Commons:Deletion requests/Archive/2010/01/29

nathaN 24.91.4.117 23:56, 23 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Kept - Invalid rational given by anonymous user; it is well categorised and see no reason to delete. ZooFari 04:56, 29 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This sort of logo is almost certainly the copyright of the zoo Snowmanradio (talk) 11:12, 15 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted. –Tryphon^☂ 08:23, 29 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

source: "google" - clear copyright violation Cholo Aleman (talk) 18:37, 29 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

comment: not the first copyright violation of this user, has been blocked Cholo Aleman (talk) 18:38, 29 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted. Copyright violation. Also the comment "si es mio" is more a joke or a sign that the uploader has not the smallest understanding of Commons - Commons:First steps. --Martin H. (talk) 18:43, 29 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

image for test --KeepOpera (talk) 10:00, 29 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

(non-admin) This kind of pics could be just speedied. Pitke (talk) 11:26, 29 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted. Justass (talk) 21:11, 30 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

because yes Tontosja (talk) 16:12, 29 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted. Platonides (talk) 17:41, 30 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

One photo of person who is not notable. -Techman224^Talk 21:44, 29 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

'Deleted by Justass: Page is out of project scope: content was: File:Fredo le jardinier.jpg Style: Art déco Catégorie eBay: Antiquité du XXème siècle Category:User galleries

Duplicated with File:Baozhongdenpol.JPG. --KeepOpera (talk) 10:09, 29 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Please delete it. I have uploaded it twice due to my lack of experience in wikipedia. Sorry for the inconvenience. ZhangBaozhong

Deleted. Julo (talk) 18:03, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This picture is way too small to be useful.Zognakov (talk) 02:00, 29 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

•  Keep It looks okay to me, plus it is used in the Italian wiki. ZooFari 04:51, 29 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Kept, in use at the Polish Wikipedia, therefore it is within project scope. Blurpeace 08:50, 5 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Possible copyright issues, as its a Gizmodo image Eraserhead1 (talk) 17:51, 29 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

delete Actually the person who took them works for Gizmodo, however any work he does theoretically belongs to the company that is paying for it, but either way the image contains copyrighted elements of the iPhone OS, COM:DW violation.--Terrillja (talk) 20:11, 29 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

keep: All UI elements displayed in the photograph are not eligible for copyright. --ahellwig (talk) 23:43, 29 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Except that they already are copyrighted under US copyright law. We are talking about images hosted in the US which are subject to US laws.--Terrillja (talk) 02:28, 30 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment no, they are not. The software is copyrighted, but that does not make every screenshot from it copyrighted, since some elements of UI interfaces (such as standard controls) are not eligible for copyright (said differently: There's no artistic work involved in creating them) --PaterMcFly (talk) 22:25, 30 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Then do you have ano proof that these are free elements? As I understand it, the proprietary UI shown here as the focus of the image contains IP owned by apple, and if it is non-free software then it cannot be licensed here.--Terrillja (talk) 23:50, 30 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That's not uppon apple to decide. There are things Apple just cannot claim copyright for, because they cannot be copyrighted due to lack of artistic work (even if they say otherwise, see en:Copyfraud.) --PaterMcFly (talk) 15:29, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

comment Thinking about it some more the issue here I guess is whether he is allowed to release work on Flickr as it belongs to his employer. Eraserhead1 (talk) 23:49, 29 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

•  Keep Your argument is specious and assumes facts not in evidence. You have no idea what kind of financial arrangement the photographer has with Gizmodo. -Nard the Bard 22:19, 30 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

comment this also applies to Commons:Deletion requests/File:Steve Jobs with the Apple iPad no logo.jpg Eraserhead1 (talk) 23:11, 30 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

•  Keep - Per arguments presented at Commons:Deletion requests/File:Apple iPad Event02.jpg. -- Petri Krohn (talk) 05:48, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
•  Keep - Surely if this is an argument based on whether or not it is legal to display elements of the UI - This should be a matter for Apple inc. and not Gizmodo. Last I checked this kind of publicity would be welcome in the eyes of Apple. --Chris Schofield (talk) 14:12, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
•  Keep - Agree. --NerdyScienceDude :) ^{(✉ click here to talk to me)} 23:16, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Kept. J.smith (talk) 01:05, 6 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

personal artwork, not in scope, not used Avron (talk) 11:39, 29 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

 Delete - can be speedyly deleted - copyright violation and out of scope Cholo Aleman (talk) 19:02, 29 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• cual es la razon por la cual quieren borrar una imagen que no viola los derechos de autor, no tiene contenido ofencivo y no es sacada por internet; yo no comprendo porque colocan esta imagen aqui si no viola los requisitos requeridos para borrar una imagen. Ivanovick jose solano (talk) 23:37, 5 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted. Out of scope and base image is not uploaders work. --Martin H. (talk) 05:07, 6 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Unused personal image. Out of scope. Pruneau^talk 14:01, 29 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted. Martin H. (talk) 05:13, 6 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Unused personal image. No categories, no meaningful description. Out of scope. Pruneau^talk 14:27, 29 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted. – Kwj2772 (msg) 04:25, 6 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

FOP in Finland for buildings only, sculptor Emil Wikström died in 1942 so not PD yet. --A333 (talk) 19:42, 29 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted by Túrelio: No freedom of panorama in the source country: Copyvio; statued not within FOP in Finland, sculptor not dead long enough (only since 1942, statue enters PD in 2012)

Looks like it is the zoo's map, which almost certainly has the copyright. Snowmanradio (talk) 11:13, 15 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted. Joku Janne^(Fi) (Wikiwiki) 11:47, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This file page has no associated file. Sorry if this is a speedy deletion or non-deletion, but the deletion policy wasn't very clear on what to do in this case. -Ks0stm ^(T•C•G) 05:39, 29 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted. Joku Janne^(Fi) (Wikiwiki) 11:47, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I transfered a lot of Flickr images from enwiki and this was one of them. It should probably not have been transfered since copyright status is unclear. Who took the image? Did (s)he give permission? Now the image is here I suggest a DR instead of a speedy. Perhaps someone can help. MGA73 (talk) 09:09, 29 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

In the original flickr upload you can see that it was taken in a museum (second photo below this one), propably the Jewish Museum in Berlin - derivative work. The museum will have a description. Cholo Aleman (talk) 19:00, 29 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

 Delete per Flickrwash. This is from an individual account, not an institution's account. --Leoboudv (talk) 20:41, 29 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted. Joku Janne^(Fi) (Wikiwiki) 11:48, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

"Author" says "I extracted this pic from one of my DVDs". In other words, his authorship consists of screen-grabbing from an existing work. Not OK. Plrk (talk) 09:50, 29 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It could well be their own made DVD but still the quality is ghastly. Pitke (talk) 11:02, 29 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Possible, but judging by the uploader's other contributions I'd delete it just to be on the safe side. As you say the quality is ghastly anyways. Plrk (talk) 09:22, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted. Joku Janne^(Fi) (Wikiwiki) 11:50, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Dubious source/permission/author ([1]); even if it was okay this one is of tiny resolution, unused, and I can't see any use for it. --Pitke (talk) 09:57, 29 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted. Joku Janne^(Fi) (Wikiwiki) 11:50, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Source is just "Twitter"? At any rate, it certainly isn't PD-ineligible, and is most likely a copyvio. —Angr 10:47, 29 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

delete --Motopark (talk) 16:02, 5 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted. Joku Janne^(Fi) (Wikiwiki) 11:50, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

apparently a personal pic, unused. Eusebius (talk) 11:51, 29 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted. Joku Janne^(Fi) (Wikiwiki) 11:57, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Copyright violation/non-free file. Stated source is OK, but source's source is [2]. Photographer is Otto Perry (1894–1970). Copyright now held by Denver Public Library, Western History Photos. Can be used for education purposes, so OK to host on en.wikipedia, but file is not free, therefore not suitable for Commons --Iain Bell (talk) 11:57, 29 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Educate me, please. It's a 1920 image -- I carefully looked through Perry's images of the class to see if I could find one from before 1923. He was a professional who published pix and postcards, so it's virtually certain that it was published before 1923. Why isn't it, therefore, PD?

Or, does the problem lie with the fact that while the original image is PD, this is a scan, therefore a derivative work, with its own copyright? Thanks, . . . . . . . . Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk • contribs) 18:29, 29 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

•  Keep works published before 1923 are in the public domain. The catalog entry (perform the call number search) says that it was a postcard, so it's fine. (And the fair use rules on en.wp are complex and I don't think this would fit; it's not as simple as "can be used for educational purposes".)--Prosfilaes (talk) 12:54, 30 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
•  Keep Regardless of what the Denver Public Library says, anything published in the USA before 1923 is PD, and scans of PD images don't qualify for copyright protection, so this is a free image. Nyttend (talk) 16:31, 30 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

•  Keep OK, I've educated myself by reading COM:SCAN and it seems pretty clear that it qualifies for {{PD-scan}}. My second paragraph above is wrong. . . . . Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk • contribs) 16:43, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Kept. Published prior to 1923 → Copyright expired --Joku Janne^(Fi) (Wikiwiki) 11:59, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Logo of an unknown band. --Duch.seb (talk) 00:03, 29 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted. Out of the poject scope, Podzemnik (talk) 21:23, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

out of both Wikipedia and commons scope Manuelt15 (talk) 01:51, 29 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Zognakov (talk) 02:01, 29 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

 Delete - far out of scope Cholo Aleman (talk) 18:32, 29 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted. Unused personal photo, Podzemnik (talk) 21:24, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The artist's official website is given as source, so OTRS is needed. I couldn't find the image on chetlam.com, but it is on Facebook: [3]. Unclear copyright status. Pruneau^talk 14:11, 29 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted. Per Psuneau; OTRS permission is needed, Podzemnik (talk) 21:25, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Child's drawing. Out of scope. Pruneau^talk 14:34, 29 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Also nominating this user's other uploads, for the same reason:

• File:Perailiss1.jpg
• File:Peraili1.jpg
• File:Peraili.jpg
• File:Perailiss.jpg

Pruneau^talk 14:36, 29 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

 Delete delete all - out of scope, a joke? Cholo Aleman (talk) 19:17, 29 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

 Comment - user needs to be notified better ?! Cholo Aleman (talk) 19:18, 29 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted. Useless, seems like a joke, Podzemnik (talk) 21:40, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

unused personal picture, no description , only edit of this user - out of scope Cholo Aleman (talk) 18:29, 29 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted. Unused personal image, Podzemnik 21:41, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

unused personal picture - out of scope (what artist??) Cholo Aleman (talk) 18:52, 29 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted. Per nominator, Podzemnik (talk) 21:42, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

unused, out of scope, user with two edits (similar drawing) Cholo Aleman (talk) 19:08, 29 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted. Per nominator, Podzemnik (talk) 21:43, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

fictional ranks from a game - unused - out of scope, nearly a joke Cholo Aleman (talk) 19:23, 29 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted. Out of the project scope, Podzemnik (talk) 21:43, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Image failed review within 4 months of upload and this is the only image from this flickr account. I doubt it was free enough for Commons. Leoboudv (talk) 20:52, 29 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

 Delete On flickr (http://www.flickr.com/photos/rbirnardo/2835650523/) this image is released under a CC non-commercial licence. Furthermore no positive review. A blunder of FaleBot? --High Contrast (talk) 11:44, 30 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted. No evidences that image was ever under CC-BY-2.0 license --Justass (talk) 04:05, 12 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination 1 I'm not convinced you're allowed to remove the watermarking as that is attributation Eraserhead1 (talk) 23:47, 29 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

OK, I've read the rules, and it seems removing Watermarks is how things are done, so I'm retracting this request. Eraserhead1 (talk) 00:31, 30 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I've unhidden your comments, hope you don't mind. Removing logos or making any changes you want to the image is perfectly OK under the CC-BY license, which the original Flickr image had. However, that Flickr user did not have the right to place the image under the CC-BY license, he had stolen the image from Gizmodo who had prominently placed their logo over their (copyrighted) image. Gizmodo only makes their images available under a CC-BY-NC license, which allows alterations (other than removing the logo for attribution) but prohibits commercial use - incompatible with Commons definition of free images. Little Professor (talk) 06:03, 30 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Well the larger argument is about if this person is allowed to release the images as their own as the images were taken while working for Gizmodo. So they took the images, while being paid to do the work, in which case they do not own the rights to the images. Either way, derivative works containing copyrighted elements are not allowed.--Terrillja (talk) 06:20, 30 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination 2 derivative works violation, image contains copyrighted elements such as the software with no evidence of permission from apple--Terrillja (talk) 02:38, 30 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Clear copyright violation of both Apple and Gizmodo, not suitable for Commons Little Professor (talk)

Delete I would not have prepared and uploaded this version if the copyvio tag had been present on File:Steve Jobs with the Apple iPad.jpg at the time. William Avery (talk) 15:59, 30 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It was on there, but I was reverted twice with reasoning being that the copyright laws do not apply in Germany.... uh, yeah. Last time I looked at a map florida was in the US, but that's just me. --Terrillja (talk) 18:12, 30 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

comment this also applies to Commons:Deletion_requests/File:Apple_iPad_Event03.jpg Eraserhead1 (talk) 23:10, 30 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep I don't think that this is a derivative works violation. The focus of the picture is more on Steve jobs presenting a product than the interface of a device. the interface is slightly out of focus to emphasis this fact Andyzweb (talk) 06:05, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
•  Keep - Per arguments presented at Commons:Deletion requests/File:Steve Jobs with the Apple iPad.jpg. -- Petri Krohn (talk) 06:28, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
•  Keep Agree, COM:DM. The image focuses on Steve Jobs and not the interface. --NerdyScienceDude :) ^{(✉ click here to talk to me)} 23:29, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Kept. De minimis --Justass (talk) 03:57, 12 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Unused personal image. Out of scope. Pruneau^talk 14:28, 29 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Same thing for this user's other upload: File:Tschimann.jpg. Pruneau^talk 14:29, 29 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

L: ok, delete. --Pullus In Fabula (talk) 16:52, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted. Unused personal images --Justass (talk) 04:33, 12 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Non-free logo, see here Smooth_O (talk) 18:24, 29 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted. We had that deletion discussion various times. E.g. [[:Commons:Deletion requests/File:Flag of Africa.svg ]], Commons:Deletion requests/File:Logo of the African Union.png, Commons:Deletion requests/Logo of the African Union.svg. --Martin H. (talk) 09:28, 12 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The resolution seems to show that the uploader is not the author. A larger version is available here--TwoWings * to talk or not to talk... 18:49, 29 January 2010 (UTC) --TwoWings * to talk or not to talk... 18:50, 29 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted. Photo by Laurent Gillieron/European Pressphoto Agency [4] -Justass (talk) 04:40, 12 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Insufficiently qualified name, see instead Category:Table sort icons --verdy_p (talk) 19:55, 29 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted by Rocket000: empty category

This image appears to fail COM:DW. The copyrighted user interface and software screen are the main focus of the work, so irrespective of the copyright status of the photo, we can't use it. Stifle (talk) 11:22, 29 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

delete The copyrighted UI and software are the focus of the image.--Terrillja (talk) 13:51, 29 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Clear copyright violation, not suitable for Commons Little Professor (talk) 05:49, 30 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

"'Keep"' WHAT! You two are absolutely crazy. If you are going to delete this image, why not deleate the other photos on the pages for

and Template:IPod touch, or Template:Mac OS X, or Template:IMac, and etc. Even though the image of OS is copyright violation, there is absolutley no way, and I MEAN absolutley no way, the iPad can be explained without the picture of the operating system. If you proceed with the deletion, I will proceed with nomination to delete all the OS images related to iPhone. Then how will people know what the iPad or iPhone or iPod touch's OS going to look like? Think about it before nominating for delation, GOT IT?  Bentoman (talk) 01:17, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Well images like this are allowed on the wikis that allow for fair use. That is where the images for the iPhone and iPod Touch are kept. Calm down.--Terrillja (talk) 01:59, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete does not belong on the commons. Andyzweb (talk) 05:49, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

•  Keep - Per de minimis. Quoting from Commons:de minimis:

The user interface software is not the "subject" of this image, but the iPad. The main subject of the original this was cropped from is the huge enthusiasm generated by the iPad. This enthusiasm is present also in the cropped version in the way the hands are holding the device and presenting it to the (now invisible) photographer.

If this crop cannot be maintained for copyright reasons, the image should be restored to the original or to a less cropped version. -- Petri Krohn (talk) 06:01, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

P.S. - I now see that the image has been photoshopped to remove the protruding camera lens from the cropped frame. The photoshoping should be undone and the camera restored. -- Petri Krohn (talk) 06:38, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

then your vote is not keep but alter or rollback? Andyzweb (talk) 07:27, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

My vote is to keep, but I will not object to alter or rollback if it makes you happy. -- Petri Krohn (talk) 13:25, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

 Comment/ Delete -- if this passes deletion I would rather see it reverted to the non cropped version rather than totally deleted. I know its silly but to me it makes sense Andyzweb (talk) 23:16, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

•  Keep If the OS (which is not dead on so focus of the picture seems a bit much) is such a problem, just obscure it with a blur filter or something. Cheers, Nesnad (talk) 15:43, 5 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
•  Keep Per arguments presented at other iPad deletions. -NerdyScienceDude :) (✉ click to talk • my edits) 16:52, 6 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

 Question: Which arguments? could you be more specific? Andyzweb (talk) 17:31, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Pretty much all of the arguments presented at COM:DRs for images in the category iPad. -NerdyScienceDude :) (✉ click to talk • my edits) 19:38, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

•  Keep Jonjesbuzz (talk) You can't replace the picture.
•  Keep per de minimis. The device is the subject of the image, not the interface. Reach Out to the Truth (talk) 18:41, 27 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Kept, per de minimis. Blurpeace 18:17, 28 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Having read through the previous DR, I am thoroughly unconvinced that this is COM:DM. The wallpaper is a massive fraction of this image, and even the icons are a clearly visible feature of the photograph. This is clearly a COM:DW IMO. We don't have to worry that we will have to resort to fair use, because there are free alternatives like File:IPad-showing-OpenStreetMap1.jpg. 99of9 (talk) 06:39, 14 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

•  Delete The previous closure was improper. Jonjesbuzz and NerdyScienceDude did not qualify their positions; Benotoman presented an OTHERSTUFF rant; and Nesnad did not opine on on the issue, but suggested blurring if an issue exists. These opinions thus should have been give little, if any, weight. Reach Out to the Truth's position regarding the subject seems incorrect. The interface is the central focus and, indeed, what is a tablet but a large interface? The bezel is largely technical necessity. Further, even other proponents of retaining this image contradicted that position in this very discussion ("and I MEAN absolutley [sic] no way, the iPad can be explained without the picture of the operating system"). Finally, the passage cited by Petri Krohn as a keep rationale is true, but applies to the original, uncropped image, not to the crop. What reusers of the full original do is up to them, but Commons cannot host crops whose subject is unambiguously copyrighted. Эlcobbola _talk 16:35, 28 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted, per 99of9's. de minimis clearly does not apply. --Ecemaml ^{talk to me/habla conmigo} 00:08, 29 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Also nominated: File:Quilmes beer 1146.jpg, File:11-02-07 1722.jpg, File:Botella de Cerveza Quilmes.jpg

There's no rationale provided on why the logo of Quilmes itself (which is not the work of any user here) may be public domain. It may be, Quilmes is a very old brand, but it must be detailed, with authorship information, date of creation and related licence.

No se indica por qué el logo mismo de Quilmes estaría en el dominio público. Podría estarlo, Quilmes es una marca vieja, pero tiene que aclararse, con detalles sobre la autoría, fecha de creación y la licencia que correspondería. Belgrano (talk) 16:53, 29 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted by Barcex: Copyright violation

looks funny, but unnotable band from argentina - out of scope, unused Cholo Aleman (talk) 18:57, 29 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted. Wknight94 ^talk 18:33, 20 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Private image collection - not realistically useful for an educational purpose; not used in any wikipage. Elekhh (talk) 01:17, 29 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Deleted per nomination       Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 12:22, 28 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

personal artwork, unused and unusable - out of scope Cholo Aleman (talk) 19:15, 29 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Deleted per nomination       Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 12:38, 28 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

bad duplicate of File:Hanau Neustadt - Neustädter Rathaus (1912).png which was mistakenly uploaded, speedy delete was denied by some stupid user --David Liuzzo (talk) 14:19, 29 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

 Keep Good documentation for the date. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 20:03, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

 Delete It was mistakenly uploaded and the author of this upload - me - wants it to be deleted. The date is documented in File:Hanau Neustadt - Neustädter Rathaus (1912).png. So there is no need for an extra documentation file, the other pictures I uploaded don't have such a corresponding file either. Commons is not a location for useless archive files that won't be used in any project. --David Liuzzo (talk) 15:51, 27 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep
• It costs us very little to keep it and it does document both the date and the location completely.
• I am also, frankly, disinclined to take the side of rudeness. User:Sfu, who removed the speedy delete referred to above, is an admin and the speedy was clearly not appropriate, so calling him "some stupid user" is counterproductive.       Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 12:35, 28 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Redundant to File:4-14 Marines in Fallujah.jpg 141.190.32.71 01:30, 29 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Both deleted. Julo (talk) 17:59, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• File:Jan-und-Michi-springen.jpg (edit · last · history · watch · unwatch · global usage · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel · Delinker log)
• File:Makava-flasche-k.jpg (edit · last · history · watch · unwatch · global usage · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel · Delinker log)
• File:MAKAvA-Fahne-NEU4.gif (edit · last · history · watch · unwatch · global usage · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel · Delinker log)
• File:MAKAvA logo.gif (edit · last · history · watch · unwatch · global usage · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel · Delinker log)

Out of scope as it's advertising and self-promotion. None of the images is used in a lokal Wiki or elsewhere. myself488 (talk) 21:22, 29 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The not-using of the pictures in projects is not a basic for deletion. Picture No. 1 is ok, it is not advertising. The other pictures are a little out of scope. --Botaurus (talk) 21:13, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

In any case we need an additional OTRS conformation that the company has realy released their logo into public domain. It's rather unlikly we will get it. --myself488 (talk) 22:28, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Deleted per nomination       Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 12:43, 28 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

RFD for all files in Category:Biosphere of Genoa. Author is Renzo Piano, and no FOP in Italy.--Trixt (talk) 21:58, 29 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This could fall into Commons:De minimis? --Yoggysot (talk) 01:37, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

•  Keep per de minimis, in particular File:Bolla Piano Genova 1.jpg and File:Genova-puerto.jpg. --Elekhh (talk) 05:39, 23 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted, no FOP in Italy, kept those that are de minimis. Kameraad Pjotr 18:18, 28 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]