Wikimedia Commons

Commons:Deletion requests/Archive/2010/06/03

< Commons:Deletion requests | Archive | 2010/06
Commons logo
Commons logo

This is an archive, please do not edit. Post new cases at Commons:Deletion requests.

You can visit the most recent archive here.

Archive
Archive
Archive June 3rd, 2010
This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.
This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

File:Citrine_(Brésil).jpg

edit

erreur d'identification : pas cristal de citrine mais cristal de quartz jaune Parent Géry (talk) 11:12, 29 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Alors l'image doit être renommée, pas supprimée. Est-ce que vous avez déjà ré-uploadé l'image sous le nom correct? (Si c'est le cas, vous pouvez utiliser {{Bad name}}; sinon, utilisez {{Rename}}.) Then it should be renamed, not deleted. Did you re-upload the image under a correct name already? (If yes, please use {{Bad name}}; otherwise use {{Rename}}.) –Tryphon☂ 14:04, 29 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

deleted, Uploader request: Delete reason: erreur d'identification : pas cristal de citrine mais cristal de quartz jaune. Rename isn't an alternative, because you don't know, what name the uploader wishes to give. -- Ra'ike T C 20:22, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

kept, after veto on my disc. and marked with Template:Fact disputed. --Ra'ike T C 20:55, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

File:AleAlejandro.jpg

edit

Music video screenshot 78.34.220.66 00:29, 3 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No creo que tenga que ser borrada la imagen. --Trivia harrypotter (talk) 02:40, 3 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted. Uploading screenshot to your Flickr account doesn't make you author nor copyright holder Justass (talk) 06:44, 3 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

File:Geethu Mohandas.jpg

edit

Source file deleted due to Copyright violation --Dpkpm007 (talk) 01:27, 3 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted by DieBuche: Commons:Deletion requests/File:Geethu Mohandas.jpg : Source file deleted due to Copyright violation

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

File:Carla_forseti.jpg

edit

Personal and copyrighted photo from http://pt-br.facebook.com/carla.forseti André Koehne TALK TO ME 04:42, 3 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted by DieBuche: Commons:Deletion requests/File:Carla forseti.jpg: Personal and copyrighted photo from http://pt-br.facebook.com/carla.forseti

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

File:Untitlejgjgd.jpg

edit

Appears to be an attack image or a joke, as it has been placed in "Category:FBI Ten Most Wanted Fugitives". Insufficient indication that uploader owns the copyright in the image. This is the uploader's only upload so far. — Cheers, JackLee –talk– 18:11, 3 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

 Delete Out of scope, I'd say. Unused, and no encyclopedical usage possible. --Guandalug (talk) 19:01, 3 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted. Common Good (talk) 21:11, 3 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

File:110-1063 IMG.JPG

edit

Unacceptable restriction on commercial use. --     Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 15:04, 3 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

 Delete as per nomination. Might want to try explaining the situation to the uploader to see if he or she will remove the limitation. — Cheers, JackLee –talk– 17:12, 3 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Kept. Uploader changed license per request. Thanks.      Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 17:33, 6 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

File:Basque_penis_side_view_1.jpg

edit

Too blurry to be of practical use Tabercil (talk) 23:41, 3 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted. Mbdortmund (talk) 20:01, 8 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

File:Basque_penis_side_view_2.jpg

edit

Too blurry to be of practical use Tabercil (talk) 23:43, 3 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted. Mbdortmund (talk) 20:02, 8 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

File:Mf1.jpg

edit

File:Mf1.jpg Aloneking47 (talk) 07:28, 3 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

PD-text applies. out of scope though--DieBuche (talk) 10:54, 3 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
 Delete something to do with en:MillatFacebook, some ephemeral facebook group. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 09:20, 5 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted / Out of scope.--Fanghong (talk) 01:04, 10 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

File:@eye7.jpg

edit

only used on a deletet de:WP site. could be copyvio. not sure if useful. Amada44 (talk) 08:56, 3 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted / Out of scope.--Fanghong (talk) 01:06, 10 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

File:Uña de gato.jpg

edit

unused, bad quality and probably not useful --4028mdk09 (talk) 22:17, 3 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

 Delete Unusable, this way.--Giorgiomonteforti (talk) 16:37, 9 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted per discussion. abf «Cabale!» 18:14, 10 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

File:Korea-Gyeongju_City_Hall-01.jpg

edit

This is based on an original image which failed review. Commons cannot keep it in this circumstance sadly. Leoboudv (talk) 04:40, 3 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted.      Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 12:11, 11 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

File:Cubi_XI_by_David_Smith_(1963)_SOS!_Control_IAS_77006494.jpg

edit

No FOP in the US for artworks.(talk) 09:26, 3 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Same here:

--Eusebius (talk) 09:30, 3 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

 Delete as per nomination. — Cheers, JackLee –talk– 17:14, 3 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

One more:

--Eusebius (talk) 21:41, 4 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted no FOP on art in the USA. 99of9 (talk) 11:57, 11 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

File:Battle of Towton Site - geograph.org.uk - 90812.jpg

edit

the copyrighted map (signboard) is too prominent (~40%), thus not qualifying for de minimis; UK has no freedom of panorama for 2D works of art (this is not a work of artistic craftsmanship, see Commons:Freedom of panorama#United Kingdom). Converted from speedy--DieBuche (talk) 10:50, 3 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted.      Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 12:13, 11 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

File:Indian Passport.jpg

edit

Indian copyright law has no provisions for official symbols and the like, and, unfortunately, this probably doesn't fall under the too simple for copyright rules, unless the symbol in the middle - the only copyrightable part of the design - has been in use long enough to be public domain. Adam Cuerden (talk) 13:38, 3 June 2010 (UTC) --Adam Cuerden (talk) 13:38, 3 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

For the record, the Emblem was adopted on 26 January 1950 (see en:Emblem of India) and copyright on Indian governmental works expires 60 years after creation. That may mean it's (barely) in copyright, or it may mean it's out of copyright, due to lead in times. If it's copyrighted, File:Emblem_of_India.svg and various other things should be deleted (until January). Adam Cuerden (talk) 13:48, 3 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I have notified WikiProject India because this discussion needs a thorough debate. --JovianEye (talk) 14:14, 3 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]


It was adopted on 26 January 1950, but was designed earlier (Indian constituent assembly was constituted in December 1946, so this the emblem must have been designed sometime between the two dates). So what constitutes "publication" here? The govt must have issued press releases showing the emblem before 26 january 50. Can that date be taken as the date of publication?--Sodabottle (talk) 14:24, 3 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Would the fact that sixty years have elapsed since its adoption not make it out of copyright, and therefore suitable for use on Commons? Regards, SBC-YPR (talk) 16:35, 3 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Copyright expires on the next January 1st. So if it was created on (say) January 7th 1950, copyright expires January 1st 2011. Adam Cuerden (talk) 16:45, 3 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
That's not so clear for all countries. Not every copyright law defines the date of expiration to the next January 1st. Don't know about india, though. But I agree with Sodabottle, there has most likely been a press release showing the emblem before it was accepted. --PaterMcFly (talk) 08:24, 4 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Adam is right. Section 28 of the Indian Copyright Act, 1957 states:

28. Term of copyright in Government work.- In the case of Government work, where Government is the first owner of the copyright therein, copyright shall subsist until sixty years from the beginning of the calendar year next following the year in which the work is first published.

(emphasis supplied) This would mean that the copyright for the emblem would expire sixty years from the beginning of the year following the one where the emblem was first published. Sodabottle, do you have any idea as to the details of prior publication of the emblem? Regards, SBC-YPR (talk) 15:44, 4 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I am chasing it down. The flag was adopted on July 22 1947 and unveiled. In the minutes of the meeting that finally agreed on the flag, in july 47, a post script says the emblem was not agreed upon and the discussion postponed. So emblem was finalised after july 47. It would have been published in a government gazette.--Sodabottle (talk) 06:59, 5 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for managing to locate that! And sorry about all this work: It's one of those things that, unfortunately, we need to get right, but that doesn't make it fun. =/ 11:28, 5 June 2010 (UTC)
We have a winner - 15 November 1948. The design is described on this date. I don't have concrete proof that the design was published, but the debates were daily/weekly published by the parliament secretariat in the government gazette. Thus if the description is there in the debate it is highly likely that an image would have been there too. So date of first publication is 1948 and ergo copyright expired in 2008.--Sodabottle (talk) 18:33, 5 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Kept.      Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 12:18, 11 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

File:The_Palo_Alto_Egg.jpg

edit

No Commons:Freedom of panorama in USA for sculptures. Modern monument. EugeneZelenko (talk) 15:36, 3 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted.      Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 12:19, 11 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

File:ARTSingapore_2006.JPG

edit

The sculptures were not displayed permanently at the venue but only for the ARTSingapore 2006 event, so {{FoP-Singapore}} does not apply. Sorry. — Cheers, JackLee –talk– 17:08, 3 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted.      Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 12:19, 11 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

File:Entrepreneur's_Letter_290410.JPG

edit

I think that a picture of a newspaper column is copyright to the newspaper, not to the photographer. Fences and windows (talk) 20:52, 3 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted.      Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 12:22, 11 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

File:Caravaggio - Amor vincit omnia.jpg

edit
already existing version
uploaded by Lafit86

User:Lafit86 has uploaded low quality versions (yellow colors, bad contrast) of paintings by Caravaggio, which already existed in good quality version, see example.

He has also replaced the good versions by his in the different wikipedias (which has to be reverted where it has not been yet)...

This case is about all his uploads: File:Caravaggio - Amor vincit omnia.jpg, File:Caravaggio - Giuditta che taglia la testa a Oloferne.jpg, File:Caravaggio - La Flagellazione di Cristo.jpg, etc (see his contributions)...

Also, i think he probably did this because the already existing files are not correctly titled, but uploading crappy versions with a good title was obviously not the solution. (PS: please excuse my english) --89.226.117.72 21:58, 3 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • When he change the pictures, he must know the others. At this pic, the title is German (it is in an German Gallery) He could add the italian title.
  • "own work" in his uploads is false.
  • His picture ist nice, has "warm colors". But tastes are different. It is not original, looks retouched or copied. It is bigger.
  • Here a exhibition from 2007 with also full picture The colors are very brrr. To green. It shows more details, but not all. There is also the German title "Armor als Sieger". This picture is from the original Museum "Staatliche Gemäldegalerie". Here the picture with lookers. The picture with Frame. Also --Fg68at de:Disk 05:41, 4 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Kept.      Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 12:25, 11 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

File:Charger.PNG

edit

unused, bad quality and probably not useful --4028mdk09 (talk) 10:06, 3 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

 Keep Useful.--Giorgiomonteforti (talk) 16:35, 9 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Kept. Common Good (talk) 19:30, 11 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

File:Official_mourning_after_2010_Polish_plane_crash_in_Smolensk_map.PNG

edit

this is a wrong map with false information; in Germany there were no official mourning (no refs) Patrol110 (talk) 14:12, 3 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Kept. Julo (talk) 12:12, 12 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

File:Robert_Adams_-_Los_Angeles_-_early_1990s.jpg

edit

Copyright tag obviously wrong--author can't have died in 1940 if it was taken in 2005, and it was not created before 1890.  fetchcomms☛ 22:06, 3 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

OTRS ccbysa30 rec'd and processed. can close this. — Rlevse • Talk • 23:42, 5 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Kept. –Juliancolton | Talk 16:28, 14 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

File:Robert_adams_clip_1_-_you_are_like_a_gigantic_screen.ogg

edit

Copyright tag obviously wrong--author can't have died in 1940 if it was made after that, and it was not created before 1890.  fetchcomms☛ 22:11, 3 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

OTRS ccbysa30 rec'd and processed. can close this. — Rlevse • Talk • 23:44, 5 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Kept. –Juliancolton | Talk 16:28, 14 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

File:Robert_adams_clip_2_-_now_what_does_this_have_to_do_with_you.ogg

edit

Copyright tag obviously wrong--author can't have died in 1940 if it was made after that, and it was not created before 1890.  fetchcomms☛ 22:13, 3 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

OTRS ccbysa30 rec'd and processed. can close this. — Rlevse • Talk • 23:46, 5 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Kept. –Juliancolton | Talk 16:28, 14 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

File:Amnh_fg06.jpg

edit

No freedom of panorama in the United States; sculpture. Blurpeace 02:00, 3 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sculpture? Are you sure? Looks like a picture from a picture to me. However, lacks information on age. --PaterMcFly (talk) 06:48, 3 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Why? I asked at the entrance of the museum and they told me that making photographs is allowed and there is no restriction. Wikimedia has thousends of images from Natural History Museums. Do you intend to delate them all? The images are made in public natural history exhibitions - not in art institutes! A reconstruction of an animal isn't art. All the images are created for education and advertising for the institution itself. Is there any demand of the AMNH? Yours --Dysmachus (talk) 10:26, 4 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
 Keep I agree with Dysmachus. Reconstructions in a natural history museum cannot be considered as sculptures.--Giorgiomonteforti (talk) 16:34, 9 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
"Except where noted, photography for personal use is allowed .... Reproduction or sale of photographs is not allowed without Museum permission."
     Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 12:09, 11 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted. Avi (talk) 15:53, 8 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

File:Opera O.svg

edit

Not sure if the 3D version with shades and depth is still {{PD-textlogo}} --–Krinkletalk 17:24, 3 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  •  Delete No, actually it does not say that. It says only:
"Let the world know that you like Opera by placing an Opera button on your site, blog, or in your e-mail signature."
That is a very limited permission. It is silent on the subject of modification, derivative works, and commercial use and, of course, each page of the Opera web site has a copyright notice at the bottom. So, we have a copyrighted logo with a permission that does not meet our requirements. That's a delete.      Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 20:08, 14 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
This image can't be displayed on other languages Wikipedias but Firefox logo can. Why? --Rafaelluik (talk) 21:26, 16 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Where? Firefox doesn't has the logo, because it is copyrighted, but a few customized and similar logos, but it's not the logo. --Diego Grez return fire 02:10, 18 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Hm, what about http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Google_Chrome_wordmark.png that appears in http://pt.wikipedia.org/wiki/Google_Chrome? WAIT WAIT, can I simply revert the pics to the previous versions? I really don't want the file to be deleted because if it happens a bot will remove the link from everywhere it's used...! I prefer to have the old icon than nothing... Is that possible I can keep the links in the articles that way (reverting to the old free image) Please??? --Rafaelluik (talk) 20:23, 21 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Well, if we want to keep the old logo around, the file should probably be renamed to "Old Opera O Logo" or something like that, since it doesn't represent the current project. And I would hope that any bot that would want to remove links from everywhere could be programmed to instead just change the references to refer to the image on Wikipedia under fair use, although I don't know how that works exactly. --PeterCooperJr (talk) 12:26, 1 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I meant I could revert it to the old version of the picture to avoid the deletion, then me or a friend from My Opera community would upload a new version that looks more with the new logo to represent it better. Is that ok? --Rafaelluik (talk) 19:16, 6 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Kept as this does not the minimal threshold of originality. Compare this with File:I heart my marine.png which was rejected by the United States Copyright Office on grounds which also apply in this case. --AFBorchert (talk) 21:09, 12 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

File:Olympic Lungtas.jpg

edit

possible copyvio, © symbol. Converted from speedy --DieBuche (talk) 10:59, 3 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

 Keep disagree. reproduction of 2D PD-text object. Horse drawings are de-mimis imho--DieBuche (talk) 10:59, 3 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Kept. Dereckson (talk) 17:38, 7 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Commons:Deletion_requests/Archive/2010/06/03&oldid=43656851"