Commons:Deletion requests/Archive/2009/01/14

FAKE image of Meister Eckhart created by some blogger. Tischbeinahe (talk) 07:33, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

 Delete Duplicate of File:Giovanni Bellini 006.jpg (not Eckhart but Dominic). /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 07:40, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted. ChristianBier (talk) 07:54, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Promotional material. Eusebius (talk) 10:05, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted. Hum - out of scope/promotional content/copyvio, take your pick (or all three). Thanks Herby ^{talk thyme} 12:53, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Promotional material. Eusebius (talk) 10:05, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted. Hum - out of scope/promotional content/copyvio, take your pick (or all three). Thanks Herby ^{talk thyme} 12:52, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Supserseded by SVG image File:Categorical pullback.svg. Ryan Reich (talk) 19:43, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

 Keep In use. Just put in {{Vector version available}}. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 00:16, 15 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Kept.  — Mike.lifeguard | ^@en.wb 04:17, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Supserseded by SVG image File:Categorical pullback (expanded).svg Ryan Reich (talk) 19:44, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Replacing a 5 kB png with a 250 kB svg-file?? Does not sound like a good idea. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 23:47, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Kept. Please use {{vector version available}} as appropriate.  — Mike.lifeguard | ^@en.wb 04:17, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Based on the web resolution, it seems unlikely the uploader took this photogrtaph, and hence this probably isn't a free image. PhilKnight (talk) 17:40, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted. Lycaon (talk) 23:52, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Was moved to Commons without having a primary source. Was deleted on en for having no source in 2007 Denniss (talk) 00:11, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

•  Delete as copyvio. Original is here and is marked as © Edward Pascuzzi. Pruneau^talk 15:27, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted. No source/probable copyvio MichaelMaggs (talk) 18:21, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Low resolution, professional looking, user's only contrib, I don't think this is self-made. -mattbuck (Talk) 00:23, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

•  Delete copied from [1]. Pruneau^talk 15:30, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted. MichaelMaggs (talk) 18:22, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Uncategorised, unused, looks to be a personal photo so i think out of scope -mattbuck (Talk) 00:28, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted. MichaelMaggs (talk) 18:23, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Professional photo, web resolution - I don't think this is own work, I suspect a copyvio -mattbuck (Talk) 00:28, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted. MichaelMaggs (talk) 18:23, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

faiyg 69.112.61.79 01:43, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

 Comment ? Megapixie (talk) 08:59, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep, 69.112.61.79's only contributions are deletion requests with the word faigy as a reason. The nominations themselves seem quite random. --Tryphon (talk) 09:59, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Umm... voting Keep on my own image, which I think is a useful illustration of cats. If the nominator would advance a reason I might rebut it. Dcoetzee (talk) 10:13, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Kept. MichaelMaggs (talk) 18:24, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

image appears at [2] where permission is not stated 99.231.94.255 01:49, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted. MichaelMaggs (talk) 18:25, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Suspicious - like the rest of the uploaders contributions see http://cnair.top81.cn/missiles/J-8_LS-6.jpg --Megapixie (talk) 06:16, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• and http://www.airforceworld.com/pla/j12.htm at Image:Nanchangj12.png Megapixie (talk) 06:20, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted. MichaelMaggs (talk) 18:27, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Incorrect licensing. Uploader did not create image, yet licensed it as though he did. Author mentioned is a Yahoo fanclub. Delete as copyvio (to me it looks like a tv-screenshot). -- Deadstar (msg) 08:51, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted. MichaelMaggs (talk) 18:27, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Promotional image. Eusebius (talk) 09:58, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted. MichaelMaggs (talk) 18:28, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Belgium has no freedom of panorama, see COM:FOP Ronn (talk) 16:02, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted. MichaelMaggs (talk) 18:29, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

and File:Boite-anis.jpg.

Commons:Derivative works from commercial packaging. EugeneZelenko (talk) 16:52, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted. Can't be kept unless we have clear evidence that these old-style designs are actually old enough to be out of copyright. It is quite probable that they are actually modern designs.MichaelMaggs (talk) 18:31, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Belgium has no panorama of freedom, see COM:FOP. Sculptor Yvonne Serruys died in 1953. Ronn (talk) 18:17, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted. MichaelMaggs (talk) 18:32, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This is no PD, the sculptor Albert Poels died in 1984. Belgium has no FOP. Ronn (talk) 19:33, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

 Delete there's a simple reason for speedy deletion: The source page on Flickr says "all rights reserved". --Eva K. ^{tell me about it} 01:52, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

 Comment Actually this is no point... The photo was previous published under a free licence and the licence has been changed by the autor. But it change nothing if we talking about the photo free copyright status... The real problem is that Belgium has no FOP. But we can see that there on the pictures is not only a sculpture but also the bildings of Het Steen which is PD... Electron (talk) 08:21, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted. MichaelMaggs (talk) 18:33, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

CD cover ; no OTRS ; the logo "compact disk" is copyrighted Peter17 (talk) 19:39, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted. MichaelMaggs (talk) 18:33, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

no value for Wikipedia Gower (talk) 16:24, 3 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: . --Didym (talk) 00:52, 10 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I uploaded this just to test the Upload Wizard. Jjaldridge2009 (talk) 14:27, 23 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: by Taivo. --Didym (talk) 01:08, 2 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

no evidence that this is an anonymous work; based on subject's age is possibly (likely?) copyrighted 65.96.164.13 20:18, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

•  Delete An uncropped version is here. It includes the date "21 mars 1940" (the date Daladier stopped being President of the Council of Ministers), so the photo was clearly published after that date, which is less than 70 years ago. Even if it is indeed anonymous, {{Anonymous-EU}} doesn't apply because the photo isn't old enough. Pruneau^talk 15:42, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted. MichaelMaggs (talk) 18:35, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No evidence to support claim that image was released under CC. The exact same file, with the same name, is available under fair use provisions at the English Wikipedia. Fvasconcellos (t·c) 23:05, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted. MichaelMaggs (talk) 18:35, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Not freely licensed: claims to be a work of the U.S. federal government (which would be PD), but is actually a work of the Casper, Wyoming municipal government (which is not automatically PD, and appears to have no permission grant on the website). 63.249.108.162 23:17, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted. MichaelMaggs (talk) 18:36, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File superseded by a new file, and has been replaced on all wikis. It is no longer needed --Wiz9999 (talk) 11:07, 15 January 2009 (UTC) (Creator)[reply]

Kept. As of today it is in use on 3 Wikis MichaelMaggs (talk) 18:40, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File no longer used, and all its functions have been replaced by File:Sica.png --Wiz9999 (talk) 22:59, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. It's still within the scope of the project (potentially useful to a Wikimedia project), and it shows more context than File:Sica.png. Both images have uses. Powers (talk) 13:53, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
•  Delete - The image is Redundant and is also a Bad Quality map. All the possible uses for such a file could be replaced by other better quality images. --Wiz9999 (talk) 16:21, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Kept. Clearly not equivalent to File:Sica.png; in scope. –Tryphon^☂ 20:33, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File superseded by a new SVG file, and it is incorrect --Wiz9999 (talk) 11:17, 15 January 2009 (UTC) (Creator)[reply]

Raster images are never superseded by vector images, per COM:SUP.  — Mike.lifeguard | ^@en.wb 03:20, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Kept. Per Mike.lifeguard. Also, it is in use. MichaelMaggs (talk) 18:38, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File superseded by a new SVG file, and it is incorrect --Wiz9999 (talk) 11:19, 15 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Raster images are never superseded by vector images, per COM:SUP.  — Mike.lifeguard | ^@en.wb 03:20, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Kept. MichaelMaggs (talk) 18:39, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File superseded by a new SVG file --Wiz9999 (talk) 11:21, 15 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Raster images are never superseded by vector images, per COM:SUP.  — Mike.lifeguard | ^@en.wb 03:20, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Kept. Per Mike.lifeguard. Also, it is in use. MichaelMaggs (talk) 18:39, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

replaced by svg Nobelium (talk) 19:35, 19 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Kept. - per Mike.lifeguard (in previous DR) - Jcb (talk) 08:06, 22 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

No source for the base map, unknown copyright situation. The SVG version (File:WAMZ.svg) is actually based on a different base map, with proper source information. Jcb (talk) 20:19, 13 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: per nomination, replaced by Gnome-x-office-drawing.svg File:WAMZ.svg. Ruthven (msg) 10:52, 4 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Non-free image was transferred without notice, but will be kept on enwiki. Please delete. -User:JamesR 14:00, 8 January 2009

• I have tagged this image as {{PD-textlogo}}. Because of the simplicity of the logo, I don't believe copyright can be claimed, and therefore this isn't a non-free image, and thus it doesn't need to be deleted.-Andrew c (talk) 16:42, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Depending on the font used, it might be non-free though. A vector image of a proprietary font cannot be placed under a free license. See COM:L#Fonts. --Tryphon (talk) 07:54, 15 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted. Possibly unfree, and the person who transferred it requested deletion. If someone really wants, they should reupload it as a PNG file. -mattbuck (Talk) 00:34, 24 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Replaced by file:BSicon exHELI.svg -- Sameboat - 同舟 (talk) 04:26, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted by Lycaon: Universally replaced by File:BSicon_exHELI.svg. Reason was "exact, or scaled-down duplicate"

It is not used and is redundant to this, which has a better quality. De-okin (talk) 00:14, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted. Since it was your own file anyway, and the images are so similar, I think it's ok to delete this one. Patrícia ^msg 20:49, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Doesn't appear to be a free image. PhilKnight (talk) 00:53, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted. We would need an OTRS permission, at the very least. Patrícia ^msg 20:52, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Tomado desde http://www.wikipediars.net/wiki/Imagen:Giorgio.png. El sitio es CC-BY-SA-NC. --Superzerocool (talk) 02:35, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted. Patrícia ^msg 20:53, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I doubt that this map is self-made 65.96.164.13 03:06, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

•  Delete It looks like a scan. The small print is not legible. Patrícia ^msg 20:58, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted. Eusebius (talk) 21:49, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No longer used ASCR01 (talk) 09:33, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• This one could be deleted as superseded by File:EDI_ascr.png. --Tryphon (talk) 10:08, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted. Eusebius (talk) 21:57, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

no longer used ASCR01 (talk) 09:43, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

 Delete but it is better to upload new versions like File:EDI ascr a.png with the same filename. Also, .SVG format would be much better for this. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 10:01, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted. Eusebius (talk) 21:57, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

copyviolation; picture is published by commercial firm Goudappel coffeng JZ85 (talk) 13:12, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted. Eusebius (talk) 21:58, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Company's trademark. No evidence that uploader has authority to release it. 206.223.165.253 16:46, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted. Fair use. Eusebius (talk) 21:59, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Superseded by SVG image File:Categorical pushout.svg. Ryan Reich (talk) 19:42, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

 Keep In use. And even if it were not in use, policy is just to mark files with {{Vector version available}} and to keep the png-versions. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 00:12, 15 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Kept. Eusebius (talk) 22:10, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Superseded by File:Axiom TR3.svg; bad (non-descriptive) filename; diagram is in error Ryan Reich (talk) 05:47, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

 Keep In use. (I what is so descriptive in a file name like "Axiom TR3"?)/Pieter Kuiper (talk) 07:26, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It describes precisely what the diagram depicts: see w:Triangulated category. This is not my notation, either. Ryan Reich (talk) 19:49, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

According to CheckUsage (I just found the link on the deletion template), this image is only linked to by the two images on Wikipedia that it supersedes and are also nominated for deletion. And the link is only as another version of these images, so it is not significant. Ryan Reich (talk) 22:25, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: "Diagram in error" is easily fixed by a message dropped on my talk page, or by editing the SVG yourself. I'd say that "everything commutes" is just as descriptive as your filename, and more descriptive than the name "Triangle Diagram" that was used on the image traced. Additionally the same objection as in the Octahedral Diagram deletion request. Stannered (talk) 11:10, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I could have left a comment, but that was one picture out of a set of four that all had some fault; they had been converted piecemeal to SVGs and I felt uniformly updating them with vector versions of my originals, as well as naming them better, was preferable to patching the various leaks with the various authors.

"Everything commutes" is not that descriptive: every commutative diagram commutes, but most of them don't describe axiom TR3 of a triangulated category. I admit the original name was bad, which is why I took the opportunity of vectorizing the pictures to use a new one. "Octahedral diagram" is okay as a name, but of the three such diagrams given in w:Triangulated category, one was never vectorized (presumably no one could reproduce it), one was vectorized by you, and one by David Eppstein in a definitely uglier way, so since I needed to replace at least two of them, and since I had already established a good naming scheme with the Axiom TR3 picture, for consistency it was necessary to upload the third octahedral diagram picture with a new name in the same series. Of the whole bunch, your File:Octahedral diagram variant.svg is the least deserving of deletion, but it will never be used even if it stays.

Basically, the only reason I'm nominating all these for deletion is as housekeeping. The four triangulated category images are the only depictions that are ever used of axioms TR3 and TR4, and there only needs to be one version of one image of each. Especially if they don't differ that much; admittedly, your SVGs were there first, but only for two of the pictures, and I've provided a full set with descriptive, similar names. Ryan Reich (talk) 19:31, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Kept. Cirt (talk) 04:44, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Supserseded by higher quality File:Axiom TR4 (BBD).svg Ryan Reich (talk) 05:51, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• I don't have strong feelings about this one (it's just a diagram I redrew in svg after the original author of the diagram (Ryan Reich, the nominator here) had uploaded a bitmap version, and the replacement is by the original author who has since figured out how to generate svg). And since then, Reich has replaced this image in the Wikipedia article that depends on this, so this one is now orphaned. But I do want to register my strong disagreement with the deletion rationale. I don't think the replacement is of higher quality at all. I think its choice of line width and font size makes for a spindly drawing that has to be blown up to too large a size to be readable, and there's also some ugliness caused by the fact that sequences of arrows sort of line up but are not quite parallel. There's some advantage to using Reich's replacement in the original context due to consistency of appearance with some other related images, but that's not the same as its inherent quality. —David Eppstein (talk) 15:48, 23 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Kept. Cirt (talk) 04:45, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Superseded by (slightly) higher-quality File:Axiom TR4 (caps).svg Ryan Reich (talk) 05:53, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

 Keep In use. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 07:24, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The only "use" is a link from my original image (which I have asked to be deleted on Wikipedia) listing this as another version. No actual article will suffer if this is deleted. Ryan Reich (talk) 20:23, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I can't see what's so superior about your version of the diagram. For a start, it is more than double the filesize for the same information. This is in turn due to the fact that paths have been used exclusively instead of text elements, making the diagram non-editable. Stannered (talk) 11:07, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It is not realistic to edit any SVG file generated automatically from a LaTeX source (and it is not realistic to draw a LaTeX-quality picture without generating it from a LaTeX document); despite possible talk of SVG making the pictures more open, the openness is entirely in providing the source code so the picture can be improved and then regenerated (something which I didn't think when I created the original images on which yours are based). As for the quality difference, which I admit is a minor point, the fonts in yours seem a little clunkier than in mine. The size difference interests me; I am using pdf2svg to generate my images, and I have not found another program (including pstoedit) that actually works. How do you do it? Ryan Reich (talk) 19:15, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

A further point about the size: it is irrelevant, according to the guidelines. We as editors don't care about the technical burden we place on the servers. Ryan Reich (talk) 19:38, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Kept. Cirt (talk) 04:45, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Supserseded by SVG image File:Axiom TR4 (polyhedron).svg Ryan Reich (talk) 05:54, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

 Keep In use. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 07:22, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I am the original author of and only contributor to this image; User:Satipatthana simply transwiki'd it from Wikipedia. There is no point in having raster versions of vector images for these mathematical diagrams as SVG is preferred, so what use could it serve to keep this around? Ryan Reich (talk) 19:35, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Also, it is not in use anywhere. Ryan Reich (talk) 20:21, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Italics do not make one's statements true. This jpg is in use in the article zh:同調代數 and also on a user page. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 20:44, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have gone to CheckUsage on the toolserver and updated all the links to this image now. Sorry for the confusion; I just found out about this tool. Ryan Reich (talk) 22:31, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

•  Keep Anyway, you can simply use {{Vector version available}} and keep both. --Eusebius (talk) 22:10, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Kept. Cirt (talk) 04:45, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Supserseded by SVG file File:Natural transformation.svg Ryan Reich (talk) 05:57, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

 Keep In use. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 07:20, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

After looking at CheckUsage, I believe there are too many references for me to confidently update. I will place a template on this image's page indicating that a vector version is available, and withdraw this (and only this) nomination. Ryan Reich (talk) 22:32, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

•  Keep Raster and SVG can both remain, simply use {{Vector version available}}. --Eusebius (talk) 21:54, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Kept. Cirt (talk) 04:46, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Supserseded by SVG image File:Categorical pushout (expanded).svg Ryan Reich (talk) 19:02, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Why "supsersede" a 5 kB png by a 249 kB svg-file? /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 23:51, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

•  Keep Anyway you can use {{Vector version available}} and keep both. --Eusebius (talk) 22:05, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Kept. Cirt (talk) 04:46, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Replaced by file:BSicon HELI.svg -- Sameboat - 同舟 (talk) 04:27, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

We are having problems with lagged replicating data from other wikis, so while this is not normalized, I suggest some care in deleting duplicates. In any case, it is not necessary to open a deletion request, eventually admins go through Category:Universally replaced by CommonsDelinker and do the necessary deletions. Patrícia ^msg 21:04, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted by 32X: Duplicated of or superseded by: File:BSicon HELI.svg

"OTRS pending" but no OTRS ticket Peter17 (talk) 19:37, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You're an OTRS volunteer? Could not find you on the list. --Eusebius (talk) 22:07, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No, why ? Peter17 (talk) 21:49, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There might be an OTRS e-mail somewhere, I'll ask an OTRS volunteer and close the debate upon confirmation. But it would be a keep anyway, since the file is stated as "own work". --Eusebius (talk) 22:12, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

•  Delete I've checked the OTRS system and I am unable to find any ticket refrencing this image or the user who uploaded it. Why should we delete it then? Well, imo it's out of the project scope and it's likely copyvio from here. J.smith (talk) 03:38, 2 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted. Out of scope, no permission submitted. WJBscribe (talk) 23:51, 28 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Copyright infringement, www.loracraft.com 77.106.155.130 22:26, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted. Not uploader's own work. WJBscribe (talk) 23:52, 28 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Belgium has no freedom of panorama, see COM:FOP Ronn (talk) 16:01, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

•  Keep The sculpture rooms only a smaller part of the photo. Larger part is roomed by Het Steen which is PD...Electron (talk) 08:25, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
•  Delete I disagree with Electron: this is clearly a photo of the sculpture (look at the usage on wikipedias). The monuments behind are not the subject, and it would have been easy to photograph them without having the sculpture in such a prominent place on the photo. Pruneau^talk 23:21, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted. Ecemaml ^{talk to me/habla conmigo} 13:28, 28 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

low quality, no description, no used in some project --—Preceding unsigned comment added by Karelj (talk • contribs) 09:56, January 13, 2009 (UTC)

Keep deletion request was not handled properly; user was NOT notified. user has contributed several images (self-made), emphasizing close up views & textures. image has artistic merit, & potential uses.

Lx 121 (talk) 05:26, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

 Comment Your rationale for keeping it shouldn't be because the DR wasn't handled properly. I have fixed it and notified the uploader. --Yarnalgo (talk) 22:42, 2 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted. MBisanz ^talk 19:14, 10 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Last author died in 1941, I'm afraid it cannot be PD-old, only PD-US (authors are from Hungary, which apparently needs 70 years after the death of authors). Eusebius (talk) 09:21, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

 Keep according to {{PD-HU-exempt}}. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 10:23, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't find that template... I don't think the image is a "documents issued by an authority or other official organ" if it is what you mean, I think it is a work based on the official census, not the census itself. I understand this work was produced by the authors as university scholars, not as employees of the government. I think that Teleki was not one at the time, and that Nopcsa was not officially working for the government (I'm unsure about that, WP article says he was a spy during the war). Yet, they both were university professors in 1918. --Eusebius (talk) 10:36, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

But according to the description, this map was presented by the Hungarian delegation at the Paris Peace Conference. That should count as official documents. Of course, this is a 1999 law. Probably older laws are more applicable. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 11:09, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Besides, in the referred book it states (apge 49): "Teleki and Nopcsa finished their map in January [1919]. The work was the result of the cooperation of several agencies. These were the Industrial Arts University, the Hungarian Geographical Society, the Bureau of Statistics and the Ministry of Commerce". I am no lawyer but I would say these can be considered as "official organs"...--Windwhistler (talk) 17:56, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

•  Delete, also the author (Teleki) is not a reliable source. --Wizzard (talk) 11:25, 23 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  Why? --Eusebius (talk) 11:32, 23 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Because Pál Teleki was a protagonist for Kingdom of Hungary preservation and his maps may be tendential and inaccurate. --Wizzard (talk) 13:56, 23 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That might be true (I guess your sentence is not an implication), but this has nothing to do with the copyright status of the file (unless the 1918 original is proved a copyvio). Actually it is pretty valuable to have on Commons even partial or manipulated documents, as soon as this has a historical value. Historical propaganda documents are valuable, in other words. Anyway, the document is perfectly in Commons scope and this is not a reason for deletion. Thanks for the info though. --Eusebius (talk) 14:11, 23 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Teleki was indeed one-sided and stood for Hungarian nationalism but that is no reason to delete the map. It should probably be marked as propaganda, but even so I consider it rather useful. It could be used to illustrate the Hungarian delegation position in the Paris Peace Conference, where it was used, for instance. Unless there is any relevant reason to delete it due to copyright violation (and I see none so far), I would definitly keep it.--Rowanwindwhistler (talk) 10:01, 31 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted per nominator MichaelMaggs (talk) 08:00, 11 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If the image is from Dutch Space, www.dutchspace.nl there is no OTRS ticket or any serious proof it has been allowed for use --193.56.37.1 10:26, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted MichaelMaggs (talk) 08:02, 11 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I believe it's not self-made since there is http://www.csw.ucla.edu/Newsletter/Jan07/tyler.html (it would be a derivative work). I'm not sure it's public domain because there's no information about the picture: who made it and when. It may be public domain because Teresa Juliana was born around 1676, but I can't say if it was made recently by some artist. If no information is found about the picture, I believe it should be deleted. --Juninho01 (talk) 16:44, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted. MichaelMaggs (talk) 08:03, 11 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

originally from en.WP, was deleted there because of unclear licensing. see [3] Lychee (talk) 17:28, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted. odder 19:34, 14 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Doubtful that this image is the uploaders own work, two reasons for doubts: 1) The uploader provides images made with a Samsung Techwin, expect this iamge wich is made with a different camera. 2) The image contains a black bar at the bottom, looks like a website notice that appears at websites like this has been removed. Martin H. (talk) 18:48, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Não é pra remover porque a foto é minha pode ter sido colocado em outros sites, porque coloquei primeiramente no meu ORKUT!!!

Alias a foto é de 2005 e lá eu não tinha a Samsung Techwin, tinha uma sony que era de um amigo meu em 2005!!

Deleted, agree with nominator. Kameraad Pjotr 19:12, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

reason=wrong format, unused,

Deleted, out of Project scope. Kameraad Pjotr 17:06, 21 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

image with no identification--Karel (talk) 21:20, 13 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

don't see a reason for deletion. It is categorized as "Unidentified island" and if someone recognizes or remebers the island, he/she may add it to the description and replace the category. --Telim tor (talk) 13:28, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Kept, per Telim tor. Kameraad Pjotr 17:08, 21 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Not used in wikipedia, no identification of person

Deleted, out of Project scope. Kameraad Pjotr 17:07, 21 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

low quality, no description, no used in some project

Kept, fits perfectly into the Project scope. Kameraad Pjotr 19:10, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

no encyclopedic value, poor description, no used in some project

Kept, image is used on a User page (although it falls out of the Project scope otherwise). Kameraad Pjotr 17:05, 21 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Babel-optimized version (44px x 44px) available under File:Oscilloscope Icon Babel 1-1.svg. -- Turnvater Jahn (talk) 18:13, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted, user request (not used). Kameraad Pjotr 15:19, 22 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]