The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the media below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the media's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was: kept New logo uploaded - has logo license & FuR

File:RDTV.svg (delete | talk | history | logs).

• Might just be original enough to make the license tag invalid. Eeekster (talk) 00:42, 2 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

New logo uploaded - has logo license & FuR. Skier Dude (talk 05:07, 16 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the media's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The following discussion is an archived inquiry of the possible unfree file below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the media's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was: Delete; deleted by Fastily (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 01:56, 16 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

File:ZX40ST.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs).

• Appears to be a promotional image of the truck, no indication that the uploader owns the copyright. — ξ^xplicit 00:59, 2 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the images's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived inquiry of the possible unfree file below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the media's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was: Delete; deleted by Fastily (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 01:56, 16 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

File:5Aztec Stadium.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs).

• Delete: image is unlikely copyright of the uploader, see professional looking larger resolution image found at http://www.football-pictures.net/r-football-stadiums-154-central-america-football-stadiums-157-mexico-football-stadiums-536-estadio-azteca-538-estadio-azteca-stadium-4753.htm even though there is no copyright status indicated. ww2censor (talk) 03:47, 2 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the images's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived inquiry of the possible unfree file below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the media's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was: Delete; deleted by Phantomsteve (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 00:09, 12 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

File:Pcomo.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs).

• Derivative work of a Perry Como statue, which was erected in 1999 ([1]) GrapedApe (talk) 03:59, 2 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This is an image now on Commons, and deletion requests should be handled there, without prejudice to a fair-use rationale being advanced for en:wiki. Certainly, it currently lacks such a defence. Rodhullandemu 23:25, 9 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the images's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived inquiry of the possible unfree file below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the media's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was: Delete; deleted by Fastily (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 01:56, 16 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

File:Bloomfieldsign.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs).

• Derivative work of a sign, which contains copyrighted material, including sculptures of fruit. GrapedApe (talk) 04:02, 2 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the images's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived inquiry of the possible unfree file below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the media's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was: Delete; deleted by Fastily (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 01:56, 16 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

File:9MexicoCityAirQuality.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs).

• Delete: Source and copyright tag are both false. This image is copyright to MexicoCityExperience.com and the proper source page is http://www.mexicocityexperience.com/green_living/air_quality/ where the image is linked from and is graph #3. ww2censor (talk) 05:03, 2 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the images's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived inquiry of the possible unfree file below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the media's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was: Delete; deleted by Fastily (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 01:56, 16 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

File:PICT4439kaiser.JPG (delete | talk | history | logs).

• photo of a plaque, looks to be infringing XLerate (talk) 11:55, 2 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the images's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived inquiry of the possible unfree file below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the media's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was: Delete; deleted by Fastily (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 01:56, 16 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

File:TenochtitlanPyramid.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs).

• Delete: Uploader's PD copyright claim appear to be false as this image is found the several places by tineye. Other images by this uploader are clearly copyright violations. ww2censor (talk) 14:14, 2 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the images's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived inquiry of the possible unfree file below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the media's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was: Delete; deleted by Fastily (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 01:56, 16 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

File:10Polanco and Chapultepec Lake.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs).

• Delete: Another copyright violation by this uploader. Image has been cropped from this Flickr image to remove frame and watermark. ww2censor (talk) 14:23, 2 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the images's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived inquiry of the possible unfree file below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the media's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was: Delete; deleted by Fastily (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 01:56, 16 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

File:MexCity13.JPG (delete | talk | history | logs).

• Delete: Uploader claims this is his own work with a PD tag but clearly it is a cropped version of the watermarked image found on this webpage. Original image is found here. There is no evidence the photographer has any connection with the uploader. ww2censor (talk) 14:49, 2 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the images's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived inquiry of the possible unfree file below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the media's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was: Delete; deleted by Fastily (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 01:56, 16 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

File:11National Art Museum.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs).

• Delete: Another image claimed to be uploader's own work and using a PD tag but obviously it is this Flickr image with the text removed. ww2censor (talk) 15:27, 2 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the images's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived inquiry of the possible unfree file below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the media's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was: Delete; deleted by Fastily (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 01:56, 16 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

File:Cattleranchbrazil.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs).

• Although this image is from a NASA website, that does not make it NASA property per se. I doubt NASA has the rights to put this image into the public domain. —TheDJ (talk • contribs) 17:03, 2 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: this image is specifically attributed to "Douglas Morton, University of Maryland-College Park" clearly indicating that it is not a NASA work product and therefore is not specicially in the public domain just because it is on the NASA website. ww2censor (talk) 19:56, 2 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the images's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived inquiry of the possible unfree file below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the media's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was: Delete; deleted by Fastily (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 01:56, 16 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

File:CA-95.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs).

• Looking at commons:Template:PD-RO-exempt and the contents of the related category, it seems to cover currency, coats of arms and similar. The Romanian MoD site seems to have a (c)2010 statement. Not sure at all that this is PD. Angus McLellan (Talk) 21:38, 2 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the images's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived inquiry of the possible unfree file below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the media's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was: Delete; deleted by Fastily (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 01:56, 16 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

File:Beauty For Ashes (1980) Zac Poonen.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs).

• Needs confirmation of copyright permission. Eeekster (talk) 23:48, 2 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• How do I provide confirmation of copyright permission? Will an email from the owner Zac Poonen/Christian Fellowship Church suffice? To whom does it need to be sent? --Cfcr (talk) 05:43, 3 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the images's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.