, purchased by me at retail. The fact that I did not make that earlier distinction is one thing. To assume that I did not do any research at all to exercise my choice is quite another. If the insistence is that the image be actually created by me is the issue, then, that is something that I'm certainly willing to abide. However, that would imply that public domain images would have to be classified differently or, otherwise, that this image not be allowed for use under any circumstances. I will provide you with an image originally created by me, or, I will resubmit the previous image as a public domain source, identifying that source. --— Preceding unsigned comment added by Goldentiger (talk • contribs) 2011-04-01T15:06:59 (UTC)
- Hi again Goldentiger, thank you for your comment!
- Do I understand it correctly that you bought the images? Then you commonly only bought the right to use it on your website. Here the images must be usable by everybody for every kind of use. Cheers --Saibo (Δ) 16:44, 1 April 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: Plainly "Author:Goldentiger" is not correct. I am not sure what Goldentiger is claiming here, but it is not consistent with our requirements. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 11:45, 2 April 2011 (UTC)
Copyvio. Commercial software from www-mig33-com George Chernilevsky talk 06:52, 26 March 2011 (UTC)
Deleted Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 12:42, 2 April 2011 (UTC)
Notability of the person is not proved ; No encyclopedic value ; Orphaned personal picture ; Civa (talk) 07:40, 26 March 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: Out of project scope George Chernilevsky talk 06:47, 2 April 2011 (UTC)
OTRS pending since July 2010 78.55.115.87 08:00, 26 March 2011 (UTC)
- Delete. Can't keep a non free-file forever when an acceptable licence was not given. Also, "n/a" is not a useful source indication. -- Asclepias (talk) 23:30, 26 March 2011 (UTC)
Deleted Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 12:42, 2 April 2011 (UTC)
Orphaned personal picture ; No notability ; the user uploaded his own photo and nothing else Civa (talk) 08:21, 26 March 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: Out of project scope George Chernilevsky talk 06:48, 2 April 2011 (UTC)
Orphaned personal picture ; No notability ; the user uploaded his photo and nothing else Civa (talk) 08:23, 26 March 2011 (UTC)
- Comment: I don't know if it's such a good idea to nominate for deletion the photos of politicians who are currently in office (or even of those who were in office in the past). I can easily imagine that it can be useful that free photos of those people can be available, and that they can be in the scope of Commons. It's not just a picture of some random person. However, I would be preoccupied by the copyright status of this photo, as the single-upload uploader says it is his own work but gives as author "fk" (which are the same initials as those of the person pictured) and because of the small resolution. But I didn't find the photo published elsewhere. -- Asclepias (talk) 23:20, 26 March 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: (C) status -- author given does not equal uploader, no permission Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 12:44, 2 April 2011 (UTC)
Orphaned personal picture ; No notability ; the user uploaded this photo and nothing else Civa (talk) 08:24, 26 March 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: Out of project scope George Chernilevsky talk 06:49, 2 April 2011 (UTC)
Orphaned picture ; No notability ; source and author uncertain (l'union is a French newspaper) ; possible copyvio Civa (talk) 08:29, 26 March 2011 (UTC)
Deleted Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 12:45, 2 April 2011 (UTC)
Orphaned picture ; No notability ; location unknown Civa (talk) 08:54, 26 March 2011 (UTC)
Deleted Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 12:45, 2 April 2011 (UTC)
No valid source is given (Yandex.ru is a search engine). Copyright violation. Abiyoyo (talk) 09:10, 26 March 2011 (UTC)
Deleted Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 12:45, 2 April 2011 (UTC)
the advertisement is most likely copyrighted, and it's the central motive so de minimis doesn't apply here Prince Kassad (talk) 09:34, 26 March 2011 (UTC)
Deleted Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 12:45, 2 April 2011 (UTC)
personal photo, out of scope Prince Kassad (talk) 09:37, 26 March 2011 (UTC)
- In scope: fr:Agnès Chamak, but near duplicate of other photo -- George Chernilevsky talk 07:08, 2 April 2011 (UTC)
Deleted this file name after moving this file over the other -- File:AGNES CHAMAK.jpg -- they are the same image, but this version is less contrasty, better quality. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 12:51, 2 April 2011 (UTC)
not own work, taken from a press release Prince Kassad (talk) 09:42, 26 March 2011 (UTC)
Deleted Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 12:54, 2 April 2011 (UTC)
out of scope Prince Kassad (talk) 09:46, 26 March 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: Out of project scope George Chernilevsky talk 07:05, 2 April 2011 (UTC)
Orphaned personal picture ; No notability ; the page on French wikipedia has been deleted Civa (talk) 10:09, 26 March 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: Out of project scope George Chernilevsky talk 07:04, 2 April 2011 (UTC)
Orphaned personal picture ; No notability ; the page on French wikipedia has been deleted Civa (talk) 10:10, 26 March 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: Out of project scope George Chernilevsky talk 07:04, 2 April 2011 (UTC)
This person seems not to be within the project scope. The photograph is not used and self-promotion is not wanted on any Wikimedia project 80.187.106.17 10:31, 26 March 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: Certainly the subject is notorious, see Nikko Briteramos, but the image is copyvio or at least without permission Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 12:57, 2 April 2011 (UTC)
Orphaned picture ; No notability ; inconsistant file name Civa (talk) 10:32, 26 March 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: Out of project scope George Chernilevsky talk 07:01, 2 April 2011 (UTC)
Orphaned picture ; No notability ; inconsistant file name Civa (talk) 10:32, 26 March 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: Out of project scope George Chernilevsky talk 07:00, 2 April 2011 (UTC)
no notability (page on fr wikipedia deleted) ; no encyclopedic value ; out of project scope Civa (talk) 10:38, 26 March 2011 (UTC)
Deleted Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 13:00, 2 April 2011 (UTC)
Converted to DR by me from a copyvio-speedy by Morgan Riley for "Photograph of a statute that was made and erected in the 1990s, ergo not suitable for the Commons; should not have been transferred and should potentially be transferred back, as for what it is used may be under fair use". --Túrelio (talk) 10:40, 26 March 2011 (UTC)
- As the statue itself is hardly visible in detail, it might go by "de minimis". --Túrelio (talk) 08:47, 17 March 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: Nonetheless, the statue is the principal subject of the phtograph and the pediment and surrounding stonework also falls under copyright. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 13:05, 2 April 2011 (UTC)
Broken image. Nothing visible and thus not usable. Please delete 80.187.106.17 10:49, 26 March 2011 (UTC)
- Keep intact version has been uploaded. MKFI (talk) 14:33, 26 March 2011 (UTC)
Kept Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 13:09, 2 April 2011 (UTC)
Orphaned picture ; No notability Civa (talk) 10:55, 26 March 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: Probably notable, but the author is not the uploader, so no permission Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 13:16, 2 April 2011 (UTC)
Orphaned picture ; No notability ; the page 'Monsieur Poulet' on English wikipedia has been deleted for promotional use Civa (talk) 11:01, 26 March 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: author does not equal uploader, no permission Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 13:17, 2 April 2011 (UTC)
Orphaned picture ; No notability ; very small image : copyvio ? Civa (talk) 11:23, 26 March 2011 (UTC)
Deleted Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 13:18, 2 April 2011 (UTC)
Copyright violation. 84.61.170.180 11:35, 26 March 2011 (UTC)
Comment I believe this image qualifies for {{PD-Art}}. The disk is a historical artifact from c. 1600 BC, and while it is a 3D-object it is almost flat and photographed from directly above. However, this image features a large watermark and there is already a better version at File:Nebra Scheibe.jpg. MKFI (talk) 14:39, 26 March 2011 (UTC)- {{delete}} it is not flat. Catfisheye (talk) 10:07, 28 March 2011 (UTC) (edited by Common Good (talk) 18:20, 28 March 2011 (UTC))
Deleted: PD art covers drawings and paintings, this is neither. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 13:19, 2 April 2011 (UTC)
Per OTRS/N, the OTRS permission is insufficient. Wknight94 talk 12:28, 26 March 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: (not by me) Jcb (talk) 09:31, 2 April 2011 (UTC)
possibly copyrighted book cover, no statement that the boy depicted has consented to the publication, low quality Saibo (Δ) 13:58, 26 March 2011 (UTC)
Deleted Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 13:20, 2 April 2011 (UTC)
Uploading user is not able to claim copyright ownership because the books pictured in the photo were published in the 2000s; they are not in the public domain and therefore their covers are FU, not free. Yllosubmarine (talk) 14:23, 26 March 2011 (UTC)
Deleted Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 13:20, 2 April 2011 (UTC)
Poor quality, many alternatives present, unused. Yikrazuul (talk) 14:50, 26 March 2011 (UTC)
- Delete per nom. DMacks (talk) 20:19, 26 March 2011 (UTC)
Deleted Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 13:20, 2 April 2011 (UTC)
only version 2008-09-05T00:35:53
possbily a copyrighted photograph on the screen in the background. Removed in the new version. Saibo (Δ) 15:10, 26 March 2011 (UTC)
- Keep new version. Thanks Saibo for the fix. -SusanLesch (talk) 03:38, 28 March 2011 (UTC)
Kept: deleted first version, kept new one Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 13:32, 2 April 2011 (UTC)
_-_1909.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
_-_1909.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
Poor BW copy of File:Sergej Diaghilev (1872-1929) ritratto da Valentin Aleksandrovich Serov.jpg Shakko (talk) 15:48, 26 March 2011 (UTC)
_ritratto_da_Valentin_Aleksandrovich_Serov.jpg){kind=link}
_-_1909.jpg){kind=link}
- I am the uploader and I agree that this copy is poor in comparison with the newer, colour one, and it should be deleted. --User:G.dallorto (talk) 07:46, 30 March 2011 (UTC)
Deleted Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 13:33, 2 April 2011 (UTC)
_-_1909.jpg){kind=link}
Description missing ; Orphaned picture ; No notability Civa (talk) 15:56, 26 March 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: Out of project scope George Chernilevsky talk 06:59, 2 April 2011 (UTC)
Personal picture ; No use (even in the personal page !) ; Used only by a bot in the talk user page to ask for category ; No notability Civa (talk) 16:14, 26 March 2011 (UTC)
Deleted Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 13:36, 2 April 2011 (UTC)
Personal picture ; No use (even in the personal page !) ; Used only by a bot in the talk user page to ask for category ; No notability Civa (talk) 16:15, 26 March 2011 (UTC)
Deleted Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 13:36, 2 April 2011 (UTC)
Personal picture ; No use (even in the personal page !) ; Used only by a bot in the talk user page to ask for category ; No notability Civa (talk) 16:15, 26 March 2011 (UTC)
Deleted Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 13:36, 2 April 2011 (UTC)
No evidence logo is free. -mattbuck (Talk) 16:54, 26 March 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: (not by me) Jcb (talk) 09:32, 2 April 2011 (UTC)
because i want to Lorena Lina (talk) 17:02, 26 March 2011 (UTC)
- requested speedy deletion, no need to wait a week. Taketa (talk) 17:15, 26 March 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: (not by me) Jcb (talk) 09:32, 2 April 2011 (UTC)
Out of scope. Does not match any flag of the Russian Soviet Federative Socialist Republic [1] Taketa (talk) 17:10, 26 March 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: (not by me) Jcb (talk) 09:32, 2 April 2011 (UTC)
Orphaned picture ; No description, no author, no source Civa (talk) 17:26, 26 March 2011 (UTC)
Deleted Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 13:38, 2 April 2011 (UTC)
This image is an exact duplicate or scaled-down version of: File:Dirigente generale ps.png Just Angelus (talk) 17:31, 26 March 2011 (UTC)
Deleted, Rehman 04:01, 2 April 2011 (UTC)
This image is an exact duplicate or scaled-down version of: File:Dirigente superiore ps.png Just Angelus (talk) 17:33, 26 March 2011 (UTC)
Deleted, Rehman 04:00, 2 April 2011 (UTC)
This image is an exact duplicate or scaled-down version of: File:Primo dirigente ps.png Just Angelus (talk) 17:35, 26 March 2011 (UTC)
Deleted, Rehman 03:59, 2 April 2011 (UTC)
This image is an exact duplicate or scaled-down version of: File:Vice questore aggiunto ps.png Just Angelus (talk) 17:37, 26 March 2011 (UTC)
Deleted, Rehman 03:56, 2 April 2011 (UTC)
This image is an exact duplicate or scaled-down version of: File:Commissario capo ps.png Just Angelus (talk) 17:39, 26 March 2011 (UTC)
Deleted, Rehman 04:07, 2 April 2011 (UTC)
This image is an exact duplicate or scaled-down version of: File:Commissario ruolo direttivo ordinario ps.png Just Angelus (talk) 17:40, 26 March 2011 (UTC)
Deleted, Rehman 04:12, 2 April 2011 (UTC)
This image is an exact duplicate or scaled-down version of: File:Commissario ruolo direttivo speciale ps.png Just Angelus (talk) 17:42, 26 March 2011 (UTC)
- Comment speedy declined, not exact duplicate (the circular logo is different).--Nilfanion (talk) 19:12, 26 March 2011 (UTC)
{{Vote delete}}
Neutral. I have actually deleted the file, and then restored it again after looking at this DR. I don't see any differences in the files... Rehman 04:06, 2 April 2011 (UTC)
- The uploader has uploaded the version at File:Commissario ruolo direttivo speciale ps.png over the original File:Commissario ruolo direttivo speciale.png, so the topmost versions are exact dupes now. reason I declined speedy is the size of the circular emblem is subtly different in the two versions: I'm not sure which is more accurate.--Nilfanion (talk) 07:32, 2 April 2011 (UTC)
- Yes you're right. Not sure on the accuracy either (although it could be a fix, as the original uploader of both files are the same)... Rehman 07:38, 2 April 2011 (UTC)
- The uploader has uploaded the version at File:Commissario ruolo direttivo speciale ps.png over the original File:Commissario ruolo direttivo speciale.png, so the topmost versions are exact dupes now. reason I declined speedy is the size of the circular emblem is subtly different in the two versions: I'm not sure which is more accurate.--Nilfanion (talk) 07:32, 2 April 2011 (UTC)
Deleted Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 13:40, 2 April 2011 (UTC)
This image is an exact duplicate or scaled-down version of: File:Vice commissario ps.png Just Angelus (talk) 17:44, 26 March 2011 (UTC)
Deleted, Rehman 03:58, 2 April 2011 (UTC)
Orphaned picture ; No notability ; country unknown Civa (talk) 17:47, 26 March 2011 (UTC)
- Notable enough for me, but this picture needs an COM:OTRS permission. Trycatch (talk) 09:32, 29 March 2011 (UTC)
Deleted Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 13:43, 2 April 2011 (UTC)
Copyvio from official site of Salavatnefteorgsintez. Art-top (talk) 18:04, 26 March 2011 (UTC)
Deleted Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 13:44, 2 April 2011 (UTC)
Orphaned picture ; No notability Civa (talk) 18:05, 26 March 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: Out of project scope George Chernilevsky talk 06:57, 2 April 2011 (UTC)
Orphaned personal picture ; No notability Civa (talk) 18:21, 26 March 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: Out of project scope George Chernilevsky talk 06:56, 2 April 2011 (UTC)
Probably not own work. author "Oficina del Senador Mor Roig" written. Oxam Hartog 18:32, 26 March 2011 (UTC)
Deleted Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 13:44, 2 April 2011 (UTC)
probably not own work. author claimed as "Oficina del Senador Mor Roig". Uploader probably can't be the author of this pic and also of this one File:Javier Mor Roig.jpg Oxam Hartog 18:38, 26 March 2011 (UTC)
Deleted Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 13:44, 2 April 2011 (UTC)
Questionable copyright status. Multivariable (talk) 18:43, 26 March 2011 (UTC)
File was uploaded in December 2010, but it was already used in Japanese news articles well before that in August 2010: [2] [3]. -Multivariable (talk) 18:44, 26 March 2011 (UTC)
Deleted Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 13:44, 2 April 2011 (UTC)
Orphaned picture ; No notability ; the page on English wikipedia has been deleted Civa (talk) 18:43, 26 March 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: Out of project scope George Chernilevsky talk 06:55, 2 April 2011 (UTC)
unknown people. Not used on others wiki. Not other upload by this user Oxam Hartog 18:45, 26 March 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: Out of project scope George Chernilevsky talk 06:56, 2 April 2011 (UTC)
I doubt "own work". It was suspeceted that this is a copyvio from http://www.flickr.com/photos/38921949@N05/3619412682 - however the copyvio tag was removed because the flickr user name = the Commons user name. The photostream on flickr is however not a photographers photostream but a collection of images grabbed from the internet. Also this photo is grabbed from elsewhere but not the flickr users (nor the Commons uploaders) own work. Martin H. (talk) 19:03, 26 March 2011 (UTC)
Deleted Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 13:45, 2 April 2011 (UTC)
Creative Commons -NC -ND licensing. Appears to be taken from [4], but the site lists all images as under a Creative Commons Attribution-Noncommercial-No Derivative Works 3.0 Unported License at the bottom of the page. Multivariable (talk) 19:10, 26 March 2011 (UTC)
- More specifically, appears to be taken from this subpage: [5]
Deleted Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 13:45, 2 April 2011 (UTC)
Creative Commons -NC -ND licensing. Appears to be taken from [6], but the site lists all images as under a Creative Commons Attribution-Noncommercial-No Derivative Works 3.0 Unported License at the bottom of the page. Multivariable (talk) 19:11, 26 March 2011 (UTC)
- More specifically, appears to be taken from this subpage: [7] -Multivariable (talk) 19:20, 26 March 2011 (UTC)
Deleted Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 13:45, 2 April 2011 (UTC)
The image is easily found by searching "Oxalaia quilombensis" (ex: [8]), but I found no evidences that it has a free licence. The {{Copyvio}} tag put yesterday was removed without any explanation by the uploader. 83.132.9.59 20:18, 26 March 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: (not by me) Jcb (talk) 09:37, 2 April 2011 (UTC)
Map possibly edited by the uplaoder, but not entirely self-created. This author claim "Me" is just unreliable and dreadfully wrong. Martin H. (talk) 20:25, 26 March 2011 (UTC)
Deleted Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 13:46, 2 April 2011 (UTC)
+ File:Rich+Famous.jpg (dupe) -- Common Good (talk) 18:25, 28 March 2011 (UTC)
Personal image : Commons is not a personal web site ; Orphaned personal picture ; Civa (talk) 20:40, 26 March 2011 (UTC)
- en:Rich, Famous and in the Slums. In scope. Copyright? -- Common Good (talk) 18:25, 28 March 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: Screenshots per uploader. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 13:47, 2 April 2011 (UTC)
you are not the author if you only made the screenshot. Wrong license. Do not know if this website image is available under a open source license at all. Saibo (Δ) 20:46, 26 March 2011 (UTC)
Deleted Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 13:48, 2 April 2011 (UTC)
Seems to contradict its license in the description when it says, "WARNING: this word is copyrighted for use of only selected please email this user to understand". In any case, seems to be out of scope for lack of foreseeable educational use. SchuminWeb (Talk) 20:50, 26 March 2011 (UTC)
Deleted Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 13:49, 2 April 2011 (UTC)
probably not own work. author and source not the same as uploader Oxam Hartog 20:52, 26 March 2011 (UTC)
Deleted Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 13:49, 2 April 2011 (UTC)
contains a photo probably not by the uploader see Commons:Deletion requests/File:TomGoddard.jpg Oxam Hartog 20:53, 26 March 2011 (UTC)
Deleted Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 13:49, 2 April 2011 (UTC)
Orphaned personal picture ; Civa (talk) 21:09, 26 March 2011 (UTC)
Deleted Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 13:49, 2 April 2011 (UTC)
Non-notable person, uploaded by a sock puppet, 4ing (talk) 21:09, 26 March 2011 (UTC)
Deleted Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 13:49, 2 April 2011 (UTC)
Image taken of a wine bottle with an original illustration per Commons:Derivative works MorganKevinJ(talk) 21:17, 26 March 2011 (UTC)
- Delete. Because the picture is only of the label and not of the whole bottle. -- Asclepias (talk) 23:37, 26 March 2011 (UTC)
- Keep Cf. Commons:Deletion requests/Wine labels JPS68 (talk) 10:50, 28 March 2011 (UTC)
- That was a mass deletion request. Mass deletion requests are not really suited to these cases. Each photo needs to be looked at separately to see what is pictured. Photographs of bottles with labels do not infringe on the label's copyright, but that is on the condition that the photographs show at least the whole bottle, not only the label or only a portion of the bottle with the label. This image is a photo of only a label, it is not a photo of a bottle with a label. There is a short explanation of the jurisprudential test in this discussion. An example of application of this on Commons is there. In the mass deletion request you linked above, a user made an effort to distinguish keepable from deletable photos. In a different mass deletion request, I also made the effort to distinguish keepable from deletable photos, although the effort was apparently lost and the images were indiscriminately deleted with no further explanation. -- Asclepias (talk) 17:11, 28 March 2011 (UTC)
- Delete per Morgankevinj and Asclepias. See also similar requests Commons:Deletion requests/File:Vinsobres 2004.jpg, Commons:Deletion requests/File:Muscat nouveau Frontignan.jpg, and Commons:Deletion requests/File:Moulin de Gassac.jpg. — Jeff G. ツ 03:59, 1 April 2011 (UTC)
Deleted Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 13:50, 2 April 2011 (UTC)
Orphaned personal picture : Commons is not an image hosting website ; Civa (talk) 21:25, 26 March 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: Out of project scope George Chernilevsky talk 06:53, 2 April 2011 (UTC)
Orphaned personal picture ; Civa (talk) 21:31, 26 March 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: Out of project scope George Chernilevsky talk 06:53, 2 April 2011 (UTC)
Orphaned personal picture ; Civa (talk) 21:40, 26 March 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: Out of project scope George Chernilevsky talk 06:52, 2 April 2011 (UTC)
Personal image : Commons is not a personal web site ; Civa (talk) 21:43, 26 March 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: Out of project scope George Chernilevsky talk 06:50, 2 April 2011 (UTC)
copyright violation Prince Kassad (talk) 22:25, 26 March 2011 (UTC)
Deleted Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 13:51, 2 April 2011 (UTC)
out of scope Hedwig in Washington (MAIL?) 09:08, 24 April 2012 (UTC)
- Comment Note that this is not the same image that was deleted a year ago. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 10:40, 24 April 2012 (UTC)
- Delete If this is "own work", as claimed, then it is a personal artwork and out of scope. If not, then it is probably a screenshot and therefore a copyvio. It looks to me like the latter. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 10:40, 24 April 2012 (UTC)
Deleted non-free screenshot --Denniss (talk) 16:44, 12 June 2012 (UTC)
en:Enoch Bolles not died >70 years ago as claimed on this file description page. Martin H. (talk) 23:07, 26 March 2011 (UTC)
Deleted Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 13:51, 2 April 2011 (UTC)
As this was drawn by a third party, I see no indication that this passes the legal requirements set out in COM:COA. Magog the Ogre (talk) 23:23, 26 March 2011 (UTC)
Deleted Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 13:52, 2 April 2011 (UTC)
No notability (Marielle de Sarnez and her meeting are well known, but not this women) : Orphaned picture Civa (talk) 16:24, 26 March 2011 (UTC)
- Comment Monique Luanghy Baruti was photographed as a candidate to the town council of the 8th arrondissement of Paris; she was not elected. As the photographer, I would tend to agree with the author of the request. Being an orphaned picture, however, is in itself no ground for deletion. Jastrow (Λέγετε) 19:36, 26 March 2011 (UTC)
- Keep Commons is not Wikipedia. This photograph might prove invaluable if the subject's career takes off later. Rama (talk) 11:28, 27 March 2011 (UTC)
- Keep per Rama. This photograph has an informative value and could be precious in the future (on wikinews or another press source e.g.): there is no valid reason for deletion. Bibi Saint-Pol (sprechen) 12:59, 27 March 2011 (UTC)
Kept: Being unused is not grounds for deletion. As mentioned Commons is not Wikipedia, and notability is not a policy which is required for inclusion on Commons. As the file is part of a set on a political rally, I suggest there may be a purpose for the file in some way shape or form, but that is left up to editorial discretion. As there is no harm on keeping this particular file, I am closing it as such. russavia (talk) 10:50, 3 April 2011 (UTC)
No notability (Marielle de Sarnez and her meeting are well known, but not this women) : Orphaned picture Civa (talk) 16:25, 26 March 2011 (UTC)
- Comment Véronique Delvolvé-Rosset is town councillor of the 7th arrondissement of Paris. As the photographer, I have no personal opinion on this DR, except that being an orphaned picture is in itself no ground for deletion. Jastrow (Λέγετε) 19:25, 26 March 2011 (UTC)
- Keep. I cannot see an imperious reason for wanting to delete this good and valid picture. Subjective notability is not a criterion for deleting potentially useful pictures from Commons.(And having Wikimedia support the making of a picture and then delete it would sound like a poor use of resources) -- Asclepias (talk) 20:40, 26 March 2011 (UTC)
- Keep Commons is not Wikipedia. This photograph might prove invaluable if the subject's career takes off later. Rama (talk) 11:28, 27 March 2011 (UTC)
- Keep per Rama. This photograph has an informative value and could be precious in the future (on wikinews or another press source e.g.): there is no valid reason for deletion. Bibi Saint-Pol (sprechen) 12:59, 27 March 2011 (UTC)
Kept: Being unused is not grounds for deletion. As mentioned Commons is not Wikipedia, and notability is not a policy which is required for inclusion on Commons. As the file is part of a set on a political rally, I suggest there may be a purpose for the file in some way shape or form, but that is left up to editorial discretion. As there is no harm on keeping this particular file, I am closing it as such. russavia (talk) 10:50, 3 April 2011 (UTC)
Orphaned picture ; No notability ; country unknown ; advertisement for fooding (?) Civa (talk) 18:02, 26 March 2011 (UTC)
- Delete Unused, no educational value. Jujutacular talk 16:40, 4 April 2011 (UTC)
Deleted Wknight94 talk 03:17, 13 April 2011 (UTC)
I think this is a copyright violation. User:Agne27 has suggested Commons:De minimis applies, but I disagree. The copyrighted photograph makes up the majority of the box, and the box is quite clearly the prime subject of the image (as evidenced by the file title).Themightyquill (talk) 04:51, 26 March 2011 (UTC)
- Keep This deletion request is a bit bewildering, especially after Quill's efforts at Commons:Categories for discussion/2011/03/Category:Canned beverages where the Foundation's lawyer, Mike Goodwin's, stance on keeping wine images was noted. While this is wine box rather than a bottle, I think that point stays the same. Besides, as I noted on the image's talk page, the focus is on the box container itself (with the spigot and the wine glass) not on the brand on the box (which is virtually unidentifiable without magnification). Agne27 (talk) 20:01, 26 March 2011 (UTC)
- The brand irrelevant. The entire box is a photograph (of bottle and glass of wine) that we don't have the rights to. In the discussion cited, the allowable limits were clearly laid out (de minimis; overly simple design; expired copyright) and none of those apply here. - Themightyquill (talk) 21:21, 26 March 2011 (UTC)
- I do believe the brand is relevant because only the brand is copyrightable, not the physical box itself. But again, I reference the Commons:Deletion requests/Wine labels discussion where images where the brand was clearly visible were deemed okay to maintain on Commons after Wikimedia attorney Mike Goodwin was asked his view on the matter. Agne27 (talk) 22:50, 26 March 2011 (UTC)
- Brands aren't copyrightable; they're trademarkable. What is copyrightable is the images on the box.--Prosfilaes (talk) 23:59, 26 March 2011 (UTC)
- Which are generic images. PLUS the images are not the focus of the pic which is the box shape, spigot and glass of wine. Plus, again, this image is all inline with what the Foundation's own attorney feels is acceptable. Agne27 (talk) 00:32, 27 March 2011 (UTC)
- I don't recall any such concept under copyright law as "generic images". Photographs get copyright even if they're the same photograph of Half Dome everyone else has taken. The carton image is the creative layout of several people and has its own copyright. There's no reason to deviate here from our standard principles on copyrighted packaging just because there's alcohol inside.--Prosfilaes (talk) 00:38, 27 March 2011 (UTC)
- Excuse me for not being more clear, it probably would have been better to describe the images as "trivial" which again, is not the focus of the picture, but rather the box itself, the spigot and the wine. In fact, this is probably one of the best pictures possible to demonstrate what a box wine is without showing any identifiable brand or copyright. And again, I point to the discussion at Commons:Deletion requests/Wine labels where all those images were kept per the Foundation's attorney as evidence that this is clearly not a deviation from the standard principles. Agne27 (talk) 01:41, 27 March 2011 (UTC)
- You point to just one deletion request. I submit that that deletion request is anomalous, and that more general practice has been to delete pictures of illustrated food containers.--Prosfilaes (talk) 03:55, 27 March 2011 (UTC)
- I point to a deletion request that featured several images including ones where the brand was clearly the focus of the picture (not the case with this image, as repeatedly pointed out) and ultimately kept after the view of the Wikimedia Foundation's own attorney was taken into consideration. Disregarding the Foundation's attorney viewpoint is certainly more anomalous than considering it and I would hope that disregard is not standard practice on Commons. Agne27 (talk) 19:29, 28 March 2011 (UTC)
- At Commons:Deletion_requests/Wine_labels, it's quite clear that there is no consensus that Godwin (who is no longer our attorney) was interpreting the issue in light of Commons's policy.--Prosfilaes (talk) 19:39, 28 March 2011 (UTC)
- Still, he was the Foundation's attorney at the time (he certainly wasn't fire for negligence or incompetence in regards to looking after the best interest of the Foundation) and his views certainly carry a lot of weight. But, it is important to point out that those images which were kept as appropriate for Commons are certainly different than this particular picture which only shows trivial images (that make the brand virtually unidentifiable) with the focus being on the box container (not the images on the box), the spigot and the glass of wine. Agne27 (talk) 21:12, 28 March 2011 (UTC)
- At Commons:Deletion_requests/Wine_labels, it's quite clear that there is no consensus that Godwin (who is no longer our attorney) was interpreting the issue in light of Commons's policy.--Prosfilaes (talk) 19:39, 28 March 2011 (UTC)
- I point to a deletion request that featured several images including ones where the brand was clearly the focus of the picture (not the case with this image, as repeatedly pointed out) and ultimately kept after the view of the Wikimedia Foundation's own attorney was taken into consideration. Disregarding the Foundation's attorney viewpoint is certainly more anomalous than considering it and I would hope that disregard is not standard practice on Commons. Agne27 (talk) 19:29, 28 March 2011 (UTC)
- You point to just one deletion request. I submit that that deletion request is anomalous, and that more general practice has been to delete pictures of illustrated food containers.--Prosfilaes (talk) 03:55, 27 March 2011 (UTC)
- Excuse me for not being more clear, it probably would have been better to describe the images as "trivial" which again, is not the focus of the picture, but rather the box itself, the spigot and the wine. In fact, this is probably one of the best pictures possible to demonstrate what a box wine is without showing any identifiable brand or copyright. And again, I point to the discussion at Commons:Deletion requests/Wine labels where all those images were kept per the Foundation's attorney as evidence that this is clearly not a deviation from the standard principles. Agne27 (talk) 01:41, 27 March 2011 (UTC)
- I don't recall any such concept under copyright law as "generic images". Photographs get copyright even if they're the same photograph of Half Dome everyone else has taken. The carton image is the creative layout of several people and has its own copyright. There's no reason to deviate here from our standard principles on copyrighted packaging just because there's alcohol inside.--Prosfilaes (talk) 00:38, 27 March 2011 (UTC)
- Which are generic images. PLUS the images are not the focus of the pic which is the box shape, spigot and glass of wine. Plus, again, this image is all inline with what the Foundation's own attorney feels is acceptable. Agne27 (talk) 00:32, 27 March 2011 (UTC)
- Brands aren't copyrightable; they're trademarkable. What is copyrightable is the images on the box.--Prosfilaes (talk) 23:59, 26 March 2011 (UTC)
- I do believe the brand is relevant because only the brand is copyrightable, not the physical box itself. But again, I reference the Commons:Deletion requests/Wine labels discussion where images where the brand was clearly visible were deemed okay to maintain on Commons after Wikimedia attorney Mike Goodwin was asked his view on the matter. Agne27 (talk) 22:50, 26 March 2011 (UTC)
- Agne: I sympathize, I really do, and I was wrong to propose that all images with wine labels be deleted. That was a complete misunderstanding of the rules on my part. Trademarks and brands are not necessarily subject to copyright. On the other hand, photographs, complex designs and artistic works are. I don't see why you feel wine bottles are somehow an exception. What do you suggest our policy should be? "We do not allow images of copyrighted artistic works and designs unless those copyrighted artistic works are on containers for fermented grape juice. " ? - Themightyquill (talk) 22:23, 28 March 2011 (UTC)
- I understand the concern about copyright protection. I'm not an attorney which is why I feel much more comfortable deferring to the judgment of Mike Goodwin whose views where noted while he was the Foundation's attorney and entrusted with protecting the Foundation's best interest in this area. That said, if this issue is going to be re-evaluated, I do think there should be a distinction made between images where the wine label is the sole focus like File:Château Gloria 75 detail.JPG and those where the wine and other items are the primary focus like File:Guenoc Chardonnay.jpg and File:A 4 Litre Cask of Australian White Wine.jpg . Agne27 (talk) 00:12, 29 March 2011 (UTC)
- I'd have a hard time believing that de minimis would apply to label art in cases when it's the wine brand or the wine bottle/box that the photographer was trying to illustrate in the photo. A picture of someone who happens to be holding a bottle of wine where the artwork happens to be visible is a different story. - Themightyquill (talk) 00:28, 29 March 2011 (UTC)
- I understand the concern about copyright protection. I'm not an attorney which is why I feel much more comfortable deferring to the judgment of Mike Goodwin whose views where noted while he was the Foundation's attorney and entrusted with protecting the Foundation's best interest in this area. That said, if this issue is going to be re-evaluated, I do think there should be a distinction made between images where the wine label is the sole focus like File:Château Gloria 75 detail.JPG and those where the wine and other items are the primary focus like File:Guenoc Chardonnay.jpg and File:A 4 Litre Cask of Australian White Wine.jpg . Agne27 (talk) 00:12, 29 March 2011 (UTC)
- Delete It's a picture of an illustrated carton.--Prosfilaes (talk) 23:59, 26 March 2011 (UTC)
- Keep I can understand some of the concerns and how this in general is a borderline case, as it is covered COM:L category "Products of daily use", which is "may or may not...". It might be worth nothing that in this case, the image clearly shows the product in use; the carton has been opened (perforation broken), the plastic tap put in place, the seal on the tap (typically a foil of some colour) removed, and a glass has been poured and is depicted. It is not a depiction only, or primarily, of potentially copryrighted/trademarked/whatever graphical elements of the packaging. (All these are at an angle, by the way). A 4 l box is larger than a wine glass, that's difficult to avoid. The only thing that could have been done to stage or compose the image differently would be to have moved the glass further forward and to the left, so that the glass overlapped/obscured part of the packaging. But much more importantly, it seems clear to me that the opinion of the lawyer in Commons:Deletion requests/Wine labels applies this case as well, and means that there should be no problems in this case. It would be unfortunate if we were trying to impose a more restrictive interpretation than that actually arrived at by the "pros" working for the Foundation. Tomas er (talk) 10:53, 30 March 2011 (UTC)
- Alternately, a photo could be taken of one of the many boxes of wine that doesn't include a copyrighted image in its packaging design? - Themightyquill (talk) 04:54, 31 March 2011 (UTC)
- Keep First, I do not believe that we can have much regard for the comments by Mike Godwin. Even in the wine label discussion, it was clearly stated that Godwin's comments did not represent the legal position of the Wikimedia Foundation. We have policies here on this project, which were largely derived from the directives of the Foundation. In particular, Commons:Project scope/Precautionary principle is a policy that states, quite clearly, that positions like "in the absence of a complaint from wine makers, I would not worry about the issue" run counter to aims of this project. The Commons is a repository of free media, not media that we believe will not attract lawsuits. If anyone wants to make the practices here on the Commons align more closely with the comments of Mike Godwin, then the route to follow is to propose changes to our policies, not to suggest that the comments give us license to ignore Commons policies in one-off discussions. We have binding policies, which trump any off-the-cuff comments by a lawyer. I am a solicitor myself, and I can assure everyone that everything that comes out of our mouths should not be cast in stone.
Having said that, I am persuaded by the comments that the copyrighted elements of this wine box are not central to this image. Most of the copyrighted photo is on an angle, and it represents a fairly small proportion of the overall image. While the arguments of Prosfilaes and Themightyquill are compelling, and did make me think about this for some time, at the end of the day I believe the better view is that the copyrighted image on the box is de minimis to the overall photograph. It is, admittedly, a close call.--Skeezix1000 (talk) 13:23, 30 March 2011 (UTC)
- Thanks for the valuable comments, Skeezix. Personally, I think the fact that it's on an angle allows more of the copyrighted photo to be shown, but I appreciate your opinion none the less. - Themightyquill (talk) 04:54, 31 March 2011 (UTC)
- Fair enough. It's certainly a tough one. --Skeezix1000 (talk) 15:46, 31 March 2011 (UTC)
- If the image were cropped at the closest corner of the wine box, so that only the right portion of the photo remained, would that be okay? --Skeezix1000 (talk) 12:41, 4 April 2011 (UTC)
- I don't see why not. At that point, the copyrighted image would no longer be the prominent part of the photo. - Themightyquill (talk) 16:09, 4 April 2011 (UTC)
- If everyone here agrees, we could upload a cropped image as a new image, and then all consent to the deletion of this one. Normally, I don't think we'd go to the trouble, but this image is being used by three en-wp articles, so it would be nice if a solution were found that avoided deletion and took the image out of the "grey area". --Skeezix1000 (talk) 18:45, 4 April 2011 (UTC)
- I don't see why not. At that point, the copyrighted image would no longer be the prominent part of the photo. - Themightyquill (talk) 16:09, 4 April 2011 (UTC)
- If the image were cropped at the closest corner of the wine box, so that only the right portion of the photo remained, would that be okay? --Skeezix1000 (talk) 12:41, 4 April 2011 (UTC)
- Fair enough. It's certainly a tough one. --Skeezix1000 (talk) 15:46, 31 March 2011 (UTC)
Kept: per Commons:Deletion requests/Wine labels Jcb (talk) 19:23, 21 April 2011 (UTC)
Orphaned picture ; No notability Civa (talk) 15:50, 26 March 2011 (UTC)
- Delete Unused, no educational value. Jujutacular talk 16:43, 4 April 2011 (UTC)
Deleted Jcb (talk) 19:24, 21 April 2011 (UTC)
Orphaned picture ; No notability Civa (talk) 16:20, 26 March 2011 (UTC)
- Delete Unused, no educational value. Jujutacular talk 16:42, 4 April 2011 (UTC)
Deleted Jcb (talk) 19:24, 21 April 2011 (UTC)
Category:Skyline of Miami
[edit]accidentally created when a category Miami skylines already exists
Deleted: duplicate sfu (talk) 20:55, 27 March 2011 (UTC)
Orphaned picture ; No notability ; country unknown ; advertisement for fooding (?) Civa (talk) 18:03, 26 March 2011 (UTC)
- Delete Unused, no educational value. Jujutacular talk 16:40, 4 April 2011 (UTC)
Deleted Jcb (talk) 19:25, 21 April 2011 (UTC)
No FOP in Ukraine. 84.61.170.180 16:02, 16 March 2011 (UTC)
- Keep In this case we need to delete EVERY ukranian and russian photos, except minerals and bugs with butterflies. Leave everything or delete everything. Red Square, Hermitage Square, Manezh square, Moscow city bridges, famous Spb bridges - delete all. Absurdous, as i think. - Zac allan (talk) 02:10, 17 March 2011 (UTC)
- Keep again, agree with Zac allan. Binnette (talk) 22:45, 23 March 2011 (UTC)
Kept Jcb (talk) 12:24, 26 March 2011 (UTC)
No FOP in Ukraine. No reason was offered for the previous keep decision, beyond "other stuff exists". –Tryphon☂ 22:15, 26 March 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 23:05, 26 March 2011 (UTC)
Aves Hawaiiensis illustrations by Frohawk
[edit]- File:Chaetoptila.angustipluma.jpg
- File:Exthakona.jpg
- File:Zzzgreateramakihi.jpg
- File:Zzzgreaterkoafinch.jpg
- File:Zzzkakawahie.jpg
- File:Zzzkamao.jpg
- File:Zzzlanaihookbill.jpg
- File:Zzznukupuuaffinis.jpg
- File:Zzznukupuulucidus.jpg
- File:Zzzoahucreeper.jpg
- File:Zzzulaaihawane.jpg
- File:Zzzou.jpg
All these illustrations are by Frederick William Frohawk, and from Aves Hawaiiensis. Frohawk died in 1946 and the book was published in London, so these are copyright until 1 January 2017 in their source country. They are widely in use, so as with Frohawk's other images (Commons:Deletion requests/Some illustrations from Rothschild's Extinct Birds and Commons:Deletion requests/File:Lijagulep-1908.jpg) it'd be good to move these to the English Wikipedia. --—innotata 23:16, 26 March 2011 (UTC)
- I agree with the nomination. Something back then lead me to believe they were PD, maybe the site they were on. FunkMonk (talk) 01:04, 27 March 2011 (UTC)
Deleted Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 13:51, 2 April 2011 (UTC)
- Undeleted 1 Jan 2017. Reventtalk 07:02, 1 January 2017 (UTC)