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 Feydey (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 00:36, 1 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

• Licensed as PD, however, some images are cc-by-sa and incorporates several non-free images (File:María_Elena_Moyano.jpg). —mono 00:31, 31 July 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 Skier Dude (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 04:35, 14 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

File:Over badge.gif (delete | talk | history | logs).

• Derivative work of the Rover logo. Free license is invalid. Mosmof (talk) 00:32, 31 July 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 King of Hearts (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) A file with this name on Commons is now visible. AnomieBOT⚡ 02:07, 8 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

File:Amber Lamps live in concert.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs).

• Image lifted from Facebook. Copied to Commons where it has been nominated for deletion as a likely copyvio. If deleted on Commons, it's not an irreplaceable image, and as such does not qualify for fair use. If not deleted from Commons, it could be speedy deleted as identical image. In no case should this not be deleted from en.wiki. Atmoz (talk) 00:34, 31 July 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: Keep. Third opinion was to trust the uploader; I have to say I remain unconvinced, but this image is fundamentally different from the others (see below) in both the content and the much higher resolution, with the only major suspicion of it being a copyrighted image based on other uploads by the user, which is not really enough, even if Wikipedia takes copyright very seriously and the policy issue on lack of source information remains unchallenged. So in conclusion, I am withdrawing the nomination. Really this image should have been looked at and detected much earlier so the uploader could be contacted and any potential source of copying would still be detectable. I will tag this image to be moved to Commens so it may get some use, as currently it is orphaned. CT Cooper · talk 20:14, 13 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

File:Sailing Timer.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs).

• Image was uploaded without any source information. However, another user has interpreted the ((PD-self)) template to indicate that this user has stated this is the uploader's own work, and added content to the image description page indicating this. I do not accept this interpretation per Wikipedia:Image use policy#Requirements which specifically states that uploaded images must meet the minimum requirements of having a copyright tag and a clear description on the description page of where the image came from, and images which fail to meet these requirements are liable for deletion. A copyright tag is not enough, particularly given that the template does not specify that the image was created entirely by the user, and it is common to see users reach spurious conclusions on what makes them the copyright holder. Even if you ignore this issue, there are other reasons to wonder on if this is the users own work, in particular the apparent professionalism of the image with a white background. I would have asked the uploader about these images before going for deletion, however given that they appear to have long since left Wikipedia, this is no longer an option. Given that this is disputed, I am now bringing this here. CT Cooper · talk 11:02, 31 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Procedural keep, or speedy close, or whatever else it's called here — you've advanced what are good reasons for deletion, but they're not really good reasons for saying that this can't be a free image. Why don't you take this to FFD instead? Nyttend (talk) 04:35, 1 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • I brought this to PUF rather than FFD as I'm not blanket of deletion, in fact I would rather see the images kept if possible, but as it stands these images are being kept as free on dodgy grounds. I brought these files here to try to ascertain what the copyright staus of these images are, using third opinions as necessary. If nothing is achieved from this, FFD is available as a last resort. CT Cooper · talk 10:33, 2 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, I'd trust the uploader. Yes, the background is white, but the photographic quality is not professional at all. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 00:36, 8 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • I don't believe that this is a straight upload from a camera, as it appears to have been at least digitally altered in some way, either by the uploader or someone else. The lack of camera data on the upload backs this up. There are other uploads by this user of which there are more reasons to be suspicious. On File:Poole GS.jpg I am going to e-mail the school, which claims to be the copyright holder on Google Maps, on the background of this image. The answers given will be quite telling on if the uploader can be trusted or not. CT Cooper · talk 12:42, 8 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⚡ 06:36, 14 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

File:Poole GS.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs).

• Image was uploaded without any source information. However, another user has interpreted the ((PD-self)) template to indicate that this user has stated this is the uploader's own work, and added content to the image description page indicating this. I do not accept this interpretation per Wikipedia:Image use policy#Requirements which specifically states that uploaded images must meet the minimum requirements of having a copyright tag and a clear description on the description page of where the image came from, and images which fail to meet these requirements are liable for deletion. A copyright tag is not enough, particularly given that the template does not specify that the image was created entirely by the user, and it is common to see users reach spurious conclusions on what makes them the copyright holder. Upon further research I have found an identical copy to the image on Google Maps. There is also a higher quality version, which appears to be the original version of the image, with the version uploaded Wikipedia being of lower quality and having the top of the image cropped out slightly. Google Maps state that the school's entry is "owner-verified listing", which means Google has verified that the entry is by the school, with all the images sourced as "From the owner", including the image uploaded to Wikipedia. Content taken from Wikipedia is clearly indicated as such. While three is no definite proof, it appears likely that this image was taken from Google Maps, but as this is disputed I am bringing this here. I am considering e-mailing the school to see if I can get any information from them on the source of this image. CT Cooper · talk 11:36, 31 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• E-mail sent. CT Cooper · talk 16:36, 10 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Please note that the page has changed significantly since the nomination was made; the nominated version can be found here. If it had been uploaded as it is now some of the issues above would not apply, however the Google Maps issue is still worthy of investigation. CT Cooper · talk 21:55, 10 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Unfortunately I have not received a response on the e-mail. I'm not withdrawing the nomination though as I think the circumstantial evidence is strong enough to justify deletion. If this was blatant copyvio I would have deleted it immediately, but in either way cases such as this, given that Wikipedia takes copyright seriously for a good reason, defaulting to deletion is justified. I will leave the final decision to independent judgement. CT Cooper · talk 19:55, 13 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⚡ 06:36, 14 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

File:Poole Fields.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs).

• Image was uploaded without any source information. However, another user has interpreted the ((PD-self)) template to indicate that this user has stated this is the uploader's own work. I do not accept this interpretation per Wikipedia:Image use policy#Requirements which specifically states that uploaded images must meet the minimum requirements of having a copyright tag and a clear description on the description page of where the image came from, and images which fail to meet these requirements are liable for deletion. A copyright tag is not enough, particularly given that the template does not specify that the image was created entirely by the user, and it is common to see users reach spurious conclusions on what makes them the copyright holder. This image also has issues similar to the uploader's other uploads (see above), with it being a low quality images that appears to have been taken from a website. I have not pinned down an exact source for this one, though the source could well no longer exist given that this image was uploaded in 2007. CT Cooper · talk 11:35, 31 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Procedural keep, or speedy close, or whatever else it's called here — you've advanced what are good reasons for deletion, but they're not really good reasons for saying that this can't be a free image. Why don't you take this to FFD instead? Nyttend (talk) 04:35, 1 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • See above. CT Cooper · talk 10:33, 2 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Unfortunately I have not received a response on the e-mail (see above), which would have been telling on the copyright status of this image. I'm not withdrawing the nomination on this one either as while an exact source has not been identified (it could simply no longer exist since this was uploaded in 2007), this image has the same characteristics as the other images e.g. relatively low quality, and if the other image is copyvio chances are this one is as well. If this was blatant copyvio I would have deleted it immediately, but in either way cases such as this, given that Wikipedia takes copyright seriously for a good reason, defaulting to deletion is justified. I will leave the final decision to independent judgement. CT Cooper · talk 20:00, 13 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 Skier Dude (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 04:35, 14 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

File:Barton turf fen mill.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs).

• Contributer claims this is his own work whereas the image is found on the internet outside Wikipedia. The contribution date to Wikipedia is in 2008 while the apparent creation date of the internet image is in 2006. No information on the internet hosting page or image indicates who the author is of the image. Potentially, the contributor is indeed the author of the image; just needs substantiation. User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 16:57, 31 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Contributor has indicated that the image may be deleted. See discussion at http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Renata&oldid=376492025#Possibly_unfree_File:Barton_turf_fen_mill.jpg . --User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 01:44, 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 Skier Dude (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 04:35, 14 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

File:Proverb leaf.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs).

• License is listed as free, however, the description indicates fair use. Thus we have a conflict, and should probably default to the more restrictive license. SchuminWeb (Talk) 18:10, 31 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Regardless of its copyright status, I do not see an encyclopedic use for this image. If the proverb needs to be cited, it can be done so in text. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 00:38, 8 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Duplicates File:Proverb maple leaf.jpg File:Maple 3scripture.jpg deleted as well Skier Dude (talk 02:57, 14 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 Skier Dude (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 04:35, 14 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

• This appears to be a magnification and cropping of an image associated with the file-upload section of an external website. The image on that website (url: http://www.blaugranas.com/media/galeria/25/3/2/9/8/n_f_c_barcelona_los_aficionados-38923.jpg ) is itself of unclear copyright status. Compounding the problem is that the website in quesiton is written in Spanish and I am not a speaker / reader of this language. The URL provided for the direct image link is less helpful than the page which presents the image as part of a photo album: http://www.blaugranas.com/carrer_industria_culers-fotos_del_f_c_barcelona-igfpo-38923.htm . User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 18:17, 31 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Is it possible to change to fair use instead? Sandman888 (talk) ^{Latest FLC} 11:39, 4 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Image was uploaded w/out license & all materials on the site are (c), so the PD claim can't be substantiated. Skier Dude (talk 03:05, 14 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 Skier Dude (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 04:35, 14 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

File:Soko J-22 Orao Parked at Cerklje.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs).

• claimed to be the work of the uploader please see Wikipedia:Contributor copyright investigations/Slovenian military-patriot MilborneOne (talk) 20:35, 31 July 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 Skier Dude (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 04:35, 14 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

File:IMG 2998.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs).

• Image, although self-taken, includes trademarked logo and thus requires fair-use rationale. Image is also orphaned. Rodhullandemu 21:37, 31 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename and Move to Commons under the commons category "CIBC." I've already chosen the new name tonight. ----DanTD (talk) 02:47, 12 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • UPDATE The image was moved and renamed already. ----DanTD (talk) 16:36, 12 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 Skier Dude (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 04:35, 14 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

File:IMG 4145.JPG (delete | talk | history | logs).

• Uploader's name is at odds with that of the photographer, so we cannot be sure the photographer has released it with an appropriate licence. Image is also orphaned. Rodhullandemu 21:50, 31 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • I can't say anything about the license, but I've just tagged it for renaming. I don't know if I can or should add it to the article on Walter Gretzky or not, because I have no idea when this interview took place. ----DanTD (talk) 22:38, 6 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: The file was moved from File:IMG 4145.JPG to File:Walter Gretzky interview.JPG by TheDJ (talk · contribs) at 15:26, 7 August 2010 (UTC). AnomieBOT⚡ 17:03, 7 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 Skier Dude (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 04:35, 14 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

File:Shawnee Mission East Choraliers Blue Moon program 2006.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs).

• "I have spoken to" is insufficient for free release; it has to go through OTRS or have a fair-use rationale. Rodhullandemu 23:47, 31 July 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.