Commons:Deletion requests/Archive/2013/03/23
 |
This is an archive, please do not edit. Post new cases at Commons:Deletion requests. You can visit the most recent archive here. |
 |
Out of scope. Savhñ 00:13, 23 March 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: Commons:Project scope Polarlys (talk) 16:20, 23 March 2013 (UTC)
Out of scope. Savhñ 00:16, 23 March 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: Commons:Project scope Polarlys (talk) 16:20, 23 March 2013 (UTC)
Unlikely own work, as the same photo, though in lower resolution, was posted in 2003 here. -- Túrelio (talk) 15:22, 23 March 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: Morning ☼ (talk) 23:52, 23 March 2013 (UTC)
Plain text not allowed on commons. content was "G-baby was born as Jay Randolph in Prichard Alabama on January 30..." McZusatz (talk) 19:34, 23 March 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: not in com:scope McZusatz (talk) 19:35, 23 March 2013 (UTC)
Because this is not my own work. Alician2nd (talk) 02:52, 23 March 2013 (UTC)
Keep This is your talk page. Sinnamon (talk) 03:23, 24 March 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: Morning ☼ (talk) 10:12, 25 March 2013 (UTC)
album cover art ('You'll Rebel To Anything', by Mindless Self Indulgence) DS (talk) 22:22, 23 March 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: Morning ☼ (talk) 10:12, 25 March 2013 (UTC)
Scaled down duplicate of File:10TAL logo alt.jpg. Froztbyte (talk) 22:22, 23 March 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: per nom. JuTa 09:34, 27 March 2013 (UTC)
unknown author / unknown song. no educational value Hedwig in Washington 
(Woof?) 01:55, 23 March 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:13, 30 March 2013 (UTC)
no educational value, private photo Hedwig in Washington (Woof?) 01:56, 23 March 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:13, 30 March 2013 (UTC)
article creation denied on enwiki. no educational value, unknown artist Hedwig in Washington (Woof?) 01:57, 23 March 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:13, 30 March 2013 (UTC)
Almost unreadable bunch of plain text written within a jpeg. Completely useless and out of scope. Basilicofresco (msg) 07:00, 23 March 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:22, 30 March 2013 (UTC)
Likely non-free logo, out of scope. Savhñ 07:14, 23 March 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:22, 30 March 2013 (UTC)
Copyrighted television set guerreritoboy (talk) 08:30, 23 March 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:23, 30 March 2013 (UTC)
Out of scope: it doesn't seem realistically useful for an educational purpose. Basilicofresco (msg) 08:50, 23 March 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:23, 30 March 2013 (UTC)
Likely copied from http://www.brookhouse.ac.ke/index.html. Needs permission. -- Túrelio (talk) 10:05, 23 March 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:24, 30 March 2013 (UTC)
Likely copied from http://www.brookhouse.ac.ke/index.html. Needs permission. -- Túrelio (talk) 10:05, 23 March 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:24, 30 March 2013 (UTC)
Likely copied from http://www.brookhouse.ac.ke/index.html. Needs permission. -- Túrelio (talk) 10:05, 23 March 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:24, 30 March 2013 (UTC)
Not own work; posted 2 years earlier to http://theselvedgeyard.wordpress.com/2010/03/20/earl-cooper-wins-5-of-8-1912-auto-racings-king-of-the-boardtrack/, said to be from 1925. -- Túrelio (talk) 10:38, 23 March 2013 (UTC)
Delete unlikely to be own work and unlikely that photographer died more than 70 years ago. Rybec (talk) 07:01, 26 March 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:24, 30 March 2013 (UTC)
The composition (gun + wiki-ball) may be the work of the uploader, but I doubt the photo of the gun ist his work. Avron (talk) 12:53, 23 March 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:26, 30 March 2013 (UTC)
The composition (gun + wiki-ball) may be the work of the uploader, but I doubt the photo of the gun ist his work. As permission a website is given. Avron (talk) 12:55, 23 March 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:26, 30 March 2013 (UTC)
The composition (gun + wiki-ball) may be the work of the uploader, but I doubt the photo of the gun ist his work. Avron (talk) 12:55, 23 March 2013 (UTC)
Delete nor the wikiball. --JuTa 13:03, 28 March 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:26, 30 March 2013 (UTC)
The composition (gun + wiki-ball) may be the work of the uploader, but I doubt the photo of the gun ist his work. Avron (talk) 12:56, 23 March 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:26, 30 March 2013 (UTC)
The composition (gun + wiki-ball) may be the work of the uploader, but I doubt the photo of the gun ist his work. Avron (talk) 12:56, 23 March 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:26, 30 March 2013 (UTC)
The source is the manufacturers websteite. I doubt the CC-licence is correct. Avron (talk) 12:57, 23 March 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:26, 30 March 2013 (UTC)
The composition (ammunition + wiki-ball) may be the work of the uploader, but I doubt the photo of the ammunition ist his work. Avron (talk) 12:58, 23 March 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:26, 30 March 2013 (UTC)
The painter died in 1943 so this 1933 painting isn't in the PD in Germany until 2014. In the US, it's not in the PD until 2029. Rosenzweig τ 13:13, 23 March 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:26, 30 March 2013 (UTC)
unreliable source, unclear who is the author Avron (talk) 13:31, 23 March 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:26, 30 March 2013 (UTC)
Posted in higher resolution and earlier (June 2011) to http://adnidinda.blogspot.de/2011/06/vicky-superkidz.html. Unlikely own work. -- Túrelio (talk) 13:40, 23 March 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:27, 30 March 2013 (UTC)
The file's article was eliminated o pt.wikipedia because it is a garage band. Gusta (talk) 13:43, 23 March 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:28, 30 March 2013 (UTC)
Image claimed to be CC-BY by Flickr source, but also credited as "Getty Images for Gibson Lounge". However, Flickr account has no visible relation to "Gibson Lounge", whatever that is. And the same image is regulary offered for purchase by Getty Images agency. -- Túrelio (talk) 15:34, 23 March 2013 (UTC)
Also, cropped version: File:Nicholas Gonzalez 3.jpg. --Túrelio (talk) 15:36, 23 March 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:29, 30 March 2013 (UTC)
Image claimed to be CC-BY by Flickr source, but also credited as "Getty Images for Gibson Lounge". However, Flickr account has no visible relation to "Gibson Lounge", whatever that is. And the same image is regulary offered for purchase by Getty Images agency. -- Túrelio (talk) 15:38, 23 March 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:29, 30 March 2013 (UTC)
Inferior subsequent pixel copy / duplicate of file:Flag of Germany and Austria.svg. -- ΠЄΡΉΛΙΟ 16:26, 23 March 2013 (UTC)
- Delete perfectly agreed. --Ricordisamoa 23:27, 23 March 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:29, 30 March 2013 (UTC)
Test upload? I think so. Video of user with no use for the projects. Out of scope. Martin H. (talk) 17:00, 23 March 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:29, 30 March 2013 (UTC)
I can not find a licence on the given source page. Therefore the image seems copyrighted. McZusatz (talk) 17:15, 23 March 2013 (UTC)
- Delete Images is from a private web site with no permission. --Leoboudv (talk) 19:35, 23 March 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:29, 30 March 2013 (UTC)
No exif is given. Image is of small resolution. no author given. McZusatz (talk) 17:23, 23 March 2013 (UTC)
- Delete: No author is noted and the uploader's talkpage history is not good. --Leoboudv (talk) 19:38, 23 March 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:30, 30 March 2013 (UTC)
Private picture of user, out of project scope. Martin H. (talk) 18:10, 23 March 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: Didym (talk) 23:50, 29 March 2013 (UTC)
Out of scope: Commons is no private photo album High Contrast (talk) 18:12, 23 March 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: Didym (talk) 23:50, 29 March 2013 (UTC)
Not the uploader's own work: copyright status unclear High Contrast (talk) 18:13, 23 March 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:30, 30 March 2013 (UTC)
Out of scope: Commons is no private photo album High Contrast (talk) 18:13, 23 March 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: Didym (talk) 23:50, 29 March 2013 (UTC)
Out of scope: Commons is no private photo album High Contrast (talk) 18:13, 23 March 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: Didym (talk) 23:49, 29 March 2013 (UTC)
Text contribution, out of project scope. Commons:Project scope#Excluded educational content. Martin H. (talk) 18:50, 23 March 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:31, 30 March 2013 (UTC)
All indicates that this is a license cleaning Alan Lorenzo (talk) 19:35, 23 March 2013 (UTC)
- Delete Found it here. Definitely copyrighted. --Yarnalgo (talk) 06:51, 26 March 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:31, 30 March 2013 (UTC)
Low resolution, missing EXIF. Unlikely to be own work. Jespinos (talk) 19:53, 23 March 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:32, 30 March 2013 (UTC)
The description says: "Justine Constance Wirix-van Mansvelt in 1927/1928, oil painting (75,1 x 63,2 cm) by Edmée Wilhelmina Broers (1876-1955)"
The subject of the painting appears to be Dutch. When I search for the name of the painter, I mainly find pages in Dutch. Thus, it is likely that the source country is the Netherlands. In that case, the image can't be kept without permission from the painter's heirs, since the painter hasn't been dead for at least 70 years. Stefan4 (talk) 22:05, 23 March 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:32, 30 March 2013 (UTC)
When was this paintingdrawing created? There's not enough information here to be able to determine if the paintingdrawing is in the PD in the US as well. Rosenzweig τ 22:18, 23 March 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:32, 30 March 2013 (UTC)
If I understand Picasa correctly, it seems that the image was uploaded here about three weeks before it was uploaded to English Wikipedia. It says "Jan 3, 2007" below "Photo information" and the EXIF tells that the photo was taken on 2 January 2007, so I assume that 3 January is the date it was uploaded to Picasa. It was not uploaded to Wikipedia until 23 January 2007. Stefan4 (talk) 22:21, 23 March 2013 (UTC)
- Stefan is correct. I did not find this image online when I searched before I moved it over. This is definitely a delete. -- ТимофейЛееСуда. 01:18, 26 March 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:33, 30 March 2013 (UTC)
The left part of the logotype is far from being a simple geometrical shape Ecemaml talk to me/habla conmigo 22:42, 23 March 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:33, 30 March 2013 (UTC)
Derivative of copyrighted product packaging. Kelly (talk) 22:47, 23 March 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:33, 30 March 2013 (UTC)
Appears to be grabbed from FOTW, not own work. SVGs now exist of both renditions. Fry1989 eh? 23:27, 23 March 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:33, 30 March 2013 (UTC)
Out of project scope Martin H. (talk) 23:52, 23 March 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: Didym (talk) 23:47, 29 March 2013 (UTC)
The graphics has now more detailed PNG version. Now this file can be deleted. --Imprezes (talk) 23:28, 23 March 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:34, 30 March 2013 (UTC)
Borrar copia. Formidolose (talk) 10:05, 23 March 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: FASTILY (TALK) 22:41, 30 March 2013 (UTC)
This is bad pfoto. Arssenev (talk) 12:56, 23 March 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: FASTILY (TALK) 22:40, 30 March 2013 (UTC)
This file was initially tagged by 92.156.21.30 as Copyvio (copyvio) and the most recent rationale was: http://www.getmusic.com.au/katemillerheidke/biography
Converted by me to DR, because this can't be the source as it shows a cropped version of our image. In this article from 2009, the same version as ours is shown, though in lower resolution. This suggests they have a common source and that our version may not be the original. -- Túrelio (talk) 14:27, 23 March 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: FASTILY (TALK) 22:40, 30 March 2013 (UTC)
copyrighted design Kintetsubuffalo (talk) 14:56, 23 March 2013 (UTC)
- The image doesn't have copyrighted design, it only consists of simple images: The Scout salute, like this or this one, a green star who can't have copyrights (it¡s just a green star!), and the words (simple words...): Skolta Esperanto-Ligo. --
Remux - I will never forget that i fell in love with the more beautiful flower Ĉu mi povas helpi vin je io? 16:26, 23 March 2013 (UTC) - Keep – I find Remux's rationale to be persuasive. The emblem consists of sub-images that are in the public domain. Senator2029 10:40, 24 March 2013 (UTC)
- Keep - too simple to have copyrights / tro simpla por kopirajton havi. --Sahaquiel - Hast du eine Frage?
02:45, 25 March 2013 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
;_Portrait_des_Ismar_Littmann.jpg){kind=link}
.JPG){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
;_Portrait_des_Ismar_Littmann.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
;_Portrait_des_Ismar_Littmann.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
;_Portrait_des_Ismar_Littmann.jpg){kind=link}
;_Portrait_des_Ismar_Littmann.jpg){kind=link}
Ik heb dit logo 5jr terug geüploaded voor eventueel gebruik op de pagina: Muziekvereniging OBK Bennekom. Het is echter nooit gebuikt en kan verwijderd worden. Fdn (talk) 15:58, 23 March 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: FASTILY (TALK) 22:40, 30 March 2013 (UTC)
This file was initially tagged by JohnDHaynes as Speedy (speedy) and the most recent rationale was: I am the homeowner. I am politely permanently removing this photo because it is too invasive and also a bad photo. KTo288 (talk) 18:59, 23 March 2013 (UTC)
- Keep. In conjunction with Nyttend's earlier comments below regarding a deletion request of another image of the same subject for much the same reasons by the same editor.
- "Property owners cannot restrict photography of their private property from public rights-of-way". This photo, too, was taken from the street. In fact I didn't even get out of the car, you can see the weather in the photo! This property appears clearly on Google Street View, professional photos can be found here, and a video of stills, including interiors, can be found on youtube uploaded by user who has used the nominator's image on zillow.com. Let's not forget to mention all the photos on the rental website. How exactly are photos taken from the street more invasive?
- On invasion, the home owner doesn't live there! This property is available for short term rentals for any Wright fan, or anyone, to poke around in drawers, look under beds, and take as many photos as they want. As per Nyttend's comments the owner of this property is identifiable as "someone who lives in Connecticut". The nominator's image of the property contains a car with Connecticut plates. That image, taken from the side of the house, also offers a far better view past the blinds than the two nominated images. The address of this property is easily found by use of the geodata in article space, or a Google search (no further searching required, Google provide it), not to mention countless books on the subject of Wright structures, for example those by William Allin Storrer, who also provides a "Wright Guide" iPhone app with driving directions from his website.
- The nominator has repeatedly edited the enWiki article to their preferred version. In fact the nominator's edits have previously attracted a COI tag. The property may be owned, but the article is not, nor are these images, and the nominations have more than a hint of "I just don't like it". "A bad photo" in this case seems synonymous with "one not taken by me". This is a free and usable image of a building by "the greatest American architect of all time", one of just three images of this building available on Commons. Let's not delete two of them and have only the "official" one left. Jaydec (talk) 12:47, 24 March 2013 (UTC)
- Keep. It is currently in use on four Wikimedia projects, probably because it is the best photo of the subject on Commons. Jonathunder (talk) 04:32, 25 March 2013 (UTC)
- Keep - just like the other JDH house image, it's not like you can see in the windows. More seriously, I don't see that this is in any way more invasive than the homeowner's own picture; the difference would seem to be that his was taken on a sunny day. (And he rents out the house.) Pinkbeast (talk) 14:16, 26 March 2013 (UTC)
- Keep. Bad faith tagging by a deceptive owner. Reading this story may give you even more background; the owner has been fickle, and he won't even explain his motives to government officials! Nyttend (talk) 01:43, 30 March 2013 (UTC)
- Keep - Clearly appropriate, no privacy issues. Beyond My Ken (talk) 19:41, 30 March 2013 (UTC)
- Keep - I love how the "owner" took a photo with even more damning location information, the exact lat+lon of the house. No reason to delete. Gwickwire (talk) 19:43, 30 March 2013 (UTC)
This file was initially tagged by JohnDHaynes as Speedy (speedy) and the most recent rationale was: I am the homeowner. I am politely permanently removing this photo because it is too invasive and also a bad photo. Text also lists my private home street address / personally identifiable information. KTo288 (talk) 18:59, 23 March 2013 (UTC)
- Keep. In use, no licensing problems, so definitely in scope. In the United States, property owners cannot restrict photography of their private property from public rights-of-way, and you can tell that this is taken from the street. Bad faith nomination by the speedy-tagger, who has uploaded another image of the same building, and it's taken from his lawn — which is more "invasive"? At any rate, all locational information is publicly accessible online through the county government website; click the coords that are on this image (41°4′14″N 85°1′28″W / 41.07056°N 85.02444°W) and then navigate on the county government website to the location of the house, and selecting "Identify" and clicking the property will produce lots of information — including the fact that the house is owned by someone who lives in Connecticut. The property is rented as a hotel (see page 4 of this document and the "COMMERCIAL MOTELS OR TOURIST CABINS" status at the county government's website; nobody lives there, so there's no personally identifiable information. Nyttend (talk) 20:59, 23 March 2013 (UTC)
- Keep. As per my earlier comments above, regarding a deletion request of another image of the same subject for much the same reasons by the same editor, and Nyttend's comments directly above. This image is of, and contains no more information than, anything readily available through a simple Google search, or for that matter images and information made available by the nominator themself. This is a free and usable image of a building by "the greatest American architect of all time", one of just three images of this building available on Commons. Jaydec (talk) 13:07, 24 March 2013 (UTC)
- Keep - clearly within our rules, and the law. Homeowners shouldn't believe that they own all views of the property, only the property itself. At the same time, we should thank the homeowner for providing a fairly good photo of the house. Perhaps if he provides more photos and asks Nyttend nicely, Nyttend would ask that his photos be deleted. Unfortunately, we cannot promise, even in this case, that the photo would be deleted, it's up to the community, not just Nyttend and would have to be a special "courtesy deletion." Smallbones (talk) 14:45, 25 March 2013 (UTC)
- Keep - it's not like you can see in the windows. More seriously, I don't see that this is in any way more invasive than the homeowner's own picture; the difference would seem to be that his was taken on a sunny day. (And he rents out the house.) Pinkbeast (talk) 14:16, 26 March 2013 (UTC)
- Keep - U.S. law is quite clear that anything that can be seen from the street is a legal subject for photography. FOP in US does not include buildings. There are no grounds for the removal of this image. Beyond My Ken (talk) 18:03, 30 March 2013 (UTC)
This file should be deleted because others in this series have been deleted due to copyright violation issues. See this discussion: http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Modern_dancer_andrew_parodi_in_tree_by_william_gauderman.jpg 140.211.113.96 20:01, 23 March 2013 (UTC)
- Delete The photographer has requested that this picture be deleted because the copyright is non-transferable. Andrew Parodi (talk) 07:03, 29 March 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: FASTILY (TALK) 22:39, 30 March 2013 (UTC)
This file was initially tagged by Panyd as Speedy (speedydelete) and the most recent rationale was: F2 - Fair Use Image INeverCry 21:53, 23 March 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: FASTILY (TALK) 22:39, 30 March 2013 (UTC)
Hezbollah flag has been deemed too complicated for Commons, therefore non-free. (how a terrorist group gets rights to copyright, I'll never know) Fry1989 eh? 03:25, 23 March 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: Per uncontested DR. MBisanz talk 13:46, 1 April 2013 (UTC)
Internet image, not he uploader's photo 178.2.59.218 09:23, 23 March 2013 (UTC)
Comment -- could the nominator explain why he or she is challenging the uploader's good faith? Geo Swan (talk) 05:11, 26 March 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: Morning ☼ (talk) 09:42, 3 April 2013 (UTC)
no copyright Baran Azad (talk) 17:54, 23 March 2013 (UTC)
delete please Baran Azad (talk) 17:57, 23 March 2013 (UTC)
how can i delete this i upload but know i want remove Baran Azad (talk) 17:58, 23 March 2013 (UTC)
i want help from adminn Baran Azad (talk) 17:58, 23 March 2013 (UTC)
why wikipedia didnt add delete button??????? Baran Azad (talk) 18:01, 23 March 2013 (UTC)
please help pleaseeeeeeeeeeeeeeee Baran Azad (talk) 18:03, 23 March 2013 (UTC)
why wikipedia dont give us delete my file right? Baran Azad (talk) 18:15, 23 March 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: Morning ☼ (talk) 23:52, 23 March 2013 (UTC)
An SVG already exists at File:Royal Standard of Sweden and Norway (1815-1844).svg. If there is a problem with proportions, they can be corrected. Fry1989 eh? 20:11, 8 January 2013 (UTC)
.svg){kind=link}
- I created this file because the File:Royal Standard of Sweden and Norway (1815–1844).svg has incorrect proportions. A technically inferior PNG image with correct proportions is better than a technically superior but incorrect SVG image. Lacking the necessary skills, I submitted the new version as a makeshift solution. I strongly advise against deleting it until an SVG version with correct proportions is available. I would greatly appreciate the intervention of anyone who is able to help us with this task. In the meantime, the correctly proportioned royal standard is needed in several WP articles: Union between Sweden and Norway, Royal Standard of Norway, and List of flags of Sweden, as well as corresponding articles in other languages. Therefore, please do not delete. A better candidate for deletion would in fact be File:Royal Standard of Sweden and Norway (1815-1844).svg.
.svg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
- Another matter is this question: Did a royal standard based on the Swedish and Norwegian war flag of 1815–1844 in fact exist at that time, or is it just a modern construction analogous to the verified royal standard of 1844–1905? The existence of this earlier flag has so far not been confirmed, but it is likely that the king of Sweden and Norway may have flown a standard based on the union flag with the royal arms superimposed. However, the proportions would have been the same as in the contemporary union flags. In the war flag introduced by royal decree on 7 March 1815, the rectangles on the hoist side were squares, unlike those in Swedish flags after 1844. The "Norwegian" canton in the union flags of 1815 and 1818 was always a square. This fact is confirmed in the recent book by one of the foremost Scandinavian vexillogists, Jan Henrik Munksgaard. See pages 67–83 and 119 in: Munksgaard, Jan Henrik (2012): Flagget − Et nasjonalt symbol blir til. Kristiansand, Vest-Agder-museet. ISBN 978-82-91178-26-4. Roede (talk) 14:45, 10 January 2013 (UTC)
- Whether it existed or not is absolutely irrelevant to this DR so ignore that. I have already made it clear on English Wikipedia on various talk pages that if you have a problem with an SVG file on Commons, you come to Commons and ask for the SVG to be corrected and wait for the process to be done. You don't upload "makeshift PNGs" and replace the SVG with them on Wikis until the SVG is changed because that's highly disruptive. You need some patience, the SVG will be changed in time, it's not a life-and-death matter that you need to upload an PNG in the meantime. Fry1989 eh? 19:13, 10 January 2013 (UTC)
Kept: While I agree with Fry that in the future this sort of makeshift is a waste of time, both for making it, and for changing all of the links twice. However now that we have it and it is in use in several places, I think we should keep it until the svg is fixed. . Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 13:02, 15 January 2013 (UTC)
SVG has been corrected with a square canton. Time for this to go. Fry1989 eh? 18:40, 23 March 2013 (UTC)
Deleted -FASTILY (TALK) 22:39, 30 March 2013 (UTC)
.JPG&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.JPG&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
Most likely a screenshot of some non-free video. Niklem (talk) 08:26, 18 March 2013 (UTC)
.JPG){kind=link}
Most likely a screenshot of some non-free video. Джери (talk) 08:04, 23 March 2013 (UTC)
.JPG){kind=link}
Deleted: INeverCry 23:37, 24 March 2013 (UTC)
.JPG){kind=link}
Files in Category:Sitora Farmonova
[edit]The uploader claims to be the owner but refuses to justify it
- File:Sitora Farmonova in 2013 (1).jpg
- File:Sitora Farmonova in 2013 (2).jpg
- File:Sitora Farmonova in 2013 (3).jpg
- File:Sitora Farmonova in 2013 (4).jpg
- File:Sitora Farmonova in 2013 (5).jpg
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
Ecemaml talk to me/habla conmigo 23:30, 23 March 2013 (UTC)
- Almost all the images can be found in the internet:
- File:Sitora Farmonova in 2013 (1).jpg: available here
- File:Sitora Farmonova in 2013 (2).jpg: available here and here
- File:Sitora Farmonova in 2013 (3).jpg
- File:Sitora Farmonova in 2013 (4).jpg: available here
- File:Sitora Farmonova in 2013 (5).jpg: available here
- --Ecemaml talk to me/habla conmigo 23:33, 23 March 2013 (UTC)
- Thanks! Nataev (talk) 23:51, 23 March 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: Morning ☼ (talk) 23:52, 23 March 2013 (UTC)
Files of Sanoop robert (talk · contribs) and Rrrobert88 (talk · contribs)
[edit]- File:Gud 2.jpg
- File:884504 431210420301663 267387689 o.jpg
- File:178236 359678570788182 623597811 o.jpg
The three files above were uploaded by two users I believe to be the same person. These images were used on a user page on en:WP which has since been deleted for "Unambiguous advertising or promotion". As they have no value other than promoting that user they can be safely deleted. – JBarta (talk) 09:58, 23 March 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: http://www.jsstudiosdesigns.com/images/p_amnestyposter_large.jpg copyrighted for AMNESTY, and Media Pro Studio, Tarawneh (talk) 10:38, 23 March 2013 (UTC)
Looks like collection of advertisement, not own work.
- File:Fodder volume batchers.jpg
- File:Spiral conveyor.jpg
- File:Tubus feeder.jpg
- File:Silo feed.jpg
- File:SWING FEEDER R3.jpg
- File:Silo agrico.jpg
- File:Feed silo.jpg
- File:Feeding system.jpg
- File:Carp-feed rozvodna skrin.jpg
- File:Carp-feed snekovy dopravnik.jpg
- File:Carp-feed ridici jednotka.jpg
- File:Carp-feed potrubi.jpg
- File:Carp-feed lafetka.jpg
- File:Carp-feed dmychadlo.jpg
- File:Automatické krmení Carp feed.jpg
EugeneZelenko (talk) 15:04, 23 March 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:19, 30 March 2013 (UTC)
Files uploaded by Anilbaggan123 (talk · contribs)
[edit]These images of microscopes are from the Radical Instruments website. The descriptive text is copied verbatim also. In addition to being copyrighted, the terms & conditions specifically prohibit their images from being hosted/mirrored on third-party servers. These are good images that could be useful to Commons. Rather than speedy delete, let's determine if the uploader (Anilbaggan123) is possibly affiliated with the company? Can he/she provide OTRS permission?
- File:STUDENT STEREO MICROSCOPE RSM-4.png
- File:STUDENT PROJECTION MICROSCOPE PRM-11A.png
- File:STUDENT COMPOUND MICROSCOPE RM-2A.png
- File:STUDENT STEREO MICROSCOPE RSM-1.png
- File:STUDENT SCHOOL MICROSCOPE RM-1C.png
- File:PRISM MICROSCOPE RM-1P.png
- File:STUDENT SCHOOL MICROSCOPE RM-1B.png
- File:STUDENT SCHOOL MICROSCOPE RM-1.png
- File:SENIOR DISSECTING MICROSCOPE RDM-4.png
- File:DISSECTING MICROSCOPE.png
Senator2029 10:46, 23 March 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: FASTILY (TALK) 22:41, 30 March 2013 (UTC)
Unlikely to be own work: small resolutions, missing EXIF.
EugeneZelenko (talk) 15:00, 23 March 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:16, 30 March 2013 (UTC)
Files uploaded by Brutalrecords (talk · contribs)
[edit]Looks like collection of promo/fan photos/album covers, not own work.
- File:Portada Ruins Of Creation.jpg
- File:1-Portada (Small).jpg
- File:1-Portada unlight domain.jpg
- File:Camilo.jpg
- File:Liúber en Aetnas 2011 (small).jpg
- File:Andry.JPG
- File:Jose.JPG
- File:Ivan.JPG
- File:Jordany.jpg
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
EugeneZelenko (talk) 14:46, 23 March 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:15, 30 March 2013 (UTC)
Files uploaded by Cupablojaviermilano509 (talk · contribs)
[edit]Low resolutions, missing EXIF. The images are likely not own work.
Jespinos (talk) 19:43, 23 March 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:32, 30 March 2013 (UTC)
Commons:Derivative works form action figures.
- File:G.I. Joe Action Force lot.jpg
- File:Oktober Guard action figures.jpg
- File:GIJoe Cobra lot.jpg
- File:GIJoes pioneiros.jpg
- File:GIJoe classic collection.jpg
- File:Slaughters Marauders figures.jpg
- File:Dreadnoks figures.jpg
- File:CeA Gladious 5.jpg
- File:CeA Gladious 4.jpg
- File:CeA Gladious 1.jpg
- File:CeA Gladious 3.jpg
- File:CeA Gladious 2.jpg
- File:Falcon Ação Camuflada.JPG
EugeneZelenko (talk) 14:38, 23 March 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:14, 30 March 2013 (UTC)
Files uploaded by Isadora Herrera 13 (talk · contribs)
[edit]Possible copyvios.
- File:Taylor swift 22.png
- File:Taylor swift hippie.jpg
- File:Taylor Swift Photoshoot.jpg
- File:Taylor Swift photoshoot 01.jpg
Jespinos (talk) 19:01, 23 March 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:19, 30 March 2013 (UTC)
Files uploaded by Kelly Denis (talk · contribs)
[edit]Unlikely to be own work: inconsistent resolutions, missing EXIF.
- File:Kelly K Denis.jpg
- File:Kelly Denis.jpg
- File:Kellis Doing It live In Church.jpg
- File:Kelly With Holy Keane Amooti.JPG
- File:MY FB COVER.jpg
- File:Wasted Talent Cover.jpg
- File:Kellis.jpg
- File:Destiny-1.jpg
- File:Up Line.jpg
- File:Studio Mic.jpg
- File:System Room.jpg
- File:Kelly Denis Playing a Jitar.jpg
EugeneZelenko (talk) 15:48, 13 May 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: Likely out of scope, and COM:PRP applies russavia (talk) 09:36, 20 May 2012 (UTC)
Files uploaded by Kelly Denis (talk · contribs)
[edit]Self-promotional images, out of scope
- File:Kelly Denis.jpg
- File:Destiny-1.png
- File:Destiny-1 (PatricknKelly).jpg
- File:White T-Shirt.png
- File:Oh Lord Single Cover.png
- File:Blue T-Shirt.png
- File:Kelly Denis Logo Black & White.png
- File:Kelly Denis Logo Red & Black.png
- File:Twitter Banner.jpg
- File:Kelly Denis Logo Icon.png
- File:Kelly Denis.png
- File:Tumblr Header.png
- File:Destiny-1-BORN NOW.ogg
- File:Destiny-1-Oh Lord - Destiny-1.ogg
- File:Kelly wikip.png
- File:Kelly Denis 2013.png
- File:Sseku Martin Live In Concert..jpg
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
Morning ☼ (talk) 10:08, 23 March 2013 (UTC)
- Delete per nom --Herby talk thyme 11:37, 24 March 2013 (UTC)
- Delete per nom. Out of scope, editor on a self promotional rampage. That editor has been indeffed on en WP. Timtrent (talk) 22:25, 27 March 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:13, 30 March 2013 (UTC)
Files uploaded by Kelly Denis (talk · contribs)
[edit]Out of scope. Solely self promotional
- File:Kelly Denis-23.jpg
- File:Kelly Denis-22.jpg
- File:Kelly Denis-24.jpg
- File:Kelly Denis-21.JPG
- File:Kelly Denis-20.JPG
- File:Kelly Denis-19.JPG
- File:Kelly Denis-18.JPG
- File:Kelly Denis-16.JPG
- File:Kelly Denis-17.JPG
- File:Kelly Denis-15.JPG
- File:Kelly Denis-14.JPG
- File:Kelly Denis-13.JPG
- File:Kelly Denis-12.JPG
- File:Kelly Denis-11.JPG
- File:Kelly Denis-10.jpg
- File:Kelly Denis-9.jpg
- File:Kelly Denis-7.jpg
- File:Destiny-1 (PatricknKelly)-4.JPG
- File:Kelly Denis-6.jpg
- File:Kelly Denis-5.jpg
- File:Kelly Denis-3.png
- File:Kelly Denis-2.png
- File:Kelly Denis -1.png
-4.JPG&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
Timtrent (talk) 22:27, 27 March 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 23:32, 2 April 2013 (UTC)
Files uploaded by Nikolazankovic12 (talk · contribs)
[edit]Low resolutions, missing EXIF. The images are likely not own work.
Jespinos (talk) 19:46, 23 March 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:32, 30 March 2013 (UTC)
Files uploaded by PetulaWonderhaus13 (talk · contribs)
[edit]One of these has Screen Shot in the title. Both are probably screen shots given the low resolution and png format.
- File:Adam Lambert performing in Moscow, Russia 2013 .png
- File:Screen Shot 2013-03-22 at 16.40.41.png
January (talk) 12:29, 23 March 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:25, 30 March 2013 (UTC)
Modern art. I think painter identity confirmation via Commons:OTRS is necessary.
- File:Violetta Villas - portret wyk. Zbigniew Kresowaty.jpg
- File:Świetlicki - portret wyk. Zbigniew Kresowaty.jpg
- File:Jerzy Nowosielski - portret wyk. Zbigniew Kresowaty.jpg
- File:Ihor Pawluk z fajką - portret wyk. Zbigniew Kresowaty.jpg
- File:Jan Kanty Pawluśkiewicz - portret wyk. Zbigniew Kresowaty.jpg
- File:Adam Ziemianin - portret wyk. Zbigniew Kresowaty.jpg
- File:Andrzej Urbanowicz - portret wyk. Zbigniew Kresowaty.jpg
- File:Ewa Demarczyk - portret wyk. Zbigniew Kresowaty.jpg
EugeneZelenko (talk) 15:01, 23 March 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:17, 30 March 2013 (UTC)
Files uploaded by Ricardo Santana (talk · contribs)
[edit]Private picture of user, out of project scope.
Martin H. (talk) 00:23, 23 March 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: Commons:Project scope Polarlys (talk) 16:21, 23 March 2013 (UTC)
Files uploaded by S.artur9999 (talk · contribs)
[edit]Private picture of user, out of project scope.
Martin H. (talk) 00:22, 23 March 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: Commons:Project scope Polarlys (talk) 16:20, 23 March 2013 (UTC)
Files uploaded by Syamizee20 (talk · contribs)
[edit]Out of project scope: Commons is not a private photo album + advertising or self-promotion. No educational purpose: Not used. See also Commons:Deletion requests/File:Wang Kelian, Acap.jpg.
Gunnex (talk) 09:30, 23 March 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: Didym (talk) 23:55, 29 March 2013 (UTC)
Files uploaded by Webmasterlescordeliers (talk · contribs)
[edit]Unlikely to be own work: small/inconsistent resolutions.
- File:3bouteilleslescordeliers.jpg
- File:Remuagesurpupitre.jpg
- File:Cloitre-des-cordeliers.jpg
- File:Cloitredescordeliers.jpg
EugeneZelenko (talk) 14:57, 23 March 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:15, 30 March 2013 (UTC)
Files uploaded by Youngdurin (talk · contribs)
[edit]Commons doesn't collect self help manuals.
- File:Forearm Development article.pdf
- File:General fitness article.pdf
- File:Cycled Recovery article.pdf
- File:Abs article.pdf
- File:Effective Fat Loss article.pdf
Hedwig in Washington (Woof?) 01:54, 23 March 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: Didym (talk) 23:59, 29 March 2013 (UTC)
Works by Thérèse Lemoine-Lagron
[edit]- File:Cathedrale de Coutances en 1944.jpg
- File:Eglise Saint Jean a Caen 1944.jpg
- File:Thérèse Lemoine-Lagron Bouquet vase blanc-bleu 1940-49.JPG
- File:Thérèse Lemoine-Lagron Essai.JPG
- File:Thérèse Lemoine-Lagron Saint Ferdinand av 1938.JPG
- File:Thérèse Lemoine-Lagron Table aux zinias 1937.jpg
Artworks by Thérèse Lemoine-Lagron (1891-1949) uploaded by User:Bennehard. Copyright violation. --90.44.105.151 13:33, 23 March 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:27, 30 March 2013 (UTC)
No suitable image for Wikipedia and will also be expected not to permit it! Der Seraph [J.S.] ♂ JohannesSch. (DISCU/EDITS/MAIL) 06:42, 23 March 2013 (UTC)
- How is this not suitable for Wikipedia and who is not expected to permit it on what grounds? The person supossedly depicted has unillustrated articles on seven Wikipedia projects. /Dcastor (talk) 22:26, 23 March 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: out of scope FASTILY (TALK) 21:58, 7 April 2013 (UTC)
Commons:Deletion requests/File:RENE BARTHE 01.jpg
[edit]
la personne qui a versé cette image (membre de la famille du sujet ne dipose pas des autorisations nécessaires pour le faire. L'auteur était un employé de la Société d’Éclairage, de Chauffage et de Force Motrice de Gennevilliers et l'image est issue des fonds d'archives de GDF --Jordi78 (talk) 16:10, 23 March 2013 (UTC)
Files in Category:Ball-jointed dolls
[edit]Copyvio per COM:TOYS.
- File:Azone Excute Majokko Koron littlewitch of the wind ver.1.1 doll.jpg
- File:BJD modified Cerberus Project Sleeping Vampire head with normal Cerberus Project boy body.jpg
- File:BJD.jpg
- File:Blaine (2333361299).jpg
- File:Doll in Akihabara window.JPG
- File:Dollfie Dream Beatrice lakeside.jpg
- File:Four ball-jointed dolls.jpg
- File:Super-dollfie-nono10-juniper.jpg
- File:Volks fo1.jpg
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
Stefan4 (talk) 00:41, 23 March 2013 (UTC)
- From reading of COM:TOYS, it seems like we must delete. However, these are really wonderful images, and I would advise cautious approach. Let's look at File:Dollfie Dream Beatrice lakeside.jpg for example. It says that the toy is manufactured in Japan, and yet COM:TOYS speaks only from the perspective of US laws, is there any Japan's law which would be able to allow this doll to be photographed. I assume there is no contention that photographs themselves are released under a free licence. Sinnamon (talk) 03:19, 24 March 2013 (UTC)
- I will defer to greater minds, but if all dolls are deleted, then starting with Category:Dolls and moving on up, you are going to have a long day of deleting images. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © 00:51, 26 March 2013 (UTC)
- We've already had dolls deleted elsewhere. See for example Commons:Deletion requests/Files in Category:Barbie dolls. --Stefan4 (talk) 01:46, 26 March 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: FASTILY (TALK) 21:59, 7 April 2013 (UTC)
Not sure that it is free, so let's discuss here. As a result of the court decisions, following parts of a map are in the public domain, and may be used freely:...Place names. Those aren't copyrightable. Colors. For example, the colors representing area features on a topographic map, such as vegetation (green), water (blue), and densely built-up areas (gray or red). Colors aren't copyrightable, either. Symbols and map keys Can't be protected by copyright, even if the mapmaker invented truly original ones...facts aren't copyrightable. Elements copied from other maps (say, from a public domain USGS map). Whatever new information the mapmaker added will be protected by copyright (the selection, arrangement of the info), but the elements that were copied (the elements of a USGS map used as a starting point, for example) will stay in the public domain. Based on this rule cards free: 1. location of military objects - this is a fact. 2. Icons of military facilities are not protected by copyright. 3. The colors are not protected by copyright. 4. Contours are at similar free maps. has benefited more than a thousand Russian and foreign media, analytical reports and reviews, as well as other publications and online resources. - Judging by the passage generalization secondary sources without creative work - http://www.kommersant.ru/doc/380961/print. Strannik27 (talk) 12:41, 13 March 2013 (UTC)
- See Commons:Deletion requests/File:Karta1.PNG, Commons:Deletion requests/File:Karta2.PNG, and en:Wikipedia:Files_for_deletion/2013_March_8#Five_map_images please. I see no need in repeating myself. The image clearly passes a threshold of creativity. --UserB (talk) 02:39, 23 March 2013 (UTC)
- This court concluded that that idea merged with Kern River's expression because there was only one way to effectively express that idea. - other methods / options placement military facilities no. Strannik27 (talk) 12:53, 25 March 2013 (UTC)
- You're taking one phrase out of context. That statement was about a government-authored map (clearly PD) on which the plaintiff had drawn their proposed route for a pipeline. There is no way to indicate a proposed route other than the route itself. That rationale is clearly unrelated to this image. --UserB (talk) 16:16, 26 March 2013 (UTC)
- This court concluded that that idea merged with Kern River's expression because there was only one way to effectively express that idea. - other methods / options placement military facilities no. Strannik27 (talk) 12:53, 25 March 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: Per UserB FASTILY 07:58, 6 May 2013 (UTC)
A logo is not a "Edicts of government" nor does this consist of simple shapes. LGA talkedits 05:41, 23 March 2013 (UTC)
- Keep: The flag was found on the Gaithersburg city government's official website, which [the website] could be considered an edict of government. Illegitimate Barrister (talk) 06:52, 26 March 2013 (UTC)
- that very website makes the point very well "The City of Gaithersburg retains all intellectual property rights including copyrights on all text, graphic images and other content". LGA talkedits 08:03, 27 March 2013 (UTC)
- Comment: The tree silhouette image looks very generic. Could this possibly fall under "PD-ineligible"? Thanks! Illegitimate Barrister (talk) 08:31, 13 April 2013 (UTC)
- I think it meets and exceeds the threshold of originality. LGA talkedits 09:22, 23 April 2013 (UTC)
- Comment: The tree silhouette image looks very generic. Could this possibly fall under "PD-ineligible"? Thanks! Illegitimate Barrister (talk) 08:31, 13 April 2013 (UTC)
- that very website makes the point very well "The City of Gaithersburg retains all intellectual property rights including copyrights on all text, graphic images and other content". LGA talkedits 08:03, 27 March 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: Logo is copyrighted and definitely not simple enough to fall under the threshold of originality. -FASTILY 07:57, 6 May 2013 (UTC)
Taken from [1], where it says this image is from "author's collection". It's not clear at all if this is really an official Army photo qualifying for PD-USGov-Military-Army. Rosenzweig τ 15:54, 23 March 2013 (UTC)
This looks real to me. I lived in the building to the right in 1955.. 38.124.32.96
Keep because: I'll try to explain to the ignorants. The photo was made in the 1950s, sowith during the cold war. To make photos inside military facilities at that time was illegal and only possible (against the law) by military personel. Civilian visitors (if they had a camera) must drop them at the guardhouse. Official signs allover the fence around military facilities says: "Absolutes Fotografierverbot" and at the guardhouse: "Fotoapparate sind an der Wache abzugeben". Because the cameras wasn't as small as today, it was impossible for an civillian to carry them along the guards. Otherwise, every civilian made illegal photos inside a military facility and caught was suspected as a spy and prosecuted by nervous communist fearing american CIC - not an easy thing to risk for a simple photo anyway. Sowith the photo was made with 99,99% by an memeber of the US Army and under PD US-Gov. (By the way, why should an US Army member not have a "author's collection" ?) -- Steinbeisser (talk) 07:34, 24 March 2013 (UTC)
- It's very likely that this image was made by an Army member, yes. And of course Army members can have photo collections. But to use the PD-USGov-Military-Army tag, it would have to be an official photo "taken or made during the course of the person's official duties", as it says in the tag. Personal photos don't count for this. And I don't see anything telling if this was an official or a personal photo. So unless you can prove it is an official photo, we can't use it. Other photos on this site (http://www.usarmygermany.com/) have explanations like "taken from official barracks brochure" or something like that, which I think suffices to show they're official. This one has only "Source: Author's collection". --Rosenzweig τ 11:07, 24 March 2013 (UTC)
PF-US-Gov says: "Dieses Bild wurde von einem Mitglied der United States Army während der Ausführung seiner Dienstpflichten erstellt." What does that means? The photographer must be a member of the US Army and in service when he made the photo and not that he had an order to make it or he had to be an officially photographer for a brochure or a military newspaper! What, if the photographer made the photo when he was on pause during his normal military work - maybe as a truck driver of one of the trucks as seen? So he was on duty “während der Ausführung seiner Dienstpflichten” So it's no need for an officially term and the photo is legal for commons! . That's all and very simply ! -- Steinbeisser (talk) 07:37, 25 March 2013 (UTC)
- For this photo to be PD, said soldier needs to make it for the Army in some way, be it as a member of the Signal Corps, for a brochure, military newspaper, whatever. If the hypothetical truck driver you mention photographed this for himself in his spare time, it's not a PD-USGov photo, but a private photo. You cannot assume something like "He was in service for four years and every photograph he made during these four years is automatically PD-USGov". That is not the case. --Rosenzweig τ 18:00, 25 March 2013 (UTC)
- Thats' simply a speculation by yourself and not real - PDUS Gov says "Dieses Bild wurde von einem Mitglied der United States Army während der Ausführung seiner Dienstpflichten erstellt." nothing else - not “for” the Army but “during he's in service for the army”. No word of an official photo order or if a private snapshoot. He just must be a member of the US Governement that's all. Und jetzt gib endlich mal Ruhe Du gehst mir auf den Sack mit deiner an den Haaren herangezogenen Besserwisserei. - Ende Gelände -- Steinbeisser (talk) 11:35, 26 March 2013 (UTC)
- That's not something I made up but the way it is. --Rosenzweig τ 14:08, 26 March 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: No evidence that this was taken as part of the photographer's official duties (even if it's assumed that they were a serving member of the US Army). James F. (talk) 02:35, 10 May 2013 (UTC)
