Commons:Deletion requests/Archive/2009/03/25
 |
This is an archive, please do not edit. Post new cases at Commons:Deletion requests. You can visit the most recent archive here. |
 |
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
out of COM:SCOPE; mobil-phone image of obviously non-notable person, only described as "so sexy" by uploader; as of yet unused. Túrelio (talk) 08:45, 25 March 2009 (UTC)
Delete per above, unless notability is proven. -- Deadstar (msg) 09:30, 25 March 2009 (UTC)
Deleted. Out of scope. Yann (talk) 18:51, 25 March 2009 (UTC)
Image is too prevelant on the net to be "own work" - see here for TinEye report Tabercil (talk) 23:37, 25 March 2009 (UTC)
- Delete The search timed out but I agree this image is a likely copy vio. --Leoboudv (talk) 05:56, 26 March 2009 (UTC)
Deleted, copyviol. [1] credits it to "The CW/Andrew Eccles". -- Infrogmation (talk) 23:40, 26 March 2009 (UTC)
Copyright violation --Eduloqui (talk) 18:16, 2 January 2009 (UTC)
- Delete Clearly a violation. OSX (talk • contributions) 02:12, 26 March 2009 (UTC)
Deleted. MichaelMaggs (talk) 11:09, 27 March 2009 (UTC)
The plaque is copyrighted, it says this at the bottom: Copyright: The Estate of Cicely Mary Barker 1944, 1990. By permission of Frederick Warne. Cicely Mary Barker as a young woman. Courtesy of Martin Barker. -- Deadstar (msg) 09:22, 25 March 2009 (UTC)
- (Keep et Comment) Deadstar, you should make clear. What laws say the photo of this plaquette is copyright-vio? Surely, there are letters "Copyright: The Estate of Cicely Mary Barker etc.". But this plaquette is located and fixed outdoors. This means it is a part of landscape and taking photos of these things are not copyright-vio in our laws. These photos are PD and/or not violation of copyrights.--Stella maris (talk) 02:16, 28 March 2009 (UTC)
- Ok then, there is copyrighted material visible in the image. This means that this is now a derivative, and as such is liable for deletion. -- Deadstar (msg) 14:46, 31 March 2009 (UTC)
Kept. Per COM:FOP#United Kingdom. –Tryphon☂ 08:58, 1 April 2009 (UTC)
Previous closure was incorrect. UK FOP does not apply to 2D works such as signs or posters unless they are "works of artistic craftsmanship" (which this machine-printed sign certainly is not). Contains numerous non-free copyrighted elements including extensive text, multiple drawings and photos. Dcoetzee (talk) 03:19, 24 December 2010 (UTC)
I do not mind. However you should know that there is a derived picture, wich is placed at the en.wiki for Cicely Mary Baker .--Waxxzer (talk) 07:35, 24 December 2010 (UTC)
- Delete for reasons stated by Dcoetzee. In fact, the plaquette itself states at the bottom "Copyright © The Estate of Cicely Mary Barker, 1944, 1990". I have nominated "File:CMB-memorial-pl-mod.jpg", which is here at the Commons and not at the English Wikipedia, for speedy deletion as an unauthorized derivative work. — Cheers, JackLee –talk– 16:20, 25 December 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 16:30, 4 January 2011 (UTC)
logo for a radio station. (http://www.kink.fm) User cannot release this into the public domain. However, it might qualify as text-logo? -- Deadstar (msg) 09:28, 25 March 2009 (UTC) And
- File:Kink fm logo.jpg is another one that might qualify as text-logo.
- However, the following uploads by the same user are from the same source website, and qualify as copyvios:
Deleted. The logo is too complex for {{PD-textlogo}} (File:Kink fm logo.jpg is perfectly fine though); the last two files are obvious copyright violations. –Tryphon☂ 09:01, 1 April 2009 (UTC)
Image was found to be licensed as "All rights reserved" within only 7 weeks of upload. There is no evidence the license was any different at time of upload. It is still licensed as 'All rights reserved.' Leoboudv (talk) 09:55, 25 March 2009 (UTC)
- Delete per nom; unfree on Flickr at least since 2007, no confirmation it was ever free licensed. -- Infrogmation (talk) 17:13, 25 March 2009 (UTC)
- Delete I uploaded this photo a long time ago. I doubt if I was aware of the copyright rules on Commons at that time. This doesn't really matter since there is no proof that this photo was ever free licensed, so it should be deleted Joris (talk) 17:40, 25 March 2009 (UTC)
- Delete per nom and uploader. OSX (talk • contributions) 02:10, 26 March 2009 (UTC)
Deleted. MBisanz talk 05:58, 1 April 2009 (UTC)
Copyvio Apple.com Kyro (talk) 10:08, 25 March 2009 (UTC)
Deleted. –Tryphon☂ 09:03, 1 April 2009 (UTC)
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
already here : File:Shuffle_and_iMac.jpg Kyro (talk) 10:06, 25 March 2009 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
Deleted. –Tryphon☂ 09:05, 1 April 2009 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
Copyvio Kyro (talk) 10:59, 25 March 2009 (UTC)
Deleted. Copyright violation [2]. –Tryphon☂ 09:06, 1 April 2009 (UTC)
![[2]](http://www.xannytech.net/wp-content/uploads/2008/07/iphone-3g_black-white1.jpg){kind=link}
Copyrited interface -> Copyvio Kyro (talk) 11:00, 25 March 2009 (UTC)
Deleted. –Tryphon☂ 09:08, 1 April 2009 (UTC)
Copyrited interface -> Copyvio Kyro (talk) 11:01, 25 March 2009 (UTC)
Deleted. –Tryphon☂ 09:10, 1 April 2009 (UTC)
Copyrited interface -> Copyvio Kyro (talk) 11:01, 25 March 2009 (UTC)
Deleted. –Tryphon☂ 09:10, 1 April 2009 (UTC)
Copyrited interface -> Copyvio Kyro (talk) 11:01, 25 March 2009 (UTC)
Deleted. –Tryphon☂ 09:10, 1 April 2009 (UTC)
copyrighted interface Kyro (talk) 11:33, 25 March 2009 (UTC)
Deleted. –Tryphon☂ 09:11, 1 April 2009 (UTC)
Updated with official data. The storm no longer qualifies as a tropical storm. This file SHOULD NOT be used. (This is part of a deletion request that was incomplete, originally filed by Potapych (talk · contribs).
Comment I don't really understand what the problem with this file is. --Patrícia msg 12:04, 25 March 2009 (UTC))- Comment Why don't you just place a rename request for it instead of deleting it? --Leoboudv (talk) 19:58, 25 March 2009 (UTC)
Kept. The file can be renamed and the description updated. –Tryphon☂ 09:12, 1 April 2009 (UTC)
No info at all. FunkMonk (talk) 12:32, 25 March 2009 (UTC)
- Agree. Note: In such cases you can simply tag the image with "no source" {{subst:nsd}}, notify the uploader, and do not need to list them here at deletion requests. -- Infrogmation (talk) 17:11, 25 March 2009 (UTC)
- Comment I notice all this uploader's images either lack a source or an author. This is not acceptable. There has to be at least a source so that we can validate that the image depicts the subject correctly. They may be possible copyvios. I suggest the possibility of deleting all or most of them. --Leoboudv (talk) 05:50, 26 March 2009 (UTC)
Deleted. Missing essential source information; tagged all the user's uploads with {{No source}}. –Tryphon☂ 09:17, 1 April 2009 (UTC)
Author request, inferior version and file type of File:Archaeornithoides skull.png IJReid (talk) 02:02, 1 March 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: uploader's request. --Ymblanter (talk) 19:47, 8 March 2016 (UTC)
Since when are images from USSR's DoD archives in the public domain? Even if the newspaper in which this photo was found is not existing in nowadays, that does also mean that it's in the public domain. High Contrast (talk) 13:32, 25 March 2009 (UTC)
Deleted. No reason why this image would be in public domain. –Tryphon☂ 09:56, 1 April 2009 (UTC)
Can't find anything on source site stating image is PD (mind you, it's in Italian which I don't speak); as well, image can be found elsewhere on the net (here for example) Tabercil (talk) 23:07, 25 March 2009 (UTC)
Deleted. –Tryphon☂ 09:55, 1 April 2009 (UTC)
Google Images is not a source, sorry, Ciell (talk) 09:46, 25 March 2009 (UTC)
- Strange, though uploader said Source=Google, the image was uploaded on Jun 21, 2007 to Picasa under CC-BY-SA 3.0 by a user called Sotti, the same name as our uploader.--Túrelio (talk) 10:14, 25 March 2009 (UTC)
- Hmm, indeed and the same strange thing seems to be going on with his other uploads? I don't get it... Ciell (talk) 12:14, 25 March 2009 (UTC)
deleted, no proper source, may be uploaded again with update information --Polarlys (talk) 23:40, 1 April 2009 (UTC)
Painting (Artwork) from 2006 ---- Deadstar (msg) 09:46, 25 March 2009 (UTC)
- I've put a notice on the :nl-talkpage of the uploader, but he wasn't active since 2007.--Túrelio (talk) 09:57, 25 March 2009 (UTC)
deleted, --Polarlys (talk) 23:39, 1 April 2009 (UTC)
I don't want to delete this picture as it's such a lovely painting and much used. But it's clearly been inspired by a DVD cover (see[3]). It's not been copied but the particular pose and framing are the same and I suspect that it is precisely these elements that the photographer would claim as their artistic input. Simonxag (talk) 12:48, 25 March 2009 (UTC)
![[3]](http://thecia.com.au/reviews/l/images/leonard-cohen-i-m-your-man-poster-0.jpg){kind=link}
- Delete per nom. Agree, a nice work of art, but very clearly based on that particular photo. Sorry, derivitive of copyrighted work. -- Infrogmation (talk) 16:55, 25 March 2009 (UTC)
- Comment: while they are very similar, they are quite different too. This is one of those hard to decide images. Any other thoughts? OSX (talk • contributions) 02:14, 26 March 2009 (UTC)
deleted, derivative work (and if you ask me: a blatant one)--Polarlys (talk) 23:38, 1 April 2009 (UTC)
- Hello. I saw, that you discused about my watercolour. Sorry, but I didn't copy the photo of an album. I saw the shot on some flyer in Warsaw last year and it inspired me about to paint Cohen, who I really like. This is my point of view, but there's nothing I can do more, becouse you deleted the photo of my painting without asking me about all. I repeat, the image wasn't copied, and wasn't recovered in Photoshop too, if you thought this maybe.
In future, I will not upload any of my artworks any more. I don't want that others are discusing about my work like this.
Good day and have a lot of creative ideas in future. --Inki (talk) 14:12, 2 April 2009 (UTC)
Only SPAM. This football team DOES NOT EXISTS and it haven't a wikipage. It could be an amateur football club. This page is SPAM (This is part of a deletion request that was incomplete, originally filed by 87.11.18.6 (talk · contribs).--Patrícia msg 13:45, 25 March 2009 (UTC))
- I included all images from that category in this DR (they were also tagged with incomplete deletion requests). Some were copyvios from this website and were deleted. In general, they all look like stuff from that or another website, and in any case I doubt it fits COM:PS. Patrícia msg 13:45, 25 March 2009 (UTC)
- Except File:Bacheca 20080701.JPG. Patrícia msg 13:50, 25 March 2009 (UTC)
- It is a bit easy claiming that it is a small and unknown club. The anonymous but heavy reactions makes it smell very much like some sort of local war. If you see that there are web sites around it and the mere fact that they do the trouble to produce and upload the images, they are in project scope. Thankfully, we have no criteria when something is noteworthy, so I fail to understand why this would fall outside the scope. After all, all clubs started small. --Foroa (talk) 18:31, 25 March 2009 (UTC)
deleted, we are no image hoster for individual purposes. No proper source for images, doesn't fit COM:PS.--Polarlys (talk) 23:32, 1 April 2009 (UTC)
Possibly copyvio (not an own work). Image is present in some web pages ([4], [5], [6]) with various resolution. Homonihilis (talk) 13:58, 25 March 2009 (UTC)
deleted, just copyvios from this uploader --Polarlys (talk) 23:28, 1 April 2009 (UTC)
Copyvio. Image of "art" by "Curt götlin" from the description. Uploader cannot release this. -- Deadstar (msg) 14:21, 25 March 2009 (UTC)
- Comment Same image as http://www.fotografgotlin.se/img/album/img_0035.jpg The source site says that the photographer died 1993, but the site is managed by Torsten Götlin, who is probably Torgot, who uploaded this; would require OTRS or a release on the web site. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 14:44, 25 March 2009 (UTC)
deleted, no permission --Polarlys (talk) 23:26, 1 April 2009 (UTC)
Dubious info. Given date clearly wrong; I'm scheptical that the uploader is the actual copyright holder. Image might be PD-US-no notice, but we'd need to see a higher resolution where the fine print of the text is legible-- this looks like a low res thumbnail yoinked from a website, not a scan of an original. --Infrogmation (talk) 16:52, 25 March 2009 (UTC)
deleted, no proper source --Polarlys (talk) 23:25, 1 April 2009 (UTC)
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
out of scope, redundant, subject could have reasonable expectation of privacy from image being distributed online Privatemusings (talk) 04:43, 25 March 2009 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
Keep public place; "personality rights" notice added to image. -- Infrogmation (talk) 17:04, 25 March 2009 (UTC)
- ..which is good, infrog - however doesn't really address my cited concern that the subject may be due the respect of not presuming permission for online distribution. (see below too, and thanks heaps for sorting out the filing of this nom.) Privatemusings (talk) 00:22, 31 March 2009 (UTC)
- Wouldn't "not presuming permission for online distribution" apply equally for most photos taken in public places where there are visible people not known to have given their explicit consent? This sounds to me like an argument for deletion that could apply to a huge number of photos that have been in use on Commons for years (for example, photos like File:Human shields greeted crossing border into Iraq.jpg). Or am I missing something about your argument? Wondering, -- Infrogmation (talk) 01:35, 31 March 2009 (UTC)
- My feeling is that it's possible to delineate between (for example) the image proposed for deletion above, and the image you've linked to. The later I consider excellent, the former unnecessary (and yeah, out of scope etc. etc.). It's my belief that media featuring nudity, created without the permission of the subject is not a good fit for commons - swing by my talk page if you'd like to talk about any of this stuff further :-) cheers, Privatemusings (talk) 04:44, 31 March 2009 (UTC)
- Wouldn't "not presuming permission for online distribution" apply equally for most photos taken in public places where there are visible people not known to have given their explicit consent? This sounds to me like an argument for deletion that could apply to a huge number of photos that have been in use on Commons for years (for example, photos like File:Human shields greeted crossing border into Iraq.jpg). Or am I missing something about your argument? Wondering, -- Infrogmation (talk) 01:35, 31 March 2009 (UTC)
- Delete Long lens suggests that there is a reasonable expectation of privacy. ++Lar: t/c 03:14, 26 March 2009 (UTC)
- Delete - per lar - Huib talk 05:43, 26 March 2009 (UTC)
- Keep What long lens? This is just a normal scene on an Italian beach. People actually are sunbathing this close to eachother - the image is not the result of compression of perspective by a telelens. One American making this photo, another American proposing to delete it - sigh. Its educational might be to educate Privatemusings about European beaches. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 06:44, 26 March 2009 (UTC)
- silly Pieter, you've got me all wrong! Pleasantly familiar as I am with beaches in many and various far flung places, I totally agree and understand that this is a normal scene on an Italian beach, as I mention above however, I think even gorgeous and self-confident italian women are due the respect of not presuming that permission is granted for online distribution and re-use of their image - that'ls all. cheers, Privatemusings (talk) 00:22, 31 March 2009 (UTC)
- Keep Clearly public place. --Foroa (talk) 08:14, 26 March 2009 (UTC)
- Indeed, see above though :-) Privatemusings (talk) 00:22, 31 March 2009 (UTC)
- I can read, thank you. Although I am not impressed by the quality of the picture, from all the pictures in Category:Sunbathing, it is the best representation of the sunbathing atmosphere on a crowded beach. --Foroa (talk) 05:54, 31 March 2009 (UTC)
- Is it really though? All we see is a small group of people sat close together. It isn't really possible to say whether it is actually a crowded beach because the image focuses on a single individual, there just happens to be a few others in the background. Looking at the sunbathing category, there seems to be a number of other images that by showing a wider view, better portray the atmosphere of a crowded beach, File:ManasquanBeach7.12.08ByLuigiNovi5.jpg for example. I find it hard to understand what such a low quality image which shows little of the wider context can really add to our collection whilst it sits unused. I would fully expect a search of Flickr for similar freely licensed photo would uncover many other images of individuals sunbathing of better quality and greater educational value. Adambro (talk) 09:16, 31 March 2009 (UTC)
- I can read, thank you. Although I am not impressed by the quality of the picture, from all the pictures in Category:Sunbathing, it is the best representation of the sunbathing atmosphere on a crowded beach. --Foroa (talk) 05:54, 31 March 2009 (UTC)
- Delete Why the focus on only one person in this public space? --Leoboudv (talk) 09:35, 26 March 2009 (UTC)
- Delete due unused and unlikely to serve any educational purpose so beyond project scope. There are numerous other images of individuals sunbathing, it isn't clear what this low quality image adds to our collection. Adambro (talk) 13:04, 26 March 2009 (UTC)
- Keep in scope, this is what a beach looks like. Multichill (talk) 20:48, 26 March 2009 (UTC)
- heh... well this one made me smile, Multi! - I don't really agree the image has value because it shows what a 'beach' is usefully - to my eye it does a pretty poor job, to be honest... Privatemusings (talk) 00:22, 31 March 2009 (UTC)
- Delete Normally I would say keep, but this is just low quality. Personality rights aren't really an issue since nobody here is identifiable. howcheng {chat} 20:53, 26 March 2009 (UTC)
- Keep, public place, and the picture is not intrusive (she's not trying to hide herself from other people's sight, she didn't accidentally drop her towel, ...) Besides, the subject is not identifiable. I also think it is in scope, even though I doubt it's really what this DR is all about. –Tryphon☂ 09:33, 1 April 2009 (UTC)
deleted, Wikimedia Commons is no place for “spy cam” images. Being in a public place (beach) doesn't make you a “public individual” which can be photographed and published secretly. The person is identifiable and has most likely no interest to illustrate an article on sunbathing just because of being nude somewhere on a beach. Furthermore, the image has a bad quality (circumstances of creation, ehh?), is somewhat out of project scope and we don’t know anything about this “public” place. Maybe it isn't that public. --Polarlys (talk) 23:21, 1 April 2009 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
copyrighted screen on the Hiptop --Jodo (talk) 23:06, 25 March 2009 (UTC)
- Delete This is an OK reason for deletion. The license too is deprecated and the image looks like a possible copy vio. The uploader only placed 2 images on Commons--and his other image is much superior compared to this. Leoboudv (talk) 05:52, 26 March 2009 (UTC)
deleted, --Polarlys (talk) 23:11, 1 April 2009 (UTC)
Derivative work from copyrighted map --Meisam (talk) 08:40, 25 March 2009 (UTC)
- Comment Which copyrighted map? OSX (talk • contributions) 02:06, 26 March 2009 (UTC)
- Keep A specific map can be eligible for copyright, but the concept it represents (the shape of a political area), no. So unless the image is a clear copy (such as a photo or scan) of a identified copyrighted map, then there's no reason to delete this. Belgrano (talk) 18:48, 31 March 2009 (UTC)
- According to the DR's history, the request is made on behalf of User:Elmju from fa.wiki (he's the uploader), so we should delete it. –Tryphon☂ 08:52, 1 April 2009 (UTC)
- Well, that's not what COM:CB#Maps says. And if the uploader himself says it's based on a copyrighted map, I think we can rule out the possibility that it's solely based on public domain data. –Tryphon☂ 11:47, 1 April 2009 (UTC)
Derivative work from copyrighted map --Meisam (talk) 08:40, 25 March 2009 (UTC)
- Comment Which copyrighted map? OSX (talk • contributions) 02:06, 26 March 2009 (UTC)
- See my comment above. –Tryphon☂ 08:53, 1 April 2009 (UTC)
Derivative work from copyrighted map --Meisam (talk) 08:40, 25 March 2009 (UTC)
- Comment Which copyrighted map? OSX (talk • contributions) 02:06, 26 March 2009 (UTC)
- See my comment above. –Tryphon☂ 08:54, 1 April 2009 (UTC)
Images of Garfield
[edit]- File:BasketballGarfield.jpg (edit · last · history · watch · unwatch · global usage · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel · Delinker log)
- File:CollegeBoundGarfield.jpg (edit · last · history · watch · unwatch · global usage · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel · Delinker log)
- File:CoolGarfield.jpg (edit · last · history · watch · unwatch · global usage · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel · Delinker log)
- File:DoctorGarfield.jpg (edit · last · history · watch · unwatch · global usage · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel · Delinker log)
- File:PopcornGarfield.jpg (edit · last · history · watch · unwatch · global usage · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel · Delinker log)
All are derivative images of presumably copyrighted sculptures. That they were likely authorized by Jim Davis (they are all in Indiana and all very on-model) is irrelevant; the sculptures may be legal, but licensing pictures of them under free licenses is not.
- File:DufferGarfield.jpg (edit · last · history · watch · unwatch · global usage · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel · Delinker log)
This one is less on-model, probably due to the sculpting technique, but the image is still derivative of the sculpture.
I believe the remaining images in Category:Garfield are okay, although whether they belong in that category is debatable.
-- Powers (talk) 13:07, 25 March 2009 (UTC)
All of the statues are in plain sight, most on public property. If anyone can view them without fee or royalty charges, then I don't see that photographs of a public display is any different. JWilliamCupp (talk) 02:27, 26 March 2009 (UTC)
- For details on why it's not allowed on Commons, please see Commons:Freedom of panorama, specifically the section on FOP in the United States. Powers (talk) 13:58, 26 March 2009 (UTC)
Deleted. No FOP for sculptures in the US. –Tryphon☂ 10:12, 1 April 2009 (UTC)
es existiert eine überarbeitete Version. File:Caspian-BlackSea-Tengiz-Nov.gif Asynchronmaschine (talk) 08:25, 25 March 2009 (UTC)
Deleted per uploader's request. Ilmari Karonen (talk) 14:15, 12 August 2009 (UTC)
Copyrited interface -> Copyvio Kyro (talk) 11:01, 25 March 2009 (UTC)
Deleted. Copyvio Captain-tucker (talk) 17:45, 12 August 2009 (UTC)
Copyrited interface -> Copyvio Kyro (talk) 11:00, 25 March 2009 (UTC)
Deleted. Copyvio Captain-tucker (talk) 17:45, 12 August 2009 (UTC)
This image contains significant similarity with the original logo of Megastudy, Inc. It is evident that it violated copyright – so it must be deleted.--211.205.101.109 13:09, 25 March 2009 (UTC)
Deleted. Copyvio of [7]. Ilmari Karonen (talk) 00:08, 13 August 2009 (UTC)
![[7]](http://img.megastudy.net/common/menu/top/top_logo.jpg){kind=link}
Delete The image has no correct, valid and detailed Source information. --Молох (talk) 19:44, 25 March 2009 (UTC)
- Keep Yes, there is a good source; nominator had many similar requests, see e.g. Commons:Deletion requests/File:Adanabodies.JPG. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 23:46, 12 August 2009 (UTC)
Kept, per Commons:Deletion requests/File:Adanabodies.JPG. Kameraad Pjotr 19:55, 18 August 2009 (UTC)
Duplicate with lower resolution of File:S F-E-CAMERON 2006-10-EGYPT-PHILAE-0114.JPG Diaa abdelmoneim (talk) 16:58, 25 March 2009 (UTC)
- Comment Duplicate, but it is in use. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 21:26, 18 August 2009 (UTC)
Deleted. Wknight94 talk 22:36, 20 August 2009 (UTC)
Simply taken from Systembolagets press page: http://proxysystembolaget.jms.se/webnative/listdir?-c+24+/jms/bildbanker/sb/Systembolaget/Pressbilder/Skyltar%20och%20butiksinteri%3A9Arer Hannibal (talk) 09:15, 25 March 2009 (UTC)
Deleted, copyvio of [8]. —Angr 20:13, 20 August 2009 (UTC)
![[8]](http://proxysystembolaget.jms.se/webnative/getimage?-web+/jms/bildbanker/sb/Systembolaget/Pressbilder/Skyltar%20och%20butiksinteri%3A9Arer/Passagen%2004.jpg){kind=link}
Most possibly taken directly from the university's home page, no mentioning of any consent Rotsee2 (talk) 15:31, 25 March 2009 (UTC)
Done, logo = copyvio. Cdlt, VIGNERON * discut. 09:40, 21 August 2009 (UTC)
