Commons:Deletion requests/Archive/2011/03/31
 |
This is an archive, please do not edit. Post new cases at Commons:Deletion requests. You can visit the most recent archive here. |
 |
|
|
It is a logo of a company and hence should be a Non-free media use and should not be uploaded with Wikimedia Commons Tilly101 (talk) 05:23, 31 March 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: Removal requested via company representative, OTRS 2011032610010324. – Adrignola talk 12:28, 31 March 2011 (UTC)
It is a logo of a company and hence should be a Non-free media use and should not be uploaded with Wikimedia Commons Tilly101 (talk) 05:23, 31 March 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: Removal requested via company representative, OTRS 2011032610010324. – Adrignola talk 12:28, 31 March 2011 (UTC)
"official work" is not a vaild license for this file (refers only to law texts, coats of arms and the likes) AndreasPraefcke (talk) 14:59, 31 March 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: deleted it myself (just one of numerous copyvios by this user; will notify user on talk page) AndreasPraefcke (talk) 15:04, 31 March 2011 (UTC)
MS software is not free! see templates at https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/wiki/File:Acid3_3.png Mabdul (talk) 10:00, 31 March 2011 (UTC)
Kept: MS software is not visible on the screenshot. E.g. if you make a screenshot of Wikipedia in Firefox and crop it to show only the Wikipedia page, that part will be under the Wikipedia licenses, not under Mozilla tri-license, if no parts of Firefox are visible. AVRS (talk) 18:36, 31 March 2011 (UTC)
I think this image contains more than simple geometry: Color grandients, above the threshold of originality; That is only my estimation. It is maybe wrong. RE RILLKE Questions? 15:52, 31 March 2011 (UTC)
Thanks, I have the version I created with Photoshop CS5 too, would be better in other format? or with out background? And yes its only geometry, let me know what I can do--Hunter-Ghost (talk) 15:57, 31 March 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: non-free logo, not pd-ineligible, no fair use on Commons Martin H. (talk) 17:08, 31 March 2011 (UTC)
This is a cropped version I did from an image that was later discovered to have an invalid licensing. This one, as a derivative work, is invalid as well. Damiens.rf 19:26, 31 March 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: per Commons:Deletion requests/Images in Category:People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals -- Common Good (talk) 18:17, 1 April 2011 (UTC)
All images here are deleted. Damiens.rf 19:27, 31 March 2011 (UTC)
Deleted Common Good (talk) 18:20, 1 April 2011 (UTC)
Exact duplicate of File:Vittorio Lo Jacono a lavoro.JPG. :| TelCoNaSpVe :| 19:47, 31 March 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: Exact or scaled-down duplicate: File:Vittorio Lo Jacono.JPG -- Common Good (talk) 18:22, 1 April 2011 (UTC)
In addition to it being unused, this photograph also seems to violate COM:PEOPLE in the sense that it was shot in his private office. :| TelCoNaSpVe :| 19:49, 31 March 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: Exact or scaled-down duplicate: File:Vittorio Lo Jacono.JPG -- Common Good (talk) 18:23, 1 April 2011 (UTC)
Empty template. :| TelCoNaSpVe :| 19:51, 31 March 2011 (UTC)
Deleted Common Good (talk) 18:20, 1 April 2011 (UTC)
Sorry, but this looks like a photo of a photo. An experienced user should help here. If it is true, permission of the 1st photographer/ copyright holder is required. RE RILLKE Questions? 20:56, 31 March 2011 (UTC)
Keep I don't think it's a photograph of a photograph, EXIF is realistic for this photo. Why do you think so? Trycatch (talk) 02:22, 1 April 2011 (UTC)
- Because I couldn't determine whether this noise comes from the camera or - for me more likely - from the surface of a laserprinted poster like the other upload by the user. ISO 200, exposure time = 1/8s and a lot of light (window). In this case I have never seen so many noise-pixels before. And if you use an image viewer that does not use algorithms to polish the upscaled image you will see that the "noise" is about 6 pixels in size and have a sharp border to "normal pixels", which is also new to me. It's a pity that there are no indoor-photos in Category:Taken with Canon PowerShot A450.
- However, I am not very experienced as you can see on my user page. I probably should have asked at village pump before nominating for deletion. --RE RILLKE Questions? 11:30, 1 April 2011 (UTC)
- 1) A rainy cloudy day (you can see that it was raining), small windows, non-sunny side, maybe trees near to the window. There would not be much light in such conditions. Noise pattern in this picture is very different from half-tone pattern of File:Erratum.jpg. It's an old point-and-shot with a very small sensor even on point-and-shots standards (1/3"). Of course there would be a lot of digital noise even on small ISOs. Check this photo for example (first one I've found on flickr with this ISO for this camera -- there is a useful tool Camera Finder on Flickr) -- the picture is very noisy. 2) Deleted file File:Erratum.jpg (a film poster) was properly described, author & source fields were properly filled -- there were no false claims or something. Likely the user simply didn't understand that Commons is not for non-free files. In other words, there are no reasons to suspect the uploader in a lie. 3) A DR is a proper place to discuss such things, you've done everything right. Trycatch (talk) 14:20, 1 April 2011 (UTC)
- Thanks for the advice. --RE RILLKE Questions? 14:34, 1 April 2011 (UTC)
- Keep - This type of noise seems to be typically for this camera. @Kolinion (Uploader) I am sorry for all the trouble and doubting not being own work. Go on, uploading free pictures to commons. --RE RILLKE Questions? 14:34, 1 April 2011 (UTC)
Kept: Seems that the problem is resolved. Trycatch (talk) 19:50, 1 April 2011 (UTC)
authorization has obviously not been given by the copyright holder, see other non-authorized uploads of the "author" 91.12.196.250 23:57, 22 November 2010 (UTC)
Delete looks like grabbed from some web page. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 21:26, 20 March 2011 (UTC)
Comment Added this to today's listing, was never properly listed. Dcoetzee (talk) 22:21, 31 March 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: Not the uploader's own work High Contrast (talk) 14:46, 3 April 2011 (UTC)
Wrong copyright. Not compatible KnowIG (talk) 09:30, 31 March 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: (not by me) Jcb (talk) 16:03, 4 April 2011 (UTC)
Iaaasi had asked multiple people on picasaweb.google.com to see if they could release their contributions for use on Wikipedia. However when they agreed this license is incompatible with Commons, since they do not specify use outside of Wikipedia, and Commons exists to give free images to all. :| TelCoNaSpVe :| 11:25, 31 March 2011 (UTC)
- The uploader corrected the license (now the setting is "Some rights reserved")(Iaaasi (talk) 12:19, 31 March 2011 (UTC))
- Keep Now is all OK. The author changed the license to Cc-by-sa-3.0 Electron ツ ➧☎ 00:59, 3 April 2011 (UTC)
This category’s name does not match the style of similar categories in the same tree (“Monument to Giuseppe Garibaldi in…” and not “Monuments”. I just create Category:Monuments to Giuseppe Garibaldi (Lovere) to replace it. -- Blackcat (talk) 09:55, 28 March 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: empty category Ezarateesteban 00:41, 7 April 2011 (UTC)
Typo? Unnecessary, anyway. I think the category was created to contain subcats for the counties of the Category:Linxia Hui Autonomous Prefecture, but I reckon it was an overkill. There are not too many subcats in Category:Linxia Hui Autonomous Prefecture anyway, and each county cat is also listed in Category:County-level divisions of Gansu. Vmenkov (talk) 19:14, 30 March 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: empty category Ezarateesteban 00:43, 7 April 2011 (UTC)
Contains Google, Europe Technologies, and others' copyrighted material. It's not public domain. Diego Grez return fire 03:48, 31 March 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: per nom Ezarateesteban 00:44, 7 April 2011 (UTC)
bad photo Umeyama.yukinori (talk) 08:23, 31 March 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: uploader's request Ezarateesteban 00:45, 7 April 2011 (UTC)
wrong photo uploaded Umeyama.yukinori (talk) 08:25, 31 March 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: uploader's request Ezarateesteban 00:46, 7 April 2011 (UTC)
This logo NO only consists of simple geometric shapes and/or text shizhao (talk) 08:46, 31 March 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: per nom Ezarateesteban 00:46, 7 April 2011 (UTC)
Copyrighted material without named source - Uploader has not proved permission Eingangskontrolle (talk) 08:48, 31 March 2011 (UTC)
Antwort: es liegt eine schriftliche Genehmigung des TV-Senders SPORT1 vor, dass das Foto verwendet werden darf. Diese Bestätigung habe ich an permissions-commons-de@wikimedia.org per E-Mail geschickt. Ich hoffe, dass die Antwort auf diesem Weg richtig ist - ist mein erster richtiger Beitrag.
Deleted: per nom Ezarateesteban 00:47, 7 April 2011 (UTC)
Iaaasi had asked multiple people on picasaweb.google.com to see if they could release their contributions for use on Wikipedia. However when they agreed this license is incompatible with Commons, since they do not specify use outside of Wikipedia, and Commons exists to give free images to all. :| TelCoNaSpVe :| 11:25, 31 March 2011 (UTC)
- Problem solved (Iaaasi (talk) 12:18, 1 April 2011 (UTC))
- Comment. I don't think so. The author released it as CC-BY-ND 3.0 ("no derivate work") and it is not accepted licence to keep the file on Commons... Electron ツ ➧☎ 01:10, 3 April 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: the license cc-by-nd isn't compatible Ezarateesteban 00:50, 7 April 2011 (UTC)
Iaaasi had asked multiple people on picasaweb.google.com to see if they could release their contributions for use on Wikipedia. However when they agreed this license is incompatible with Commons, since they do not specify use outside of Wikipedia, and Commons exists to give free images to all. :| TelCoNaSpVe :| 11:25, 31 March 2011 (UTC)
- Reuse settings were corrected(Iaaasi (talk) 12:20, 31 March 2011 (UTC))
- Keep Licensed cc-by-3.0 at Picasa. Lymantria (talk) 11:47, 1 April 2011 (UTC)
Kept: licensed ok Ezarateesteban 00:51, 7 April 2011 (UTC)
dhuytjnkmvnbibuhjnkmbhgvfcrtueokjnmbcvgfhpolkjinmbhygvftcdxreszawqopmnkjuijhbngfeqwvcnbm 81.227.33.214 12:55, 31 March 2011 (UTC)
Kept: Reason for delete it is not valid Ezarateesteban 00:53, 7 April 2011 (UTC)
not a proper license tag. not used anywhere. Prince Kassad (talk) 13:17, 31 March 2011 (UTC)
- Delete per above. --myself488 talk 08:48, 2 April 2011 (UTC)
Deleted Common Good (talk) 17:23, 6 April 2011 (UTC)
Uploader is SVG creator. Derivative work of non-free copyrighted image without permission Dcoetzee (talk) 09:22, 31 March 2011 (UTC)
Deleted Jcb (talk) 15:25, 7 April 2011 (UTC)
As far as I know there is no such thing as a sumitos move/strategy/whatnot during an Abalone :| TelCoNaSpVe :| 09:39, 31 March 2011 (UTC)
Deleted Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 16:15, 7 April 2011 (UTC)
no used Lery007 (talk) 10:19, 31 March 2011 (UTC)
Deleted Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 16:15, 7 April 2011 (UTC)
Uploader request. :| TelCoNaSpVe :| 10:30, 31 March 2011 (UTC)
Kept: Sorry, but this is a nice image and the license is irrevocable. Drop a note on my talk page if you need help linking it from your own site. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 16:21, 7 April 2011 (UTC)
I think that the flag of Hezbollah is copyright-protected (see also: en:File:Hezbollah Flag.jpg). ~ Kobac (talk) 12:15, 31 March 2011 (UTC)
- I think this would count as de minimis[1], the logo itself (which is the only part subject to copyright) is barely visible and is extremely distorted, as to be almost unrecognisable. FunkMonk (talk) 17:37, 31 March 2011 (UTC)
Kept: DM Jcb (talk) 15:26, 7 April 2011 (UTC)
bogus license tag. no reason to believe this image is free Prince Kassad (talk) 13:30, 31 March 2011 (UTC)
Kept: PD-textlogo Jcb (talk) 15:27, 7 April 2011 (UTC)
and File:Upper and Lower School Buildings.jpg. Unlikely to by own work: small resolutions. EugeneZelenko (talk) 14:59, 31 March 2011 (UTC)
- Comment The uploader has stated that they are the Assistant Admissions Director at Saint John's Prep, and the image most likely belongs to that institution. However, no official release to public domain was given. --Muhandes (talk) 12:28, 1 April 2011 (UTC)
Deleted Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 16:27, 7 April 2011 (UTC)
no indication of any educational purpose: portrait of person of no obvious notability, possibly uploader; not used anywhere; uploader appears to have no other contributions or Wikipedia edits Closeapple (talk) 15:35, 31 March 2011 (UTC)
Deleted Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 16:27, 7 April 2011 (UTC)
Out of Commons:Project scope: Commons is not private photoalbum. Not used. EugeneZelenko (talk) 15:38, 31 March 2011 (UTC)
Deleted Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 16:29, 7 April 2011 (UTC)
Out of Commons:Project scope: Text file. Not used. EugeneZelenko (talk) 15:40, 31 March 2011 (UTC)
Deleted Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 16:30, 7 April 2011 (UTC)
and other uploads by Thanachaporn (talk · contribs). Unlikely to by own work: small resolutions, missing EXIF. EugeneZelenko (talk) 15:55, 31 March 2011 (UTC)
- Meandering river is from a blog: http://sarahnicolas.com/files/2010/12/Meandering-river-on-the-Yamal-tundra.jpg . The other uploads are also not own work:
- File:Braided river.jpg (caption/watermark)
- File:ImagesCAQ7W6U3.jpg (computer graphic, ... is it from a computer game?)
- File:ImagesCA355YVY.jpg (book or journal?)
- File:Riv 004.gif (book or journal?)
- --Martin H. (talk) 16:19, 31 March 2011 (UTC)
Deleted Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 16:33, 7 April 2011 (UTC)
iuèy- 82.64.62.35 16:12, 31 March 2011 (UTC)
Kept: No reason specified Jcb (talk) 15:36, 7 April 2011 (UTC)
There is a (c) watermark. PD-Old? If you are the copyright-holder please send a permission to COM:OTRS. Thank you. RE RILLKE Questions? 16:49, 31 March 2011 (UTC)
Deleted Jcb (talk) 15:37, 7 April 2011 (UTC)
I doubt own work. RE RILLKE Questions? 17:12, 31 March 2011 (UTC)
Deleted Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 16:53, 7 April 2011 (UTC)
There is no doubt that en:Toby Simkin is a notable stage producer. However I doubt that he personally owns rights to all graphic elements in this Korean poster. And even if he did, the flicker file is non-commercial use only (http://www.flickr.com/photos/tobysimkin/3886941600/). delete. (p.s. a look at this flickr account shows quite liberal approach to FOP, i.e. [2]). ~ NVO (talk) 18:07, 31 March 2011 (UTC)
Deleted Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 16:54, 7 April 2011 (UTC)
Exact duplicate of File:Vittorio Lo Jacono a lavoro.JPG. :| TelCoNaSpVe :| 19:47, 31 March 2011 (UTC)
Info other file deleted (smaller res dupe).
In progress it:Vittorio Lo Jacono {{Notability}} -- Common Good (talk) 18:42, 1 April 2011 (UTC)
Kept: please use {{Duplicate}} instead Jcb (talk) 15:38, 7 April 2011 (UTC)
Out of scope: orphan image, uploaded in relation to a deleted article on it.wikipedia. I don't think there is any use in that. Sannita - not just another it.wiki sysop 17:30, 7 October 2011 (UTC)
Deleted - (not by me) - Jcb (talk) 16:18, 25 October 2011 (UTC)
The text on this memorial is clearly visible, and it is likely copyrighted (I cannot tell when the monument was erected, but it was probably post-March 1989, and thus wouldn't fit {{PD-US-1978-89}}). Because the US has no freedom of panorama, this is unfree. Our only solution is to delete this file or to blur out the text so as to make it unreadable. Magog the Ogre (talk) 20:20, 31 March 2011 (UTC)
Deleted Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 16:57, 7 April 2011 (UTC)
questionable Flickr uploader, only three contribs at all with the Selene Gomez image hardly self-made Denniss (talk) 20:46, 31 March 2011 (UTC)
Deleted Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 16:57, 7 April 2011 (UTC)
I doubt own work and I don't think that it is pd-textlogo. RE RILLKE Questions? 21:26, 31 March 2011 (UTC)
Kept: PD-textlogo Jcb (talk) 15:28, 7 April 2011 (UTC)
I doubt own work and I don't think that it is pd-textlogo. RE RILLKE Questions? 21:26, 31 March 2011 (UTC)
Kept: PD-textlogo Jcb (talk) 15:28, 7 April 2011 (UTC)
I doubt own work and I don't think that it is pd-textlogo. RE RILLKE Questions? 21:26, 31 March 2011 (UTC)
Kept: PD-textlogo Jcb (talk) 15:28, 7 April 2011 (UTC)
This file was initially tagged by Loco085 as Copyvio (copyvio) and the most recent rationale was: logo with copyright Yann (talk) 06:37, 28 June 2012 (UTC)
- Since the last DR was on this subject and the file was kept, a more detailed reason for proposing deletion would be nice. --Philosopher Let us reason together. 08:29, 28 June 2012 (UTC)
- Considering the current trend, this file is probably too complex to be allowed here without a permission from the creator. Yann (talk) 09:04, 28 June 2012 (UTC)
- I think I agree about this one, too complex (given others I've seen at DR). --Philosopher Let us reason together. 09:39, 28 June 2012 (UTC)
- Delete The logo is complex enough (although not so much) to be copyrighted. Fma12 (talk) 22:25, 20 August 2012 (UTC)
- I think I agree about this one, too complex (given others I've seen at DR). --Philosopher Let us reason together. 09:39, 28 June 2012 (UTC)
- Considering the current trend, this file is probably too complex to be allowed here without a permission from the creator. Yann (talk) 09:04, 28 June 2012 (UTC)
Deleted 02:58, 14 September 2012 by Fastily, closed by . Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 20:38, 20 September 2012 (UTC)
I doubt own work and I don't think that it is pd-textlogo. RE RILLKE Questions? 21:26, 31 March 2011 (UTC)
Kept: PD-textlogo Jcb (talk) 15:31, 7 April 2011 (UTC)
I doubt own work and I don't think that it is pd-textlogo. RE RILLKE Questions? 21:26, 31 March 2011 (UTC)
Kept: PD-textlogo Jcb (talk) 15:31, 7 April 2011 (UTC)
Archivo duplicado, ya existe en commons https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:TeleSUR-Logo.svg ✎KOVOX90 18:26, 9 April 2016 (UTC)
- Keep: The SVG logo contain plain colours, therefore no duplicate. --Amitie 10g (talk) 02:16, 10 April 2016 (UTC)
Kept: no valid reason for deletion. --Jcb (talk) 21:09, 29 April 2016 (UTC)
I doubt own work and I don't think that it is pd-textlogo. RE RILLKE Questions? 21:27, 31 March 2011 (UTC)
Kept: PD-textlogo Jcb (talk) 15:31, 7 April 2011 (UTC)
I doubt own work and I don't think that it is pd-textlogo. RE RILLKE Questions? 21:27, 31 March 2011 (UTC)
Kept: PD-textlogo Jcb (talk) 15:31, 7 April 2011 (UTC)
Copyright violation - this does not look like below the threshold of originality to me Andre Engels (talk) 21:14, 30 March 2012 (UTC)
- I agree. Allan Aguilar • talk • 21:38, 3 April 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: The clouds in the logo looking not like text. --JuTa 07:24, 20 July 2012 (UTC)
The 20minutos CC license is no applicable to 3rd party's work. And this is 3rd party's work. ALE! ¿…? 21:46, 31 March 2011 (UTC)
Deleted Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 16:58, 7 April 2011 (UTC)
I strongly doubt that this is own work (no EXIF data, small resolution, copyvio track record of uploader, etc.) ALE! ¿…? 21:49, 31 March 2011 (UTC)
Deleted Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 16:58, 7 April 2011 (UTC)
File is a phooto of the magazine, containing mostly the magazine logo, which is not permited in licensing guidelines. --DeeMusil (talk) 20:39, 14 November 2010 (UTC)
- Delete - the logo is just a {{PD-textlogo}}, it is the photos that make this a possivble copyright problem. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 21:49, 20 March 2011 (UTC)
- Comment Added this to today's listing, was never properly listed. Dcoetzee (talk) 22:18, 31 March 2011 (UTC)
Deleted Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 16:59, 7 April 2011 (UTC)
I doubt that this is the own work of the uploader. 80.187.103.243 22:39, 7 November 2010 (UTC)
- Comment Listed at today's deletion requests, was never properly nominated. Dcoetzee (talk) 22:19, 31 March 2011 (UTC)
Deleted Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 16:59, 7 April 2011 (UTC)
This file is an edited version of the original file on flickr. The original file has much warmer colors en has been uploaded by me today with the same name but a different extention (jpg), see:File:Traditional Ifugao House.jpg, Magalhães (talk) 13:19, 12 November 2010 (UTC)
- Keep the colors in File:Traditional Ifugao House.jpg look oversaturated and the sky is washed-out (and purple). Both versions can be kept. MKFI (talk) 16:47, 30 January 2011 (UTC)
- Comment Added this to today's listing, was never properly listed. Dcoetzee (talk) 22:21, 31 March 2011 (UTC)
Kept Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 17:00, 7 April 2011 (UTC)
Uploader stated in Hebrew wiki that the use allowed is fair use only - and not according to the licence given here - therefore out of scope see here. Deror avi (talk) 12:48, 15 November 2010 (UTC)
The uploader (me) is not stating what was attributed to him by Deror avi in any place, Hebrew Wikipedia or elsewhere (the so-called translation attached to the deletion request is partial, misleading and not representing the final state of affairs). The license terms were indicated upon uploading and are congruent with Wikimedia Commons licensing policies. Clearly, there is no reason to delete the picture. Moreover, the picture has a historic significance that cannot be matched by other available content, since it depicts Ze'ev Jabotinsky while addressing the participants of the 17th Zionist congress in Basel, a congress after which Jabotinsky's party withdrew from the World Zionist Organization in what was the first major schism in it.--Or Aleksandrowicz (talk) 09:06, 19 November 2010 (UTC)
- Hi Or, let's make it clear: do you agree to the terms of the license [3]? Terms give permit to modification and creating of Derivative Work by everybody under the same license, ever for commercial purpose. Netanel h (talk) 11:25, 21 November 2010 (UTC)
- The license terms are clear, and so the conditions given by me as part of it. The license terms give the author a full right for proper attribution in derivative work. Adaptation is also allowed by me, but under the attribution obligation and as long as the wholeness of the image is preserved. If this is not accepted or allowed, you may delete the file from Wikimedia Commons. By the way, the reason given for the deletion request has nothing to do with the terms indicated by me upon uploading the image.--Or Aleksandrowicz (talk) 11:54, 21 November 2010 (UTC)
- Delete - there is a no-derivatives clause. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 23:34, 19 January 2011 (UTC)
- Comment Added this to today's listing, was never properly listed. Dcoetzee (talk) 22:21, 31 March 2011 (UTC)
- Delete It says "no cropping or distorting is allowed". That's not consistent with a CC-BY.--Prosfilaes (talk) 22:39, 31 March 2011 (UTC)
- Delete because of ND-clause Julo (talk) 19:38, 2 April 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: ND clause is unnaceptable Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 17:01, 7 April 2011 (UTC)
Logo does meet the threshold of originality Moros y Cristianos 22:34, 31 March 2011 (UTC)
Kept: PD-textlogo Jcb (talk) 15:32, 7 April 2011 (UTC)
I doubt own work. RE RILLKE Questions? 17:06, 31 March 2011 (UTC)
Deleted Trycatch (talk) 08:47, 8 April 2011 (UTC)
Previously nominated by Coentor with the following reason: "Unaccurate information: merges dialects of the Spanish with the other languages of Spain, includint Basque, which isn't even a latin language." :| TelCoNaSpVe :| 08:05, 31 March 2011 (UTC)
- Strongly disagree - This map DOES NOT represent the "dialects of the Spanish with the other languages of Spain, includint Basque, which isn't even a latin language", it is just a map of the dialectal variation of Spanish (Castilian, in the broad sense) in the territory of Spain. Do not be confused by the fact that some of the dialects are called by the name (in Spanish) of other languages, like "vasco" or "catalán". The note on the left-down corner states that in the map are not represented the other languages of Spain besides Spanish, and that the only thing represented are the dialects and accents of Spanish. The Ogre (talk) 11:37, 1 April 2011 (UTC)
- "Gallego", "Catalán", "Balear", "Vasco" or "Asturiano y Leonés" aren't the names of any dialectal variation of the Spanish/Castilian, but indeed are the common names used for describing the other languages (and some dialects in those languages) in Spain. This map is unsourced. It's doesn't exist any "dialect of the Spanish" called "Valenciano" and which occupies exactly the area were Catalan/Valencian is spoken in Valencia. In those areas, the population who doesn't speaks Valencians, speaks "standard Spanish", not a "dialect of Spanish called Valenciano". Besides, Castellano is considered the whole "Spanish of Spain" and in this map only occupies a tiny part of Spain. The author could have tried to represent the variations of Spanish in Spain, but has created an inaccurate map in which some dialects have been invented, and where some of those dialects have the name usually used for representing the other languages in Spain. --Coentor (talk) 19:07, 3 April 2011 (UTC)
- And I would even say more: Which sources are used for dividing the Spanish in Spain into "northern" and "southern", and which criteria is used? Why The "Basque dialect of Spanish" and "Catalan dialect of Spanish" share category, when having different substrata, and "Manchego" and "Castillian dialect of Castillian language" are in different categories, while their origin is the same? --Coentor (talk) 19:21, 3 April 2011 (UTC)
- Oh! I'm not disputing that the map may depicts incorrectly the dialectal varieties of Spanish. I was just saying that other languages are not represented here, and that this map tries to depict those dialectal varieties. As to the accuracy of the representation (which does not seem to me to be so wrong as you say - see File:Castillian dialects in spain.png) I would prefer more editors to comment, namely ones who know more about it than I. What about the author of the map? The Ogre (talk) 11:25, 4 April 2011 (UTC)
- Well, seems like We could have some kind of consensus, let's talk: The separation between northern and southern varieties of Castillian could be right, but in traditional dialects. In this map seems that the author presumed that this classification could be extended to the Castillian spoken in bilingual territories, so He added for example "Catalan-Castillan" to "Northern Castillian". What's the problem? the inclusion of "Catalan Castillan" in "Northern" and the name of a "Catalan variety of Castillan/Spanish" is unsourced, and probably, original research. The map you have linked represents properly the differences between dialects in Spanish, but this one We discuss does not, because uses the name of the other languages in Spain for describing "the varieties of Spanish spoken in those areas" (unsourced and possible original research) and expands the classification of Northern and Southern Castillan in a suspicious way. This map should be deleted (gives wrong, original research information) if doesn't changes those problems. --Coentor (talk) 18:42, 4 April 2011 (UTC)
- Oh! I'm not disputing that the map may depicts incorrectly the dialectal varieties of Spanish. I was just saying that other languages are not represented here, and that this map tries to depict those dialectal varieties. As to the accuracy of the representation (which does not seem to me to be so wrong as you say - see File:Castillian dialects in spain.png) I would prefer more editors to comment, namely ones who know more about it than I. What about the author of the map? The Ogre (talk) 11:25, 4 April 2011 (UTC)
- And I would even say more: Which sources are used for dividing the Spanish in Spain into "northern" and "southern", and which criteria is used? Why The "Basque dialect of Spanish" and "Catalan dialect of Spanish" share category, when having different substrata, and "Manchego" and "Castillian dialect of Castillian language" are in different categories, while their origin is the same? --Coentor (talk) 19:21, 3 April 2011 (UTC)
My friend, can I propose that you fix the errors in tha map, thus coming up with a correct map of the dialectal varieties of Spanish (Castilian) in Iberia? The Ogre (talk) 10:22, 8 April 2011 (UTC)
- And what is the situation of Castilian varieties in Bilingual national regions, such as Catalonia and Galicia (etc.)? Is there no specifity to the Castilian spoken there? I remember that in Asturias (granted, Astur-Leonese languages do not posses the present strengh of Catalan or Basque...) most people spoke Castilian. Does it not have any specificity? The Ogre (talk) 10:26, 8 April 2011 (UTC)
- I would gladly do that if I knew how, I'll consult to other people who maybe is able to modify images. About the situation in bilingual territories... well, there are native Spanish speakers, who talk in their "original" dialect (most in Valladolid-Toledo Castillan, considered "standard") and also is the Spanish spoken by the speakers of the other languages, who (at least in Valencia and Catalonia) most speak in "standard Spanish", and some speak Spanish with the accent (and some characteristics) of their original languages. Notice that in es.wiki, the article about the "Catalan Spanish" is named "Variety of Spanish in Catalan-Speaking territories" while in ca.wiki, the article is name "Characteristics of the Spanish spoken by Catalanophones". As long as "those varieties" have no name, such titles are used in those articles, and similar for the basque, asturleonese or galician case. --Coentor (talk) 19:55, 8 April 2011 (UTC)
Kept: - in use, at Wikimedia Commons we don't judge if it's accurate or not. If it's in use in Wikipedia, it's automatically in scope - Jcb (talk) 15:31, 8 April 2011 (UTC)
- You are presuming that people is using this map with a complete knowledge of the issue when that's not necessarily true. --Coentor (talk) 19:55, 8 April 2011 (UTC)
- I don't presume that. It's just not our task to judge the quality of the maps. Jcb (talk) 21:55, 8 April 2011 (UTC)
Esto es una total manipulación de la realidad. El título correcto debería ser acentos del castellano en España. Aospina (talk) 11:08, 3 August 2012 (UTC)
- Keep and speedy close. No new arguments offered, and the file is still in use. —LX (talk, contribs) 14:50, 3 August 2012 (UTC)
- Mapa erróneo
Este mapa no representa la realidad de los acentos en el español o castellano hablado en el sector sudeste de la península Ibérica. La frontera lingüística entre el español (murciano) y el catalán (valenciano) en la provincia de Alicante es tajante y traza líneas rectas que separan zonas abismalmente diferentes en todos los aspectos de la lengua.
Algunos errores:
1) En la provincia de Albacete no existe ninguna localidad o paraje cuyos hablantes presenten acento valenciano, sin embargo en el mapa existen motas azules (que representan acento valenciano) en territorio enmarcado en la Provincia de Albacete.
2) En la Región de Murcia tan solo en una pequeña franja fronteriza con El Pinoso (Alicante) tiene acento valenciano (hablantes de El Carche)sin embargo este mapa tiene motas de acento valenciano en una gran parte del sector oriental de la Región de Murcia, e incluso casi en el centro de la misma. --84.121.39.5 12:25, 5 August 2012 (UTC)
Este mapa (http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Castillian_dialects_in_spain.png) refleja fielmente dónde queda la frontera entre español y catalán en la Provincia de Alicante. De una frontera a otra el acento cambia radicalmente y sin graduaciones. De Yecla, Jumilla, Orihuela o Villena, que hablan español (variedad dialecto murciano) se pasa al pueblo de al lado (Pinoso, Guardamar del Segura) que habla en catalán (variedad valenciano alicantino.
--84.121.39.5 12:41, 5 August 2012 (UTC)
- Yeah, again: thanks for playing, but this is not going to get deleted as long as it's in use on fifteen pages on two different projects. If you don't like it, upload an alternative and try to gain consensus to use that instead. Cheers, —LX (talk, contribs) 12:58, 5 August 2012 (UTC)
Kept In use. Yann (talk) 06:39, 10 August 2012 (UTC)
Previously nominated by Coentor with the following comment: "Unreferenced mofification of an existent image. The valencian "dialect" is separated of the rest of the Catalan language with political (not linguistical) borders. The other dialects of other languages doesn't have any differenciation sign." :| TelCoNaSpVe :| 08:12, 31 March 2011 (UTC)
Kept: invalid deletion reason for Wikimedia Commons Jcb (talk) 15:32, 8 April 2011 (UTC)
Not educationally useful. Files that add nothing educationally distinct to the collection of images we already hold covering the same subject Coentor (talk) 15:54, 21 August 2011 (UTC)
- Delete, with mistakes, etc and per nom. --Marco Aurelio (disputatio) 19:02, 4 September 2011 (UTC)
- Keep - we don't delete maps for being disputed - Jcb (talk) 09:42, 8 October 2011 (UTC)
Kept: The file is already tagged as being of disputed accuracy. The way to solve the problem is not to delete the file, but to improve and reference it. --Rosenzweig τ 12:24, 8 October 2011 (UTC)
Photo of a non-free map. ~ NVO (talk) 16:30, 31 March 2011 (UTC)
Keep FOP in Croatia allows photos of all "copyrighted works permanently located on streets, squares, parks or other places accessible to public". Although the description doesn't say so explicitly, I think this is a map of the park, in the park. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 16:40, 7 April 2011 (UTC)
Kept Jcb (talk) 15:39, 8 April 2011 (UTC)
Personal letter, out of scope of Wikimedia Commons Martin H. (talk) 19:19, 31 March 2011 (UTC)
Deleted Jcb (talk) 15:40, 10 April 2011 (UTC)
Supposedly 17th century drawing of unknown authenticity, very likely later (19th or 20th cent.) work. Technique doesn't look like any 17th-cent gravure technique I know. The group around the throne is an inexpert imitation of this (authentic) image. The ladies' dresses on the right look much more like 19th-cent fashion than 17th cent. Fut.Perf. ☼ 08:13, 31 March 2011 (UTC)
- Looks like it (like one of thousands of disposable pics from 19th century books), but needs more research to establish who and when. Some guys out there claim copyright over authentic 1687 engravings click to see (c), go figure. Französen! NVO (talk) 16:13, 31 March 2011 (UTC)
- Keep In any case it was done before 1923. It might be XVIIIth, perhaps that's even more more likely than XVIth, so I've changed the notice accordingly. XIXth is possible but dubious, unless consciously done in a retro style. Victor falk (talk) 15:08, 2 April 2011 (UTC)
- Just to clarify: my concern here was not so much over copyright (I agree it's quite likely pre-1923, though I still say 19th century at the earliest), but over lack of encyclopedic value, given the lack of information about its provenance. Why would we ever want to display a picture about which we cannot even say whether it's contemporary to the events or a pastiche by a (not very talented) illustrator 200 years later? Fut.Perf. ☼ 17:59, 2 April 2011 (UTC)
- It is probably from a latter edition of "mémoires du Siam" by the Chevalier fr:Alexandre de Chaumont. Do you really call this poor particular engraver of being such a talentless hack that his work must be expunged from the Commons? Victor falk (talk) 15:52, 3 April 2011 (UTC)
- If we can find out the source, I have no objection to keeping it, obviously (although I still wouldn't see why one would want to use it in preference to the much better authentic 17th-century alternatives, but that's just an editorial decision on the Wikipedia article, not a deletion thing). But without a source I can't really see why we'd keep it. Do you remember where you actually got it from and what that source said about it? The source link is dead. Fut.Perf. ☼ 16:46, 3 April 2011 (UTC)
- Google cache of reference link: [4] Victor falk (talk) 17:32, 7 April 2011 (UTC)
- Which, of course, is just a Wikipedia mirror, and a copy of en:File:Siamese envoys at Versailles.jpg. I hadn't noticed there was this earlier upload on en-wiki. So, the en-wiki uploader gave an attribution to a modern book source (2001). That's something; unfortunately he doesn't say what author and source that book credits the image to, so we still can't assess the PD-old claim (assuming the image wasn't created for the 2001 book). Fut.Perf. ☼ 20:49, 7 April 2011 (UTC)
- Chaumont's memoirs were popular, and were re-published several times, like in this in 1733 [5] this in 1839 [6] and this in 1897 [7] and in several languages, like this [8], this [9], this [10] and this [11] Victor falk (talk) 09:30, 9 April 2011 (UTC)
- Speculation doesn't really help us here. The only thing that'll help is if somebody goes and looks up that Smithies book. Luckily, I just noticed it's in our local library, so I can go and check on Monday. (Admins, please hold off on closing till then.) Fut.Perf. ☼ 12:54, 9 April 2011 (UTC)
- The cover looks promising: [12] Victor falk (talk) 13:55, 9 April 2011 (UTC)
- Frustrating. I checked Smithies. It has no authorship attribution and date for this image. It only says "National Archives, Bangkok". So we know where the original is held, but we still don't know what it is and how old it is. This is odd because Smithies is otherwise very careful in documenting the sources for his illustrations (he has a lot). I have removed the speculative addition about it being a 17th or 18th century engraving and about it being "possibly from "mémoires du Siam" by the fr:Alexandre de Chaumont". Both claims are very unlikely. Technically, it is most certainly not an engraving (engravings as used in pre-20th century book printing could not possibly produce these light shades of gray; they'd use visible hatching.) It looks like a black-and-white photograph from a watercolour. I also don't see how it would be from that de Chaumont book – it's not even in a format that you'd expect to find made for a book page. – Anyway, I give up. I agree it's very likely pre-1923 and PD, but I really still can't see its encyclopedic use, given its evidently second-hand nature and the uncertainty of its provenance, and given that we have much better alternatives of higher authenticity. Fut.Perf. ☼ 18:39, 11 April 2011 (UTC)
![[4]](http://wapedia.mobi/en/File:Siamese_envoys_at_Versailles.jpg){kind=link}
Kept: in use --> encyclopedic value Jcb (talk) 19:54, 12 April 2011 (UTC)
(and all other files in Category:Überseemuseum Bremen Lingang New City) Derivative work. The photographed plans, models etc. are surely not in the Public Domain or under a free license. AndreasPraefcke (talk) 15:48, 31 March 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: Derivative work of copyrighted plans. Jastrow (Λέγετε) 19:04, 15 April 2011 (UTC)
Drawings of User:Toilet
[edit]- File:Squatting and pooping.jpg
- File:Albatros laying a egg.jpg
- File:Albatros female laying a egg.jpg
- File:Goose laying a egg.jpg
- File:Fuut legt een ei.jpg
- File:Two catfighting women.jpg
- File:Vechten vrouwen.jpg
- File:Ook vroeger hadden vrouwen conflicten met elkaar..jpg
- File:Op de po.jpg
- File:Begin van het conflict.jpg
- File:Vrouw op het kamergemak.jpg
These drawings consist of purely unencyclopaedical POV by the drawer, Toilet (talk · contributions · Move log · block log · uploads · Abuse filter log) , blocked just because of contributions of this kind. --Grand-Duc (talk) 00:47, 31 March 2011 (UTC)
- Added some more drawings. Grand-Duc (talk) 03:31, 31 March 2011 (UTC)
- Delete Per nom, since it is not the first time. --Yikrazuul (talk) 16:06, 31 March 2011 (UTC)
- Delete, per nom, at least round three of such images. --Herzi Pinki (talk) 21:42, 31 March 2011 (UTC)
Expansion of the request:
- File:Conflict staand.jpg
- File:Catfights between women.jpg
- File:Constipatie op vakantie.jpg
- File:Conflict hanteringsmodel.jpg
Regards, Grand-Duc (talk) 01:29, 1 April 2011 (UTC)
- Delete and block, this is the third MDR. --LHum Reserve (talk) 11:56, 2 April 2011 (UTC)
deleted poor drawings of unencyclopaedical value. Btw. this user has published a lot of pictures having a "picasa" entry in the exif-data ... axpdeHello! 20:49, 2 April 2011 (UTC)
recent uploads suggest that this user does not understand the concept of "own work" ... the cover of a magazine was uploaded as "own". Most images don't have a license. I think we need to delete all this user's contributions as possible copyvios. 99of9 (talk) 11:18, 31 March 2011 (UTC)
Deleted Jcb (talk) 11:20, 22 April 2011 (UTC)
We took this photo hence it is our own work - please stop removing it!
I think that the flag of Hezbollah is copyright-protected (see also: en:File:Hezbollah Flag.jpg). ~ Kobac (talk) 12:15, 31 March 2011 (UTC)
- That's irrelevant, what matters is if there's freedom of panorama in Syria or not. The country is not listed here, so I don't know: http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Freedom_of_panorama FunkMonk (talk) 17:36, 31 March 2011 (UTC)
Kept: DM Jcb (talk) 11:21, 22 April 2011 (UTC)
I doubt own work. RE RILLKE Questions? 16:56, 31 March 2011 (UTC)
Excuse me, why doubt own work? The image was taken by me during a concert. -- FloricientosaWIKI
- Excuse me, but the image has no EXIF data, it is small in size and there is no comment that this image was cropped. You can add these descriptions and then, everything is ok. Dont't forget to sign your posts with
--~~~~. Thank you for your understanding. --RE RILLKE Questions? 17:49, 31 March 2011 (UTC)
What is EXIF data exactly and how can I add? -- FloricientosaWIKI
- You can use exactly
--~~~~to sign your posts. Wikimedia software will replace this by your user name, a link to your talk page and the current UTC time. Exif data is usually added to your photo automatically by your camera. If you use an imaging-program it probably removed Exif data. If this is the case, you can upload the original file and provide a link in the "other versions" section of the retouched file and vice versa. - Alternatively, please provide a description on the image page. Some of these questions should be easy to answer, if it is own work: When it was taken? Where it was taken? (You may use geolocator to specify the coordinates, but this is not necessary here.) With which kind of camera you made this photo? Did you crop it? What's the name of the utilized software?, ...
- If you have questions how to do a particular task on commons, you can ask me on my discussion page or on COM:VP. --RE RILLKE Questions? 20:36, 31 March 2011 (UTC)
| Camera manufacturer | Nokia |
|---|---|
| Date and time of data generation | 22:10 febbruary 2004 |
| Orientation | Normal |
| Horizontal resolution | 300 dpi |
| Vertical resolution | 300 dpi |
| Y and C positioning | 1 |
| Exif version | 2.2 |
| Color space | sRGB |
| Date and time of digitizing | 22:10 febbruary 2004 |
These are additional data on the camera.
I do not know if they are perhaps just because the picture has changed. 164.132.40.54
- PNG does not support Exif data. You may login and add these informaion to your image. --RE RILLKE Questions? 14:44, 1 April 2011 (UTC)
I added the information. now it's ok? -- FloricientosaWIKI
An admin will decide. Thank you for the patience. --RE RILLKE Questions? 18:25, 1 April 2011 (UTC)
Delete That doesn't explain anything -- I think the EXIF data is from a scanner, not a camera. We need to understand how you took this (and all your other) closeup photos during concerts. Telephoto lenses are rarely allowed and all of these images are taken from a point level with the performers, not looking up from the audience. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 16:47, 7 April 2011 (UTC)
Comment And, again, please sign your posts. You add four tildes ~~~~ to the end of each post and the software will automatically add your signature and a date stamp. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 16:47, 7 April 2011 (UTC)
the solution is simple, the public out there. So when I transferred the file to your computer, I changed so that it seemed more satisfactory in terms of graphics. But I made a mistake, to show only the faces of the artists without the audience when I took the picture.
So now it's not clear where is the point of view, taking the photo. I were at center to the public, from a frontal view. Precisely so, now I do not know if you notice what I said. User talk:FloricientosaWIKI 19:07, 7 april 2011 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 151.81.77.49 (talk • contribs) 17:08, 7 April 2011 (UTC)
- I have added a signature to the post above -- again, please use our system for signing posts by adding four tildes to the end. When someone who is not logged in (User:151.81.77.49) signs a post with a different name, it casts doubt on anything you say. We need to hear from FloricientosaWIKI, not an unknown user who is not logged in. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 22:22, 8 April 2011 (UTC)
Sorry, I have now logged. so now it's okay or not? ---- FloricientosaWIKI — Preceding unsigned comment added by FloricientosaWIKI (talk • contribs) 16:11, 19 April 2011 (UTC)
Deleted Jcb (talk) 11:22, 22 April 2011 (UTC)
The author's name is not provided, so we do not know if they died more than five years ago, as required by {{PD-Libya}}. –Tryphon☂ 19:05, 31 March 2011 (UTC)
- It says five years since publication, not five years since author's death. -- Prince Kassad (talk) 23:53, 31 March 2011 (UTC)
- This is not a photographic work. For other types of work, the condition is that "five years have elapsed since the year of authors death and fifty years have elapsed since the year of publication. –Tryphon☂ 00:14, 1 April 2011 (UTC)
- Wrong. It says more than twenty five years have elapsed since the year of authors death and fifty years have elapsed since the year of publication. (emphasis added by me) Can't you read? -- Prince Kassad (talk) 09:35, 1 April 2011 (UTC)
- No I can't. Anyway, what's your point? Does it change anything regarding this DR? –Tryphon☂ 10:04, 1 April 2011 (UTC)
- Wrong. It says more than twenty five years have elapsed since the year of authors death and fifty years have elapsed since the year of publication. (emphasis added by me) Can't you read? -- Prince Kassad (talk) 09:35, 1 April 2011 (UTC)
- This is not a photographic work. For other types of work, the condition is that "five years have elapsed since the year of authors death and fifty years have elapsed since the year of publication. –Tryphon☂ 00:14, 1 April 2011 (UTC)
Kept: for as long as we don't know anything about th author - we know first publication is more than 50 years ago Jcb (talk) 11:41, 22 April 2011 (UTC)
NOTE: -- Closure of deletion process unilaterally undone by Dcoetzee. - 17:26, 22 April 2011
- Delete Per above - without information about the author, we cannot determine if the terms of {{PD-Libya}} are applicable for a non-photographic work (25 years must have elapsed since the author's death - it is not at all unlikely that the author of this artwork died in 1986 or later, or indeed is still living). I would only support keeping if the terms specified in the template do not accurately reflect the law. Dcoetzee (talk) 17:27, 22 April 2011 (UTC)
- Delete without knowing the provenance of this image, any claims about the author being dead, or first publication date are guesses. We can't operate on guesses. --Hammersoft (talk) 17:52, 22 April 2011 (UTC)
- Note, I added other related images to this DR, so all images in http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Category:Symbols_of_the_Kingdom_of_Libya are affected by this DR. User:Zscout370 (Return fire) 19:28, 22 April 2011 (UTC)
- Did you notify the uploaders of those images?? I don't see anything on User talk:Пакко, so File:Coat of arms of the Kingdom of Libya.svg has not in fact been validly added to this deletion discussion. AnonMoos (talk) 22:34, 22 April 2011 (UTC)
- Shouldn't be discussed all files from Category:Symbols of the Kingdom of Libya? Do you mean the author of the original coat of arm, or the author of its separate modifications here? --ŠJů (talk) 02:06, 24 April 2011 (UTC)
- Keep the SVG image. Per Commons:Coat of Arms#Copyright on the representation, "Generally speaking, the author's right on a CoA is attached to the artist that draws a given representation, not to the CoA definition (the blazoning). Therefore, a CoA can be freely drawn (my emphasis) after a model (without involving derivative rights)..."--Kintetsubuffalo (talk) 06:57, 24 April 2011 (UTC)
- This clause allows the creation of freely-licensed CoA designs based on their definition, whereas this is taken from a third party source who did not place it under a free license (libya4ever.com). It is not applicable. Dcoetzee (talk) 08:49, 24 April 2011 (UTC)
- That might apply to the vector image, but as the source suggested, the arms design was taken from guesses (since actual Libyan documents were blocked after the 1969 coup by Gaddafi). User:Zscout370 (Return fire) 09:45, 24 April 2011 (UTC)
- This clause allows the creation of freely-licensed CoA designs based on their definition, whereas this is taken from a third party source who did not place it under a free license (libya4ever.com). It is not applicable. Dcoetzee (talk) 08:49, 24 April 2011 (UTC)
- Delete per Dcoetzee. Jujutacular talk 20:22, 25 April 2011 (UTC)
- Keep the SVG image, at least, it's an original work and per COM:COA it's acceptable. The others should probably be Deleted since they seem to be straight copies from the Internet. -- Prince Kassad 21:54, 28 April 2011 (UTC)
- Keep Fry1989 (talk) 03:05, 13 May 2011 (UTC)
- This is a discussion, not a vote. Please explain or justify your opinion. Dcoetzee (talk) 03:26, 13 May 2011 (UTC)
Deleting png and gif Consensus is clear enough on these two files. To me, the remaining question seems to be whether the svg is a derivative work of copyrighted files, or whether it was reconstructed from the COA definitions. The info field of the svg suggests that copyrighted images were used as more than just inspiration, so I (unfortunately) lean toward deleting it as well. But since consensus is not yet clear, I will refrain from doing the deed myself, and leave this open. --99of9 (talk) 10:28, 29 May 2011 (UTC)
deleted per discussion. Huib talk Abigor @ meta 15:13, 16 June 2011 (UTC)
- one of the files in this DR, the SVG version, has been restored per UDR by Zscout370 - Jcb (talk) 18:53, 19 June 2011 (UTC)
unused, no source, bad quality Amada44 (talk) 08:22, 20 April 2010 (UTC)
- Delete no info on what type of dog etc. Out of scope. -- Deadstar (msg) 12:52, 20 April 2010 (UTC)
Deleted per discussion. abf «Cabale!» 17:38, 19 May 2010 (UTC)
copyvio http://i.ytimg.com/vi/mdSqQlkBzLQ/0.jpg Kattenkruid (talk) 20:51, 31 March 2011 (UTC)
Deleted, blatant copyvio, screenshot from nl:New Kids. --Martin H. (talk) 21:43, 31 March 2011 (UTC)
personal photo, not in use Ezarateesteban 22:03, 31 March 2011 (UTC)
Unclear to me what "personal photo, not in use" means. Photo was taken in public setting with consent of subjects. No violation of Argentine copyright law. Request that image be retained. User:adam63
Added
- File:Trio of Men on a Street - Cordoba - Argentina.jpg Ezarateesteban 22:05, 31 March 2011 (UTC)
- File:Trio of Young Men - Alta Gracia - Argentina.jpg
- Comment The photos likes personal photos, two unknowns mens in a street, who's that mens, are they best known people? May the pictures ilustrate anything? Ezarateesteban 22:49, 31 March 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: out of scope Jcb (talk) 11:44, 22 April 2011 (UTC)
