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 issue: From all of the discussion I've read, both here and on Commons, I feel comfortable that the coat of arms is most likely public domain. The reason that all of these files have been deleted is because the image was lifted from a non-free site. Considering that the only problem is where that particular rendering of the otherwise public domain coat of arms came from, this just means we have to make our own or appropriate one from a public domain source. That also means that as a non-free image, it fails WP:NFCC#1, and that means deletion. Thus if you want a coat of arms (and I think such a thing would be a valuable addition), it's got to be completely free, no ifs, ands, or buts. SchuminWeb (Talk) 23:42, 23 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

File:Coat of arms of Dominica.png (delete | talk | history | logs).

• see commons:Commons:Deletion requests/File:Coat of arms of Dominica.png. Fair use probably applies at Coat of arms of Dominica, so I request that if the decision is non-free, that the item not be deleted but given a rationale and pruned from other articles. Magog the Ogre (talk) 00:06, 30 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

PD under Dominican Law, the file will be kept on Commons, so the Wikipeda-EN file can be deleted. Magog doesn't understand the licensing process, but that's his problem. Fry1989 ^eh? 00:46, 30 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Also keep this, it's from Vector Images too. However, if an SVG is made by a Wikipedian, it will be free and can go to Commons. Fry1989 ^eh? 01:53, 30 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Doesn't that necessarily mean it would fail WP:NFCC#1? Same with the image immediately below. Magog the Ogre (talk) 03:15, 30 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

No that's not true. Zscout370 and I talked about it. He has already found the blazon of the arms of Dominica described in official government text, and it's only a matter of time fpr Gambia's as well. As long as we make an SVG of the arms following that blazon, the licenses I used when I moved these arms to Commons are correct. The only reason these arms are not allowed on Commons is because they are from Vector Images, which copyrights it's own works. That has no effect on a freely made version by a member of Wikipedia. You were wrong about the licenses, they were the right ones, it was just that these two arms are from VI. Fry1989 ^eh? 19:06, 30 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This image is currently tagged as non-free. If there is a dispute with the rationale, please tag the image with ((dfu)) or list it at WP:Non-free content review. AnomieBOT⚡ 06:04, 13 November 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: delete. See Dominica discussion above. SchuminWeb (Talk) 23:43, 23 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

File:Gambia Coat of Arms.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs).

• see commons:Commons:Deletion requests/File:Gambia Coat of Arms.jpg. Fair use probably applies at Coat of arms of Gambia, so I request that if the decision is non-free, that the item not be deleted but given a rationale and pruned from other articles. Magog the Ogre (talk) 00:14, 30 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

PD under Gambian Law, the file will be kept on Commons, so the Wikipeda-EN file can be deleted. Magog doesn't understand the licensing process, but that's his problem. Fry1989 ^eh? 00:46, 30 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, keep Gambia's. It's a vio from Vector Images (NOT because of Magog's misunderstanding of the law). Fry1989 ^eh? 01:37, 30 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This image is currently tagged as non-free. If there is a dispute with the rationale, please tag the image with ((dfu)) or list it at WP:Non-free content review. AnomieBOT⚡ 06:04, 13 November 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 as F11 by Skier Dude (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 06:04, 13 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

File:Convoglia view.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs).

• Author and uploader names conflict. Eeekster (talk) 12:17, 30 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The file was given to me by the author of the picture (Maurizio Rossi). Are Source and Author conflicting? Jeremyjoshua (talk) 17:57, 30 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The conflict is that you are the one who uploaded the file and put a copyright license tag on it that starts out "I, the copyright holder of this work, hereby publish it under the following licenses...". Since you are not the copyright holder, you can't license the copyright to this image. When Maurizio Rossi gave you a copy of his image, what license, if any, did he agree to regarding the use of his image? See WP:PERMISSION for instructions on how to obtain permission from a third-party in order to use their copyrighted works in Wikipedia. —RP88 ^(talk) 09:38, 31 October 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 as F11 by Skier Dude (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 06:04, 13 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

File:Gtworldtour11.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs).

• File says it's a poster by James Thomson. It can't be a free use license unless the uploader is this person and will provide OTRS permission We hope (talk) 21:35, 30 October 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 as F11 by Skier Dude (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 06:04, 13 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

• This is an ad produced by James Thomson. Unless the uploader is that person, it can't be a free use file. We also don't know where the ad was published. We hope (talk) 21:41, 30 October 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 as F11 by Skier Dude (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 06:04, 13 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

• Says it was provided by James Thomson. This is originally from the UK and there's no indication that this image is not under copyright there. We hope (talk) 21:46, 30 October 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⚡ 16:10, 23 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

File:RMS scaffolding staining astrocytes neuroblasts.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs).

• The source license doesn't appear to be compatible: "This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution Non-Commercial License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/3.0/) which permits unrestricted non-commercial use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited." Eeekster (talk) 22:45, 30 October 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.