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 Explicit (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 03:02, 20 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

File:Heliand Parchment P Fragment.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs).

• While the document itself dates from the 9th century (according to the source), this photograph of the document appears to be a lot more modern. The lack of a date and an author on the file description page makes it impossible to verify the age of the photograph. SuperMarioMan 04:53, 12 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• This can be deleted, as an exact copy is now on Commons. It should be retained there, under the Commons principle that "a faithful reproduction of an old, public domain, two-dimensional work of art" can have no independent copyright. Thanks, cmadler (talk) 17:50, 18 December 2012 (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 Explicit (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 03:02, 20 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

File:79 LAA Bty Walton on Thames.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs).

• Photograph is stated to be in the public domain with nothing substantial to back this up SuperMarioMan 05:41, 12 December 2012 (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 Explicit (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 03:02, 20 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

File:Urie Bronfenbrenner's Bioecological Model.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs).

• File has been uploaded on Commons as File:Bioecological Model by Urie Bronfrenbrenner, 1979.jpg and has been removed there Oct/Nov 2012, because of the following reason: The source info of the File:Bioecological Model by Urie Bronfrenbrenner, 1979.jpg naming the "User Its.Life" on lifeinstructionmanual.wikispaces.com as the original uploader. However, I noticed the title suggests this is a model by Urie Bronfrenbrenner from 1979. There is no proof that the "User Its.Life" on lifeinstructionmanual.wikispaces.com has had permission to publish this image in the first place. Image on Wikicommons do need this kind of permission from the original author, or in this case of the person(s) that has inherited those rights. Mdd (talk) 09:26, 12 December 2012 (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.