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 Explicit (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 02:01, 16 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

File:Maulvi Abdul Qadeer Siddiqui.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs).

• Has a source and a statement that "I have permission to upload", but the license doesn't appear to be from the copyright holder —SpacemanSpiff 12:59, 31 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

---

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — ξ^xplicit 00:35, 8 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

---

• Relisting note. Originally listed at Wikipedia:Possibly unfree files/2012 May 31, but was removed due to a Twinkle malfunction. — ξ^xplicit 00:35, 8 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

CLOSE THIS LISTING: The PUF tag has been replaced with ((npd)) as instructed on the face of the PUF tag itself. It will be deleted June 15 if no verification is provided by then. -Rrius (talk) 01:38, 8 June 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 as F11 by Explicit (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 02:01, 16 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

File:Rt Rev M Campbell.JPG (delete | talk | history | logs).

• No proof that "This work has been released into the public domain by the copyright holder" ("Author Lancaster cathedral") Bulwersator (talk) 17:51, 31 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

---

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — ξ^xplicit 00:35, 8 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

---

• Relisting note. Originally listed at Wikipedia:Possibly unfree files/2012 May 31, but was removed due to a Twinkle malfunction. — ξ^xplicit 00:35, 8 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

CLOSE THIS LISTING: The PUF tag has been replaced with ((npd)) as instructed on the face of the PUF tag itself. It will be deleted June 15 if no verification is provided by then. -Rrius (talk) 01:38, 8 June 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 as F11 by Explicit (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 02:01, 16 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

• No proof that "This work has been released into the public domain by the copyright holder." Bulwersator (talk) 17:52, 31 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

---

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — ξ^xplicit 00:35, 8 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

---

• Relisting note. Originally listed at Wikipedia:Possibly unfree files/2012 May 31, but was removed due to a Twinkle malfunction. — ξ^xplicit 00:35, 8 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

CLOSE THIS LISTING: The PUF tag has been replaced with ((npd)) as instructed on the face of the PUF tag itself. It will be deleted June 15 if no verification is provided by then. -Rrius (talk) 01:20, 8 June 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 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 Skier Dude (talk) 02:26, 16 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

File:Philip Reed portrait.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs).

• Unlikely but possible that this portrait is still copyrighted (unable to find any info about age). Is it OK to assume that it is not posthumous portrait (Philip Reed was dead in 1829)? Bulwersator (talk) 19:25, 31 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — ξ^xplicit 00:35, 8 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

---

• Relisting note. Originally listed at Wikipedia:Possibly unfree files/2012 May 31, but was removed due to a Twinkle malfunction. — ξ^xplicit 00:35, 8 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Like Howell, below, this image was clearly made during the life of the subject; he died in 1829. -Rrius (talk) 01:17, 8 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Agree with Rrius above. Clearly made during his life. --Tom (talk - email) 02:05, 8 June 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 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: kept Skier Dude (talk) 02:27, 16 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

File:Jeremiah Howell.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs).

• Unlikely but possible that this portrait is still copyrighted (unable to find any info about age). Is it OK to assume that it is not posthumous portrait? Bulwersator (talk) 19:26, 31 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

---

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — ξ^xplicit 00:37, 8 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

---

• Relisting note. Originally listed at Wikipedia:Possibly unfree files/2012 May 31, but was removed due to a Twinkle malfunction. — ξ^xplicit 00:35, 8 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Unlikely" hardly states the case. This is clearly a portrait made during the subject's lifetime (indeed, it looks like an early photograph), and he died in 1822. This listing strikes me as a supreme waste of time and effort. -Rrius (talk) 01:15, 8 June 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 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: Keep - I see no particular reason to believe the uploader didn't take this photograph. Magog the Ogre (talk) 07:59, 28 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

File:MikeRamsey1983.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs).

I am not sure what should be done with images like this - old, with very low resolution:

• transfer to commons, ignore inability to catch copyvios
• nominate for PUF, infuriating legitimate uploaders

? Bulwersator (talk) 08:15, 8 June 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 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 Skier Dude (talk) 02:29, 16 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

• "own copy of very old pic" derivative work of something, maybe copyrighted something Bulwersator (talk) 08:52, 8 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• The very old picture is taken from Thompson's own paper on the subject, and dates to well before modern copyright law! Check facts before jumping top conclusions: Thompson is a famous 18th century scientist. Peterlewis (talk) 19:30, 10 June 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 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: Keep - I see no particular reason to believe the uploader didn't take this photograph. Magog the Ogre (talk) 08:04, 28 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

File:Iron Ore.png (delete | talk | history | logs).

I am not sure what should be done with images like this - old, with very low resolution:

• transfer to commons, ignore inability to catch copyvios
• nominate for PUF, infuriating legitimate uploaders

? Bulwersator (talk) 08:53, 8 June 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 discussion was: Keep - previous interactions with this user appear to have less to do with copyright malice than to do with a user who is confused by the system. The OTRS ticket looks credible enough to me. If the gmail user is lying, then we can always get a take-down notice. Magog the Ogre (talk) 08:10, 28 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

File:Photo of Prof Raj Reddy taken in Hyderabad.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs).

• I do understand AGF but the uploader, Vishnugsr, says that the photo was taken specifically for the purposes of Wikipedia but in fact the declaration on the file page says that it was taken 8 months ago. In the interval, the uploader has had some severe problems both here and at Commons with regard to image uploads relating to Reddy. One such en WP example can be seen here, and it became evident that the uploader did not in fact have the permissions etc that they claimed. Some example of problems at Commons can be seen on :Some of the Commons stuff appears on their user talk page In my opinion, this one is also dodgy, although I cannot support that with anything other than my experience.

  I raised the issue with Edoderoo when they applied the OTRS ticket. Edoderoo tells me that a ticket is not protection against possible deletion etc. Sitush (talk) 16:59, 8 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• An image with a similar filename was deleted in April - see File:ProfRajReddyTakenInHyderabad.jpg. - Sitush (talk) 17:08, 8 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The OTRS-ticket is a standard declaration from a gmail-adres. It is a matter of AGF or earlier experience on Wikipedia will we keep the file or not. If previous experiences were not good with this user, OTRS can not prevent deletion just like that. Edoderoo (talk) 19:24, 8 June 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⚡ 02:01, 16 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

File:Peachtree Road Race Tshirt.JPG (delete | talk | history | logs).

• Derivative of copyrighted work (T-shirt) Bulwersator (talk) 18:08, 8 June 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⚡ 02:01, 16 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

• Photo of a book (derivative work). Don't we need a bit more information to make sure that the cover is PD? MGA73 (talk) 18:30, 8 June 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⚡ 02:01, 16 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

File:Wheel of Time dice.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs).

• Images on dices may not qualify as de minimis - http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/De_minimis Bulwersator (talk) 20:16, 8 June 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 discussion was: Keep - but marking as missing formal permission. Magog the Ogre (talk) 08:13, 28 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

File:Tim Kaine portrait.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs).

• A work of a state, not a federal government. —innotata 23:56, 8 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I am unsure of how to go about this and where to look. I got the image from the VA government ([1]) and it looked like they are encouraging its use. Do I need to come up with a low resolution picture? If not, do I need to request use from the Governor's office? I just need a little guidance and I'll look into getting this taken care of. Kingtwist (talk) 23:41, 13 June 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.