Wikipedia:Possibly unfree files/2009 July 19
July 19
[edit]- The following discussion is an archived inquiry of the possible unfree image 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 Peripitus (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 13:48, 19 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
No indication that the uploader, who has previously uploaded problematic images, owns the copyright to this particular image, which looks like a professionally taken promotional photo. — Σxplicit 00:08, 19 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Its copyright status is problematic to say the least. Dr.K. logos 00:11, 19 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per nom and Tasoskessaris. — Jeff G. (talk|contribs) 01:59, 19 July 2009 (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 Non-orphaned, license & FuR provided Skier Dude (talk) 04:02, 19 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Uploader is indef blocked. — Jeff G. (talk|contribs) 01:57, 19 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Image isnt claiming to be free, it an unfree video game cover properly tagged. Salavat (talk) 10:53, 19 July 2009 (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. Otherwise, unless there is another reason for listing here, the listing will be closed by an administrator and the image kept. AnomieBOT⚡ 13:48, 19 July 2009 (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 Non-orphaned, license & FuR provided Skier Dude (talk) 04:03, 19 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Uploader is indef blocked. — Jeff G. (talk|contribs) 02:05, 19 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Image isnt claiming to be free, it an unfree video game screenshot properly tagged. Salavat (talk) 10:57, 19 July 2009 (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. Otherwise, unless there is another reason for listing here, the listing will be closed by an administrator and the image kept. AnomieBOT⚡ 13:48, 19 July 2009 (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 Non-orphaned, license & FuR provided Skier Dude (talk) 04:03, 19 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Uploader is indef blocked. — Jeff G. (talk|contribs) 02:12, 19 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Image isnt claiming free use, it is a non-free logo which is properly tagged. Salavat (talk) 11:19, 19 July 2009 (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. Otherwise, unless there is another reason for listing here, the listing will be closed by an administrator and the image kept. AnomieBOT⚡ 13:48, 19 July 2009 (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 Non-orphaned, license & FuR provided Skier Dude (talk) 04:03, 19 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Uploader is indef blocked. — Jeff G. (talk|contribs) 02:13, 19 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Image isnt claiming free use, it is a non-free screenshot which is properly tagged. Salavat (talk) 11:18, 19 July 2009 (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. Otherwise, unless there is another reason for listing here, the listing will be closed by an administrator and the image kept. AnomieBOT⚡ 13:48, 19 July 2009 (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 Non-orphaned, license & FuR provided Skier Dude (talk) 04:04, 19 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Uploader is indef blocked. — Jeff G. (talk|contribs) 02:19, 19 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Image isnt claiming free use, it is a non-free logo which is properly tagged and has a fair use. Salavat (talk) 11:16, 19 July 2009 (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. Otherwise, unless there is another reason for listing here, the listing will be closed by an administrator and the image kept. AnomieBOT⚡ 13:48, 19 July 2009 (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 Non-orphaned, license & FuR provided Skier Dude (talk) 04:05, 19 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Uploader is indef blocked. — Jeff G. (talk|contribs) 02:20, 19 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Image isnt claiming free use, it is a non-free logo which is properly tagged and has a fair use. Salavat (talk) 11:12, 19 July 2009 (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. Otherwise, unless there is another reason for listing here, the listing will be closed by an administrator and the image kept. AnomieBOT⚡ 13:48, 19 July 2009 (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 image 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 Drilnoth (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 23:18, 27 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Uploader is indef blocked. — Jeff G. (talk|contribs) 02:24, 19 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Image isnt claiming free use, but is now an orphaned image so will be deleted. Salavat (talk) 11:10, 19 July 2009 (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. Otherwise, unless there is another reason for listing here, the listing will be closed by an administrator and the image kept. AnomieBOT⚡ 13:48, 19 July 2009 (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 image 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 Drilnoth (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 23:18, 27 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Uploader is indef blocked, and the image is not present on http://www.ilbaluardo.com/index.htm?. — Jeff G. (talk|contribs) 02:28, 19 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Image isnt claiming free use, but is now an orphaned image so will be deleted. Salavat (talk) 11:10, 19 July 2009 (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. Otherwise, unless there is another reason for listing here, the listing will be closed by an administrator and the image kept. AnomieBOT⚡ 13:48, 19 July 2009 (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 image 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⚡ 05:32, 19 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
CTV is a commercial news site, there is no evidence of GFDL. Sherurcij (speaker for the dead) 03:40, 19 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - http://www.ctv.ca/servlet/ArticleNews/story/CTVNews/20070219/soldiers_medals_070219/20070219?hub=CTVNewsAt11 is "© 2009 CTVglobemedia All Rights Reserved." — Jeff G. (talk|contribs) 16:20, 19 July 2009 (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.
File:Fall front desk in art nouveau style placed on Flickr with CC licence by Tom Borowski.jpg
[edit]- The following discussion is an archived inquiry of the possible unfree image 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⚡ 05:32, 19 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Listed on flickr with a no-derivatives licence. The image appears to be not free by Wikipedia standards - Peripitus (Talk) 06:36, 19 July 2009 (UTC) Delete, as the image on Flickr (http://www.flickr.com/photos/tomborowski/2638055943/ is "<a rel="license cc:license" class="Plain">Some rights reserved</a>". Both the "nc" (non commercial) and "nd" (no derivatives) are incompatible with English Wikipedia unless a NFUR is used. — Jeff G. (talk|contribs) 16:29, 19 July 2009 (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 image 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⚡ 05:32, 19 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Stated source of image is NNDB, which is not a free source. Blargh29 (talk) 06:48, 19 July 2009 (UTC) Delete, as http://www.nndb.com/people/130/000054965/ is "Copyright ©2009 Soylent Communications". — Jeff G. (talk|contribs) 16:31, 19 July 2009 (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 image 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⚡ 05:32, 19 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
No source given. No claim of authorship. Image likely taken from ndol.org, which is first result in a google image search. Blargh29 (talk) 06:50, 19 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete, as this image is exactly the same, and ndol.org is copyrighted by default. — Jeff G. (talk|contribs) 16:39, 19 July 2009 (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 image 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⚡ 05:32, 19 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Stated source is a blog. Not a free source. Also, note that this image is the 4th result in google image search. Truly free one is located here Blargh29 (talk) 06:52, 19 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per nom and replace on affected pages with truly free File:RobertHMichel.jpg. — Jeff G. (talk|contribs) 17:00, 19 July 2009 (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 image 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⚡ 05:32, 19 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Source is a state government site, not federal as claimed. Ergo, not free Blargh29 (talk) 06:54, 19 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete, as http://www.cemetery.state.tx.us/ is not demonstrably free enough for English Wikipedia. — Jeff G. (talk|contribs) 17:06, 19 July 2009 (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 image 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⚡ 05:32, 19 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
National Park Service source credits the image to Governor Orval Faubus, 1957 (Photo courtesy of the Arkansas History Commission, G1775 series), which is not a free source. Just because the image is hosted by a federal government source, that doesn't make it authored by a federal source. Blargh29 (talk) 07:00, 19 July 2009 (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: keep as updated with correct license. Skier Dude (talk) 04:17, 19 August 2009 (UTC) Image of copyrighted character Frau Bow. Uploader doesn't even claim to be the author. Blargh29 (talk) 07:16, 19 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- No, I don't claim to be the author, I claim to have uploaded a very small, incomplete piece of the author's work that's been significantly downgraded from the original quality and in no possible way affects his ability to profit from his copyright. How is that any different than if it was a music file? If everything the author touched is copyrighted, than that would make it impossible to have a free representation of the article's subject, wouldn't it? How is it no one but you has had a problem with it for the past eleven months when "unfree" stuff that's uploaded is usually pounced upon within 15 minutes? – ConkblockCity (talk) 07:28, 19 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Please consult Wikipedia:Non-free use rationale guideline to see how to add a fair use rationale to the image.--Blargh29 (talk) 07:32, 19 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Okay, done? –ConkblockCity (talk) 07:55, 19 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Should be fine now. I lifted the rationale from Bart Simpson, which is a featured article, so it is going to be good enough.--Blargh29 (talk) 15:59, 19 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Okay, done? –ConkblockCity (talk) 07:55, 19 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Please consult Wikipedia:Non-free use rationale guideline to see how to add a fair use rationale to the image.--Blargh29 (talk) 07:32, 19 July 2009 (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. Otherwise, unless there is another reason for listing here, the listing will be closed by an administrator and the image kept. AnomieBOT⚡ 13:48, 19 July 2009 (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 image 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⚡ 05:32, 19 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Flickr page - http://flickr.com/photo.gne?id=4947429 - says all rights reserved. Although the image may have at one point been cc-by, it isn't now and because it was uploaded here rather than to Commons, we have no way of confirming it. B (talk) 07:26, 19 July 2009 (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 image 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⚡ 05:32, 19 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Image cropped from City of Pittsburgh website. Note that image has no exif data, too. Blargh29 (talk) 07:26, 19 July 2009 (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 image 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⚡ 05:32, 19 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Flickr page - http://www.flickr.com/photos/pbinder/6612469/ - says all rights reserved. Although it may have at one point had a cc-by license, we have no way of knowing. B (talk) 07:27, 19 July 2009 (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 image 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⚡ 05:32, 19 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Taken from City of Pittsburgh source. Note lack of metadata Blargh29 (talk) 07:30, 19 July 2009 (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: delete with no prejudice to reinstating if the actual source can be proven. Skier Dude (talk) 04:29, 19 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Image is stated as PD-US. Link is to a news site where it states that the image is "(Courtesy of Dan Choi)"... I can't see anything showing that the image was taken as part of his official duties, rather than at any time. The licence assertion of public domain does not look sound Peripitus (Talk) 12:34, 19 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Choi may have provided ABC News with the photo, but it is clearly an official Army photo. Please remove the template. Dems on the move (talk) 16:45, 19 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I have uploaded an uncropped version of the photo. Dems on the move (talk) 17:22, 19 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Where did you get the 460 × 458 pixel "uncropped version" of the photo? The one on http://aboutmag.com/v2/?p=918 at http://www.aboutmag.com/images/2008/CHOI.jpg is only 425 × 423 pixels. — Jeff G. (talk|contribs) 19:13, 23 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The URL you cited. Noted that the 425 x 423 is only a display resolution. Take a look under the hood at the URL code
- Where did you get the 460 × 458 pixel "uncropped version" of the photo? The one on http://aboutmag.com/v2/?p=918 at http://www.aboutmag.com/images/2008/CHOI.jpg is only 425 × 423 pixels. — Jeff G. (talk|contribs) 19:13, 23 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
<p><img class="aligncenter" src="http://www.aboutmag.com/images/2008/CHOI.jpg" alt="" width="425"/>
- The image http://www.aboutmag.com/images/2008/CHOI.jpg is 460 x 458. Dems on the move (talk) 20:17, 23 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - no reason to think it was an official army photo. It doesn't come up in a usasearch.gov image search or in any army image searches. Could be a Sears Photo Studio picture he had taken. --Blargh29 (talk) 07:27, 21 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Not finding the photo on usaresearch.gov doesn't prove anything. The military doesn't post photos of each individual soldier. Dems on the move (talk) 16:35, 23 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Finding an image of a service member doesn't prove that it was taken by a member of a military service during his official duties. You said above that "Choi may have provided ABC News with the photo, but it is clearly an official Army photo" (emphasis mine). The "may" is a big speculation with no evidence. Further, I don't see how it is "clearly" an official Army photo. --Blargh29 (talk) 01:59, 24 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Not finding the photo on usaresearch.gov doesn't prove anything. The military doesn't post photos of each individual soldier. Dems on the move (talk) 16:35, 23 July 2009 (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 image 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⚡ 05:32, 19 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Appears to be a scanned magazine page - not a free image Peripitus (Talk) 12:48, 19 July 2009 (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 image 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⚡ 05:32, 19 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Given the image, and the uploader's certain confusion about licensing (most other images deleted as obvious copyright violations), I think this is a webscraped image or possibly a magazine scan. Peripitus (Talk) 12:51, 19 July 2009 (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 image 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⚡ 05:32, 19 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Website screenshot. I doubt this is free use. J Milburn (talk) 18:08, 19 July 2009 (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 image 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⚡ 05:32, 19 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Poster. I doubt this has been released under a free license. J Milburn (talk) 18:10, 19 July 2009 (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 image 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 Lifebaka (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 01:15, 22 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Logo of a charity. I doubt this has been released under a free license. J Milburn (talk) 18:15, 19 July 2009 (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 image 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⚡ 05:32, 19 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Clearly posed, the greyscale suggests to me this is a publicity photo. J Milburn (talk) 19:55, 19 July 2009 (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 image 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 Fuhghettaboutit (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 04:53, 20 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Low res, posed, no metadata. I suspect this has been taken from elsewhere without permission. J Milburn (talk) 22:51, 19 July 2009 (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 image 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; {{PD-Canada}} and {{PD-US-1996}} apply. Stifle (talk) 11:11, 15 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I am not seeing any evidence that this image is released under a CC license. J Milburn (talk) 22:52, 19 July 2009 (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 image 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: Erroneous Nomination. When following the listing instructions (step 2), you need to replace "Image_name.ext" with the actual name of the file. You'll also want to put your reason for deletion just after "reason=". Feel free to just replace this entire section with the corrected template. If you are still having trouble, ask for help at WT:PUF or at my talk page. AnomieBOT⚡ 23:52, 19 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
reason Cardena (talk) 23:08, 19 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Hello,
I purchased the original negative of this photograph some years ago and am the copyright holder. Please suggest correct license for publication.
Cardena
- 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.