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 VernoWhitney (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 16:09, 1 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

File:170111121806logo.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs).

• TV show's logo. Eeekster (talk) 02:33, 1 March 2011 (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 SchuminWeb (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) A file with this name on Commons is now visible. AnomieBOT⚡ 03:03, 15 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

File:Somerset-coa.png (delete | talk | history | logs).

• see commons:Commons:Deletion requests/File:Somerset coat of arm.png. Before deletion, please notate the large number of transclusions (~2600). Magog the Ogre (talk) 06:39, 1 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I've tried to remove most of the transclusions by changing the image at Template:Portal/Images/Somerset. DrKiernan (talk) 14:20, 1 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

That seems to have worked for the most part: there aren't any article links now. DrKiernan (talk) 13:11, 3 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• PS. If anyone can figure out how to transclude the ((pufc)) notice onto the templates, be my guest. Magog the Ogre (talk) 06:44, 1 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete I'm afraid this appears to be a new coat of arms granted in 2003 [1], so the claim that it is over 100 years old is simply unsustainable. Note also that the uploader was blocked indefinitely for copyright violations. The previous version of the arms (which doesn't have a crest or supporters, so basically just the shield and the motto) was granted in 1911, and so that could probably be used instead. DrKiernan (talk) 12:40, 1 March 2011 (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 SchuminWeb (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 03:03, 15 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

File:92G-SD.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs).

• GFDL is presumed... image license never explicitly released, should be deleted per ((GFDL-presumed)). Magog the Ogre (talk) 06:55, 1 March 2011 (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 VernoWhitney (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 19:13, 11 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

File:Ten Years After2.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs).

• Source is given as "google image search". It appears to have been taken from Alvin Lee's official website [2] without permission. DrKiernan (talk) 13:08, 1 March 2011 (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 discussion was: kept because the statue in question is public domain due to its age. The local file has been deleted, however, since it was tagged by a bot account on the day said bot account was banned, and I could find no evidence of the request not to move it that it cites. Wonder how many other images are wrongly tagged as a result of this bot. Failing to find any evidence of an actual human being requesting that the local copy be kept and finding no legal or policy reasons not to move it to Commons, it has been done. SchuminWeb (Talk) 04:10, 18 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

File:Confederate Soldier Monument in Caldwell.JPG (delete | talk | history | logs).

• Freedom of panorama does not apply in the united states. This picture is a derivative work of the statue. Selket ^Talk 18:02, 1 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose removal: Even if you were right, it is old enough to avoid copyright.--King Bedford I ^{Seek his grace} 18:51, 1 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, even without viewing the image at full resolution, I can see that the monument says that it was erected in 1912. Obvious case of PD-1923. Nyttend (talk) 05:06, 4 March 2011 (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 discussion was: kept because the statue in question is public domain due to its age. The local file has been deleted, however, since the file was already on Commons and it was tagged by a bot account on the day said bot account was banned, and I could find no evidence of the request not to move it that it cites. Wonder how many other images are wrongly tagged as a result of this bot. SchuminWeb (Talk) 04:07, 18 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

File:Confederate Soldier Monument in Caldwell 2.JPG (delete | talk | history | logs).

• Freedom of panorama does not apply in the united states. This picture is a derivative work of the statue. -- Selket ^Talk 18:03, 1 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose removal: Even if you were right, it is old enough to avoid copyright.--King Bedford I ^{Seek his grace} 18:52, 1 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per my rationale for File:Confederate Soldier Monument in Caldwell.JPG — this monument was erected in 1912, so it's definitely PD-US. Nyttend (talk) 05:07, 4 March 2011 (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 discussion was: kept because the statue in question is public domain due to its age. The local file has been deleted, however, since it was tagged by a bot account on the day said bot account was banned, and I could find no evidence of the request not to move it that it cites. Wonder how many other images are wrongly tagged as a result of this bot. Failing to find any evidence of an actual human being requesting that the local copy be kept and finding no legal or policy reasons not to move it to Commons, it has been done. SchuminWeb (Talk) 04:13, 18 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

File:Confederate Soldier Monument in Caldwell back.JPG (delete | talk | history | logs).

• Freedom of panorama does not apply in the united states. This picture is a derivative work of the statue. -- Selket ^Talk 18:04, 1 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose removal: Even if you were right, it is old enough to avoid copyright.--King Bedford I ^{Seek his grace} 18:52, 1 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per my rationale for File:Confederate Soldier Monument in Caldwell.JPG — this monument was erected in 1912, so it's definitely PD-US. Nyttend (talk) 05:07, 4 March 2011 (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 discussion was: kept because the statue in question is public domain due to its age. The local file has been deleted, however, since it was tagged by a bot account on the day said bot account was banned, and I could find no evidence of the request not to move it that it cites. Wonder how many other images are wrongly tagged as a result of this bot. Failing to find any evidence of an actual human being requesting that the local copy be kept and finding no legal or policy reasons not to move it to Commons, it has been done. SchuminWeb (Talk) 04:13, 18 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

File:Confederate Monument Madisonville.JPG (delete | talk | history | logs).

• Freedom of panorama does not apply in the united states. This picture is a derivative work of the statue. -- Selket ^Talk 18:04, 1 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose removal: Even if you were right, it is old enough to avoid copyright.--King Bedford I ^{Seek his grace} 18:52, 1 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, statue was erected in 1908, so it's PD-US. See the inscription for proof. N.B. to nominator — virtually all of these Civil War monuments in Kentucky were built before 1923. Nyttend (talk) 05:10, 4 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - per Nyttend. Interesting fact - how'd you know that nyttend? Magog the Ogre (talk) 07:01, 4 March 2011 (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 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: Deleted - if the purpose of the picture was to show a field and it happens there is a statue of a parrot, ok, fine, whatever. But the purpose here is very clearly to show the parrot. --B (talk) 21:16, 16 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

File:Sunshine Valley parrot.JPG (delete | talk | history | logs).

• Freedom of panorama does not apply in the united states. This picture is a derivative work of the statue. -- Selket ^Talk 18:20, 1 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose removal: Very incidental. You must not have much of a life.--King Bedford I ^{Seek his grace} 18:52, 1 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Please see WP:NPA. --B (talk) 21:16, 16 March 2011 (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 discussion was: Deleted, per argument by SchuminWeb. After Midnight ⁰⁰⁰¹ 23:59, 18 March 2011 (UTC) Further rationale added: As it is not clear if cc-by-sa-2.0 is valid for this file, it is safest to delete the local copy and allow the issue to be settled at commons if necessary. No judgment is being made regarding whether a KeepLocal template being applied here is valid or if KeepLocal need be honored and no precedent is to be implied for the KeepLocal template in general use. --After Midnight ⁰⁰⁰¹ 18:23, 31 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

File:Angel Place plaque.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs).

• Freedom of panorama does not apply in the united states. This picture is a derivative work of the plaque. This probably qualifies under a fair use justification, but none is provided. -- Selket ^Talk 18:32, 1 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Well, that's just fine, because the plaque isn't in the United States. :-) --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 18:47, 1 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It doesn't apply in the UK either for 2D works. --Selket ^Talk 19:47, 1 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. I have no idea what's meant by this, sorry. Loopzilla took a photograph, which he released, of a local government tourist plaque on a building. What words are needed on the image page to satisfy Wikipedia's increasingly bizarre concerns, I don't know, but there's no reason at all to delete it. Selket, if you think it needs a fair-use rationale, by all means add one. SlimVirgin ^{TALK|CONTRIBS} 21:08, 1 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Presumably Southwark Council owns the copyright to the plaque itself. Commons:Freedom_of_Panorama#United_Kingdom has a good explanation of the issue. SlimVirgin, if you think the plaque is a "work of artistic craftsmanship" rather than a "graphic work," then I'll defer to your judgement and feel free to close this one, although you might want to say something like that on image page. WMC has a template called FoP-UK. Note that there are two releases on Commons:File:Homer_Simpson_in_Cerne_Abbans.JPG --Selket ^Talk 22:54, 1 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete or mark fair use (if applicable). No freedom of panorama in the UK or the US (under whose law the WMF is required to follow). But, if you decide to keep it as free for whatever reason (OTRS permission anyone?), upload the hi-res version to commons. Magog the Ogre (talk) 05:40, 3 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• I want to add here that I did as Magog suggested, and uploaded the hi-res version to the Commons. That I did this has now been used as the reason to delete the local version, even though there's strong consensus that an image existing on Commons isn't sufficient reason to delete a local image if the uploader objects. I've asked Midnight to reconsider the deletion. SlimVirgin ^{TALK|CONTRIBS} 00:10, 19 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep The Southwark council is a local governmental authority. There are two components: the text (content) and logotype. First, to logotype: governmental logotypes are subject to copyright protection in and of themselves; they are EXEMPT from copyright protection when appearing as a part of other/more content, as here. As this is nothing more than a publicly displayed governmental memo on something more permanent than paper, it is reusable/public domain under the Open Government License for public sector information. Freedom of panorama, copyright protection of written works, and 2D versus 3D works of art are all barking up the wrong proverbial tree. PЄTЄRS J V ►TALK 23:56, 3 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep PetersJ is pursuasive. If correct this rationale should be added to the UK page, as I have seen such images of UK signs etc deleted before. Johnbod (talk) 02:55, 8 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, and here's why. This image, at higher resolution, exists at Commons on the same title. Thus this image is blocking a higher-quality image on Commons due to the keep-the-local-copy crowd. Fair use is not applicable in this case, because the image is in a gallery, and there is no contextual significance for this image, nor is it itself subject to critical commentary in the article. Thus any usage for this image as it currently stands is ineligible to be used under fair use. Due to the existence of the higher-quality copy on Commons, it is a moot point about whether or not this image is deleted locally, because if it is deleted, the Commons version will be visible on the same title. Thus any discussion of whether this image is free or not needs to be discussed at commons:Commons:Deletion requests. SchuminWeb (Talk) 04:23, 18 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment. There have been objections to this deletion on Midnight's talk page. I removed the closed template, and someone SchuminWeb reverted me. [3] Please don't remove it again. This is still being discussed, and I would like to ask an entirely uninvolved admin to review Midnight's decision.

  The only reason I uploaded a high-res version to the Commons was because Magog asked me to do it during this discussion. Yet, because I did that, Midnight and SchuminWeb have decided I can't keep a local copy. So we've moved into Kafkaesque silliness. The fact is that this image is free, I would like to keep a local copy, and that is permitted, per strong consensus in every discussion it has been raised, including very recent ones. Admins shouldn't be ignoring that. SlimVirgin ^{TALK|CONTRIBS} 19:53, 20 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Admins shouldn't be trying to close [4] discussions they have taken part in either. SpinningSpark 20:22, 20 March 2011 (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 SchuminWeb (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 03:03, 15 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

File:Westrick&Nguyen68.JPG (delete | talk | history | logs).

• Dubious authorship claim. Uploader has a history of bending rules. -- Selket ^Talk 19:05, 1 March 2011 (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 SchuminWeb (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 03:03, 15 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

File:Geetha.png (delete | talk | history | logs).

• Dubious authorship claim. Most likely created by the Greek military. I'm not sure what their copyright rules are. -- Selket ^Talk 19:40, 1 March 2011 (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 SchuminWeb (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 03:03, 15 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

File:Hellenic-Airforce.png (delete | talk | history | logs).

• Dubious authorship claim. Most likely created by the Greek military. I'm not sure what their copyright rules are. -- Selket ^Talk 19:40, 1 March 2011 (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 SchuminWeb (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 03:03, 15 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

File:Hellenic-Navy.png (delete | talk | history | logs).

• Dubious authorship claim. Most likely created by the Greek military. I'm not sure what their copyright rules are. -- Selket ^Talk 19:40, 1 March 2011 (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 SchuminWeb (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 03:03, 15 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

File:Hellenic-Army.png (delete | talk | history | logs).

• Dubious authorship claim. Most likely created by the Greek military. I'm not sure what their copyright rules are. -- Selket ^Talk 19:40, 1 March 2011 (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 discussion was: delete. Here's the problem. Due to the presence of the mural, it is a derivative work of the copyrighted mural. Whether the photographer intended that or not is immaterial, and likewise I consider the file name's having the mural named in its title to be immaterial as well, because any admin (and now designated non-admin users as well) can move a file, and a file can be re-uploaded. However, a little research indicates that while much of the wall is painted with murals, there are plain sections, as evidenced by this. If this particular mural is the subject of critical commentary, that would be another story, but since it's not, and since there appear to be many blank sections of the wall, we can dispense with this graphic. SchuminWeb (Talk) 04:33, 18 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

File:Maysville Mural.JPG (delete | talk | history | logs).

• Freedom of panorama does not apply in the united states. This picture is a derivative work of the mural, which is the subject (and title) of the image file. Might be fair use in an article about the mural, but it's not used in any articles and has no justification. -- Selket ^Talk 20:07, 1 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose removal:mural is just a small part of the entire floodwall. Shoudl probably be used in an article thro.--King Bedford I ^{Seek his grace} 04:22, 3 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • If your purpose is to show a building and it happens that twelve people are walking by, one of whom is wearing a Mickey Mouse t-shirt, that's something nobody is really going to argue with. But the purpose here, as evidenced by the filename, is to show the mural. That's a derivative work of the copyrighted mural and it's not allowed. See Commons:Commons:Derivative works. --B (talk) 22:08, 4 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • If I just wanted a picture of the mural, then it would have just been of the mural. As it is, it does a good job reflecting the status of the floodwall and the town mingling.--King Bedford I ^{Seek his grace} 03:46, 8 March 2011 (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 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: deleted as it was hiding a Commons image of a higher resolution with the same name. No opinion on whether the Commons image is a copyright violation. --B (talk) 22:11, 4 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

File:Gastini 0700.JPG (delete | talk | history | logs).

• Portrait photograph of an actress, transferred from it-wiki in good-faith reliance on a PD-self declaration on it-wiki. However, the it-wiki uploader has had several other uploads deleted as copyvios [5] and seems to be unreliable. Moreover, the image ([6]) is credited to an author ("Federico Ferrantini") who is not the uploader ("Andrea Bertoli") and evidence of permission is lacking. Small-sized, web resolution picture, style of a professional photo shooting. Unlikely to be genuine own work. Fut.Perf. ☼ 22:26, 1 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Original file on it was 2000x3008, so not web resolution. Anyway, it's on commons now. --Selket ^Talk 17:39, 2 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Deleted as it was hiding a Commons image of a higher resolution with the same name. --B (talk) 22:11, 4 March 2011 (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.