Wikipedia:Possibly unfree files/2012 September 5

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 Diannaa (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 05:04, 14 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

File:Air Seychelles inflight catering.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs).

• This looks like something the airline would include in its promotional material, and appears to be staged. Cloudbound (talk) 01:36, 5 September 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 with fair-use rationale. Dianna (talk) 03:08, 12 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

File:17Webscrap0503re.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs).

• Strange file name makes me quite suspicious whatever "Image belongs to the family who have given permission for free reproduction" is true. Bulwersator (talk) 07:16, 5 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• I have added a FUR as the subject is deceased since 1979 and no free images are known. I have moved the file to File:Eileen Shanahan.jpg. --Dianna (talk) 22:28, 8 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: The file was moved from File:17Webscrap0503re.jpg to File:Eileen Shanahan.jpg by Diannaa (talk · contribs) at 22:21, 8 September 2012 (UTC). AnomieBOT⚡ 00:01, 9 September 2012 (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⚡ 01:02, 9 September 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 Diannaa (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 05:04, 14 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

File:2012 OPQ Cycling-Jersey.png (delete | talk | history | logs).

• "This file is in the public domain, because Product Sales " -what? Bulwersator (talk) 07:17, 5 September 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 Diannaa (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 05:04, 14 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

File:Alexandru Malinescu.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs).

• "This file is in the public domain, because This is a picture from police files which is not subject to copyright " - AFAIK this is untrue Bulwersator (talk) 07:19, 5 September 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; the uploader has the yearbook in their hand, and they say there's no copyright notice. Dianna (talk) 03:33, 14 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

File:Aldine High School Facade 1961.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs).

• "This file is in the public domain, because The yearbook is not copyrighted. " - AFAIK not true Bulwersator (talk) 07:20, 5 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Well, not sure what you want me to do. There's no copyright in the book. I'm holding it in front of me right now. Are you? Guess the only way to prove it to you is to scan all 200 plus pages and I'm just not going to do that. If there's no copyright in the book, legally that means anyone can use it for any purpose. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Aldine1984 (talk • contribs) 09:46, 6 September 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 Diannaa (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 05:04, 14 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

File:Afterdead.PNG (delete | talk | history | logs).

• why "notice through official gazettes by Korean government " is making this file in public domain? And without description and/or translation (except small parts on talkpage). Bulwersator (talk) 07:23, 5 September 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 with corrected licensing templates. Dianna (talk) 19:32, 14 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

File:Beef cuts in Brazil.png (delete | talk | history | logs).

• "This file is in the public domain, because Wikimedia Commons " is absurd, "Author : Wikimedia Commons" is even better and it is supposed to be translation but original image is different. Bulwersator (talk) 07:28, 5 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• It's a derivative work of File:Beef cuts Brazil.svg from the Commons. I think it can be kept, but I'm not sure it should be tagged as PD. -- Dianna (talk) 03:45, 14 September 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 Diannaa (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 05:04, 14 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

File:Bin rashid flag.png (delete | talk | history | logs).

• "This file is in the public domain, because it was created by عبدالله but neither licensed nor copyrighted, therefore I place it under the public domain. "- "neither licensed nor copyrighted"? not licensed so it was fully copyrigted. Maybe it can pass as PD-shape.

Unused. Bulwersator (talk) 07:29, 5 September 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 F8 by Magog the Ogre (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) A file with this name on Commons is now visible. AnomieBOT⚡ 23:01, 8 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

File:Blood Donor (3rd Class) badge.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs).

• "This file is in the public domain, because It cannot be copyrighted by Russian law[citation needed]." Bulwersator (talk) 07:30, 5 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • See {{PD-RU-exempt}} which probably covers the medal. However, the photo of it is unlicensed. --Stefan2 (talk) 08:25, 5 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • Ok, as the original uploader, I added a lisence. Andrei.smolnikov (talk) 02:32, 6 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • Moved to Commons Bulwersator (talk) 19:10, 8 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment this already survived PUF this year -- 76.65.131.248 (talk) 19:25, 8 September 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 Diannaa (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 05:04, 14 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

• "This file is in the public domain, because the distribution of the material is encouraged by its creator" is absurd Bulwersator (talk) 07:30, 5 September 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; the image is the subject of commentary and qualifies for fair-use. I have added the required FUR templates. Dianna (talk) 03:58, 14 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

File:BestInk MannequinFactory falsealbum.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs).

• "This file is in the public domain, because Used by Oxygen as episode re-caps, allowing it's use for free work. " is not valid explanation why it is PD. Bulwersator (talk) 07:31, 5 September 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: Delete: The source shows that the interview is a clip from The Pierre Berton Show, which ran on the CBC in Canada. It can't possibly be CC-PDM-1.0; the copyright would be owned by the CBC. Dianna (talk) 04:04, 14 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

File:BruceLee1971.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs).

• "This file is in the public domain, because the video was previously considered lost for years, during which time the copyright expired. " but as it was created in 1971 it is impossible that copyright expired Bulwersator (talk) 07:32, 5 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment the source [1] marks it as CC-PDM-1.0; The uploader's comments are obviously bad, but the source is still CC-PD-1.0. -- 76.65.131.248 (talk) 19:37, 8 September 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 as PD-old. Dianna (talk) 04:07, 14 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

File:Charles I. D. Looff.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs).

• "This file is in the public domain, because Available at Long Beach, California Public Library " - again, not valid reason Bulwersator (talk) 07:33, 5 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  The subject died in 1918; I was unable to find any free images, so I am adding a FUR and will get the photo lab people to trim it. -- Dianna (talk) 22:39, 8 September 2012 (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⚡ 23:01, 8 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• I have thought it through with some prompting from another editor. The image is at least 94 years old, so the photographer must have died at least 100 years ago. I have re-tagged it as {{pd-old}}. -- Dianna (talk) 03:01, 9 September 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 F9 by Diannaa (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 00:01, 9 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

File:Carlos Arrechea 01.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs).

• "This file is in the public domain, because www.carlosarrechea.com " but this site contains "All rights reserved" at bottom Bulwersator (talk) 07:34, 5 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Deleted as copyright violation. This could have been tagged for speedy deletion {{db-f9}}. -- Dianna (talk) 22:50, 8 September 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: Delete; the file was also missing source information. Dianna (talk) 04:11, 14 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

File:Colour linocut print "Woman" by George Woods 1947.tif (delete | talk | history | logs).

• "This file is in the public domain, because I own the print " is bogus. You may own print without owning copyright Bulwersator (talk) 07:35, 5 September 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 Diannaa (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 06:04, 14 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

File:Capt. John Treasure Jones.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs).

• "This file is in the public domain, because PR photograph released in 1962"? PR photograph may be still copyrighted Bulwersator (talk) 07:35, 5 September 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 with fair-use rationale added for two articles. Dianna (talk) 04:19, 14 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

File:Cover of the 1992 joint package of Anna Vissi's albums "Na 'Hes Kardia" and "Kati Simveni".jpg (delete | talk | history | logs).

• "This file is in the public domain, because This album release has been withdrawn since 1996. " is completely bogus reason for PD status Bulwersator (talk) 07:36, 5 September 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 Diannaa (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 06:04, 14 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

File:CT O'Donnell & Family.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs).

• "This file is in the public domain, because This picture is on his linked in site " Bulwersator (talk) 07:38, 5 September 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 Diannaa (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 06:04, 14 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

• "This file is in the public domain, because official item legally exempt from copyright in its country of origin " - ekhm, but why? Bulwersator (talk) 07:42, 5 September 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 Diannaa (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 06:04, 14 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

File:Eastwood Academy 2012 STAAR results.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs).

• "This file is in the public domain, because public record " is not valid Bulwersator (talk) 07:43, 5 September 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 Diannaa (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 06:04, 14 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

File:DarrenPrince-JoeFrazier.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs).

• "This file is in the public domain, because Personal Photo " is not true Bulwersator (talk) 07:43, 5 September 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 Diannaa (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 06:04, 14 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

File:Eastwood Academy 2012 TAKS scores.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs).

• "This file is in the public domain, because public record " is not valid Bulwersator (talk) 07:45, 5 September 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 F9 by Diannaa (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 01:02, 9 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

File:Erin Blanchard 2008 Olympics Biography.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs).

• "This file is in the public domain, because used by IOC " is ridiculous and bogus Bulwersator (talk) 07:46, 5 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• I have deleted this one as all material on the source website is copyright. This file could have been deleted via {{db-f9}}. -- Dianna (talk) 23:07, 8 September 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 and add fair-use rationale for two articles. -- Dianna (talk) 04:51, 14 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

File:EBOccupStamps1.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs).

• " This file is in the public domain, because Obsolete and issued by a legal authority that no longer exists (the German authority of occupation, defunct since May 9, 1945) and whose copyright (if existing) therefore expired in 1995" is not true Bulwersator (talk) 07:48, 5 September 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 with addition of fair-use rationale. A rationale has also been added to File:Kugelmugel seal.png, which appears in the same article. Dianna (talk) 19:16, 14 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

File:Flag of Kugelmugel.png (delete | talk | history | logs).

• "This file is in the public domain, because official item legally exempt from copyright in its country of origin " - it is not an official item. Bulwersator (talk) 07:54, 5 September 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 SchuminWeb (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 06:04, 18 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

File:Frank E. Schoonover Dabbing his Pallet.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs).

• "This file is in the public domain, because Out of Copyright " - but why? Bulwersator (talk) 07:56, 5 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• There's already a copy of this image on the Commons as File:Frank Earle Schoonover.jpg that has been accepted as published prior to 1923 and therefore in the public domain. This one can be deleted as {{now Commons}} and I have tagged it as such. -- Dianna (talk) 23:17, 8 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• The people on the Commons are trying to get confirmation on what date the pic was published. -- Dianna (talk) 05:07, 14 September 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 Diannaa (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 07:04, 14 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

File:Fruit-export-pomegranate afghanistan Wikipedia only.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs).

• "Afghanistan has no copyright relations with the USA" but Wikipedia:Public_domain#Countries_without_copyright_treaties_with_the_U.S. - "On Wikipedia, such works may be used under a "public domain" claim only if their copyright in the country of origin has expired, even though legally the work is in the public domain in the U.S." Bulwersator (talk) 08:01, 5 September 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 with addition of fair-use rationale. Subject is deceased and no free images are available. Dianna (talk) 05:12, 14 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

File:King Mohammad Zahir Shah.JPG (delete | talk | history | logs).

• "Afghanistan has no copyright relations with the USA" but Wikipedia:Public_domain#Countries_without_copyright_treaties_with_the_U.S. - "On Wikipedia, such works may be used under a "public domain" claim only if their copyright in the country of origin has expired, even though legally the work is in the public domain in the U.S." Bulwersator (talk) 08:02, 5 September 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; photographs by Polish photographers published without a clear copyright notice before the law was changed on May 23, 1994 are assumed to be in the public domain.{{PD-Polish}} Dianna (talk) 05:28, 14 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

File:Ges bunkier.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs).

• "This file is in the public domain, because Ineligible for copyright " - unfortunately untrue Bulwersator (talk) 08:06, 5 September 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; photographs by Polish photographers published without a clear copyright notice before the law was changed on May 23, 1994 are assumed to be in the public domain.{{PD-Polish}} Dianna (talk) 05:30, 14 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

File:Ges-n1.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs).

• "This file is in the public domain, because Ineligible for copyright " - unfortunately untrue Bulwersator (talk) 08:07, 5 September 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: Kept with the addition of a fair-use rationale. Dianna (talk) 02:53, 19 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

• Wikipedia:Public_domain#German_World_War_II_images - "In general, wartime German images cannot be tagged as being in the public domain." Bulwersator (talk) 08:13, 5 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Might be {{PD-HHOFFMANN}}, but needs reference to the United States National Archives to prove that this particular photo is seized property. Without reference to the National Archives, it should be assumed to be unfree. --Stefan2 (talk) 10:19, 5 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. It is far more likely that this image belongs to the huge collection of more than 200k images taken by the USA from Nazi Germany and thus in the public domain for the USA. Assuming it to be unfree is unwarranted. Binksternet (talk) 17:08, 6 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment These Hoffmann requests have resulted in a long discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Military history/Archive 114#Heinrich Hoffmann Images. The closing administrator should read that discussion.

In short: The uploader claims that the uploader obtained the images from Wartenberg Trust and not from NARA. --Stefan2 (talk) 13:20, 10 September 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 F5 by Diannaa (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 01:02, 16 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

File:Kane FM Banner.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs).

• "This file is in the public domain, because Non-for-profit community radio station" - invalid reason Bulwersator (talk) 08:18, 5 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

My investigation reveals that there were three non-free images on this radio station article, none of which were the subject of commentary in the prose; thus fails NFCC 3a; one logo is sufficient. I have checked the radio station website and the logo they are currently using is File:Kane Alternative Logo.jpg. That file has now been tagged with {{Non-free logo}} and as it is too large I have tagged it with {{non-free reduce}}. The other two files I have tagged for F5 - orphan non-free files, using {{db-f5}}. I have also been in touch with the uploader on his talk page, and done routine clean-up on the radio station article. Regards, -- Dianna (talk) 19:14, 8 September 2012 (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, 14 September 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.

File:Articles of Incorporation Self Realization Fellowship Church.pdf (delete | talk | history | logs).

• "This file is in the public domain, because State of California - copy of actual article of incorporation " - and how it makes this file PD? Bulwersator (talk) 08:24, 5 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Hello - I found this on the copyright page you referred me to - "The constitution and statutes of some states, such as California and Florida, generally do not permit public records to be copyrighted." This document is from the State of California. Also, I have permission from the SRF to upload this file onto Wikipedia. How best to I add this to the document? Red Rose 13 (talk) 14:25, 5 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Works by the State of California are free, see {{PD-CAGov}}, but is this really a work of the State of California? It seems to be out of scope anyway. --Stefan2 (talk) 14:29, 5 September 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 Diannaa (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 07:04, 14 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

File:Anson Vasco Call II.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs).

• "This file is in the public domain, because This painting is on display at the Afton City Civic Center in honor of the subject. " - invalid reason Bulwersator (talk) 08:26, 5 September 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; the uploader has the yearbook in their hand, and they say there's no copyright notice. Dianna (talk) 03:34, 14 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

File:Aldine High School I.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs).

• "This file is in the public domain, because The yearbook is not copyrighted. " - why? Bulwersator (talk) 08:27, 5 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• "Why?" What kind of question is that?!? I have no idea why they didn't copyright the yearbook. I wasn't around then. But as there is no copyright, that means anyone is legally free to use it for any purpose... it is in the public domain. Aldine1984 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Aldine1984 (talk • contribs) 09:53, 6 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• The image appears to be used in an article about a school in the United States. If the yearbook was published in the United States before 1978 without a copyright notice, it is in the public domain as {{PD-US-no notice}}. However, the exact yearbook would have to be identified so that it is possible for other people to verify the copyright notice claim. --Stefan2 (talk) 10:31, 6 September 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 Diannaa (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 21:11, 14 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

• "Dana M Angell of The Library of Virginia has permitted the use of the low-res image by Wikipedia. " - unfree Bulwersator (talk) 08:28, 5 September 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 F9 by Diannaa (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 21:11, 14 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

File:Lincoln NP Map2.png (delete | talk | history | logs).

• "This file is in the public domain, because Australian Government Publication " - is not valid, see http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Template:PD-Australia Bulwersator (talk) 08:31, 5 September 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 F9 by Diannaa (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 21:11, 14 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

File:Lincoln NP Map.png (delete | talk | history | logs).

• "This file is in the public domain, because Australian Government Publication " - is not valid, see http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Template:PD-Australia Bulwersator (talk) 08:32, 5 September 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 with addition of fair-use rationale. Dianna (talk) 19:49, 14 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

File:Aurasma black.png (delete | talk | history | logs).

• Marked as {{PD-textlogo}} but has a fair use rationale. The background looks too complex in my opinion. Stefan2 (talk) 08:33, 5 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • I can source a simpler logo from them if required. Smb1001 (talk) 10:10, 6 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • I think the image can stay, but in my opinion it meets the threshold of originality to qualify for copyright protection. I have cleaned it up, removing the PD templates and have listed it for size reduction. -- Dianna (talk) 23:42, 8 September 2012 (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⚡ 00:01, 9 September 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 per discussion in May 2012; see Wikipedia:Possibly unfree files/2012 May 3#File:Museovalenzuela.JPG. Dianna (talk) 19:59, 14 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

• "This file is in the public domain, because Work of the City Government of Valenzuela " but in source we have " CITY GOVERNMENT OF VALENZUELA Copyright © 2011 " Bulwersator (talk) 08:33, 5 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • As the person who uploaded the image, Yes, it was said that in the source we had, the image was © 2011. But, it was uploaded in May 2012, so I changed the date and replaced it with the year of its creation which is the year 2011. Mediran ^talk 09:39, 6 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • The problem is with lack of source for public domain status of works created by City Government of Valenzuela, not with date Bulwersator (talk) 10:57, 6 September 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, with the addition of fair-use rationale. Dianna (talk) 23:24, 15 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

• I think that this is too complex for {{PD-textlogo}}. Stefan2 (talk) 08:33, 5 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • I agree, and I have added a fair-use rationale and requested a reduction in size to meet fair-use guidelines. -- Dianna (talk) 23:48, 8 September 2012 (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⚡ 00:01, 9 September 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 Diannaa (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 01:02, 16 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

File:Boustead College.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs).

• Obviously not {{PD-textlogo}}. Also, the left half of the image would be replaceable fair use if retagged as fair use. Stefan2 (talk) 08:35, 5 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • This is not the logo that is seen on the college website. It should be deleted. -- Dianna (talk) 23:55, 8 September 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 Diannaa (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 01:02, 16 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

File:Bubble Hand-SG2001.svg (delete | talk | history | logs).

• Looks too complex for PD-textlogo in my opinion. Stefan2 (talk) 08:35, 5 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Possibly. The file is not currently in use. -- Dianna (talk) 00:00, 9 September 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 Diannaa (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 05:03, 21 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

File:Minetest Animals Mod.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs).

• Forum as source - is it acceptable? Bulwersator (talk) 08:37, 5 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I usually would say a forum has some acceptance in copyright validation and source, but in this case I disagree. I believe it is worth being deleted for no valid copyright and non acceptable validation of it. John F. Lewis (talk) 06:19, 7 September 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: Delete; the cigarettes have logos on them, which might be subject to trademark. But the uploader has not released the photo itself under license, and has not responded to queries. Dianna (talk) 23:38, 15 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

File:Gauloises sticks.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs).

• Obviously not PD-textlogo. However, claimed to be own work by the uploader, so maybe a proper licence can be obtained. Stefan2 (talk) 08:39, 5 September 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 Diannaa (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 01:02, 16 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

File:IowaStateCycloneslogo1994-2000s.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs).

• The bird looks too complex for PD-textlogo. Stefan2 (talk) 08:39, 5 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• I agree --SPhilbrick(Talk) 15:24, 5 September 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 Diannaa (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 01:02, 16 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

• The sword looks too complex for PD-textlogo. Stefan2 (talk) 08:39, 5 September 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, widh addition of fair-use rationale. Dianna (talk) 23:52, 15 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

• Claimed to be a textlogo, but I can't find any text on it! Stefan2 (talk) 08:40, 5 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • I have changed it to a fair-use rationale, and marked it to get reduced in size. -- Dianna (talk) 00:18, 9 September 2012 (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⚡ 01:02, 9 September 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, widh addition of fair-use rationale. Dianna (talk) 23:53, 15 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

File:Logo for Partido Popular Monárquico.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs).

• "This file is in the public domain, because Logo for political party" Bulwersator (talk) 08:41, 5 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • I have added a fair-use rationale and called for a size reduction. -- Dianna (talk) 00:21, 9 September 2012 (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⚡ 01:02, 9 September 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, with addition of Fair Use rationale. Dianna (talk) 00:18, 16 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

File:Logo for Liberal Democratic Party of Russia.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs).

• "This file is in the public domain, because Logo for a political party" Bulwersator (talk) 08:41, 5 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • I have removed the inappropriate templates and added a FUR. -- Dianna (talk) 00:24, 9 September 2012 (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⚡ 01:02, 9 September 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: Speedy Delete - Copyvio  Ronhjones  ^(Talk) 22:25, 6 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

File:North campus map.png (delete | talk | history | logs).

• This map is not "simple geometry". Stefan2 (talk) 08:48, 5 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• I agree. --SPhilbrick(Talk) 15:22, 5 September 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 F9 by Ronhjones (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 00:00, 7 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

File:Levine campus map.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs).

• This map is not "simple geometry". Stefan2 (talk) 08:48, 5 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• I agree.--SPhilbrick(Talk) 15:15, 5 September 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 with addition of fair-use rationale. Dianna (talk) 00:35, 16 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

File:RSX file icon.png (delete | talk | history | logs).

• This image seems to contain complex geometry in addition to the simple geometry mentioned in the licence tag. Stefan2 (talk) 08:49, 5 September 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 Diannaa (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 02:03, 16 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

File:Original 1990 cover of Anna Vissi's album "Eimai".jpg (delete | talk | history | logs).

• "This file is in the public domain, because This release has been withdrawn from Greek market since 1997. " -invalid reason Bulwersator (talk) 08:50, 5 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: The article already contains one very similar image. -- Dianna (talk) 00:26, 9 September 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 Diannaa (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 06:04, 14 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

File:Original cover art of Anna Vissi's 1985 album "Kati Simveni".jpg (delete | talk | history | logs).

• "This file is in the public domain, because The vinyl format of this album is withdrawn in the country of release since mid-90s. " Bulwersator (talk) 08:50, 5 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: The article already contains a very similar image. -- Dianna (talk) 00:28, 9 September 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 as failing the threshold of originality. Dianna (talk) 00:39, 16 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

File:Original Dish Network logo.svg (delete | talk | history | logs).

• "This file is in the public domain, because Logo " - not true Bulwersator (talk) 08:51, 5 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • The other two logos in the article Dish Network are on the Commons as failing the threshold of originality. I don't see how adding one more curved line pushes this image over the threshold. -- Dianna (talk) 00:31, 9 September 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. Dianna (talk) 00:42, 16 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

File:Official Flag of the City of Rialto, CA USA.png (delete | talk | history | logs).

• "This file is in the public domain, because official item legally exempt from copyright in its country of origin " - why? Bulwersator (talk) 08:51, 5 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Reason: {{PD-CAGov}}. --Stefan2 (talk) 08:52, 5 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • I wonder whatever "City of Rialto" is "local agency" Bulwersator (talk) 09:03, 5 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      • In the US, 'state and local' typically means the singular state and multiple local governments. Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 08:32, 10 September 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 Diannaa (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 02:03, 16 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

File:NZR mid 1939 poster.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs).

• "This file is in the public domain, because The organisation which published it ceased to exist in 1981." - " ceased to exist in 1981" changes exactly nothing Bulwersator (talk) 08:53, 5 September 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 Dianna (talk) 00:46, 16 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

File:OrexClaims-15Feb2010.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs).

• "This constitutes fair use." Bulwersator (talk) 08:53, 5 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • This one looks okay to me, as the uploader generated the image himself using publicly available data. Perhaps the tags need upgrading to more accurately reflect its status. -- Dianna (talk) 00:35, 9 September 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 Diannaa (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 02:03, 16 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

File:Oregonian Story Planner.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs).

• "This file is in the public domain, because Based on the original Maestro Concept story planner that is public knowledge. " is not valid Bulwersator (talk) 08:54, 5 September 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 Diannaa (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 03:03, 16 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

File:Fame Britney Spears cover.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs).

• claims to be comic book cover; no source; orphaned Skier Dude (talk) 09:10, 5 September 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 Diannaa (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 03:03, 16 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

• See Commons:Commons:Deletion requests/File:NorthgateArenaBasketball.jpg. Stefan2 (talk) 14:18, 5 September 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 Diannaa (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 03:03, 16 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

• Varying resolution. No EXIF. Lots of copyvios by this user detected. Stefan2 (talk) 14:20, 5 September 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: Kept with addition of fair-use rationale. Dianna (talk) 03:26, 21 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

• Might be {{PD-HHOFFMANN}}, but needs reference to the United States National Archives to prove that this particular photo is seized property. Without reference to the National Archives, it should be assumed to be unfree. Bulwersator (talk) 15:32, 5 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. It is far more likely that this image belongs to the huge collection of more than 200k images taken by the USA from Nazi Germany and thus in the public domain for the USA. Assuming it to be unfree is unwarranted. Binksternet (talk) 17:20, 6 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment These Hoffmann requests have resulted in a long discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Military history/Archive 114#Heinrich Hoffmann Images. The closing administrator should read that discussion.

In short: The uploader claims that the uploader obtained the images from Wartenberg Trust and not from NARA. --Stefan2 (talk) 13:20, 10 September 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 with adition of fair-use rationale. Dianna (talk) 03:41, 21 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

• Might be {{PD-HHOFFMANN}}, but needs reference to the United States National Archives to prove that this particular photo is seized property. Without reference to the National Archives, it should be assumed to be unfree. Bulwersator (talk) 15:32, 5 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. It is far more likely that this image belongs to the huge collection of more than 200k images taken by the USA from Nazi Germany and thus in the public domain for the USA. Assuming it to be unfree is unwarranted. Binksternet (talk) 17:20, 6 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment These Hoffmann requests have resulted in a long discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Military history/Archive 114#Heinrich Hoffmann Images. The closing administrator should read that discussion.

In short: The uploader claims that the uploader obtained the images from Wartenberg Trust and not from NARA. --Stefan2 (talk) 13:20, 10 September 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: Deleted and reverted to an older revision, with the addition of a fair-use rationale for one article. Dianna (talk) 04:08, 21 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

File:Herbert Ihlefeld.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs).

• Might be {{PD-HHOFFMANN}}, but needs reference to the United States National Archives to prove that this particular photo is seized property. Without reference to the National Archives, it should be assumed to be unfree. Bulwersator (talk) 15:33, 5 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. It is far more likely that this image belongs to the huge collection of more than 200k images taken by the USA from Nazi Germany and thus in the public domain for the USA. Assuming it to be unfree is unwarranted. Binksternet (talk) 17:20, 6 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment These Hoffmann requests have resulted in a long discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Military history/Archive 114#Heinrich Hoffmann Images. The closing administrator should read that discussion.

In short: The uploader claims that the uploader obtained the images from Wartenberg Trust and not from NARA. --Stefan2 (talk) 13:20, 10 September 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: Delete. I was unable to find the image at NARA, and we already have a properly sourced fair-use image for this pilot. See File:Erich Hartmann.jpg. Dianna (talk) 14:09, 21 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

• Might be {{PD-HHOFFMANN}}, but needs reference to the United States National Archives to prove that this particular photo is seized property. Without reference to the National Archives, it should be assumed to be unfree. Bulwersator (talk) 15:33, 5 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. It is far more likely that this image belongs to the huge collection of more than 200k images taken by the USA from Nazi Germany and thus in the public domain for the USA. Assuming it to be unfree is unwarranted. Binksternet (talk) 17:20, 6 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment These Hoffmann requests have resulted in a long discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Military history/Archive 114#Heinrich Hoffmann Images. The closing administrator should read that discussion.

In short: The uploader claims that the uploader obtained the images from Wartenberg Trust and not from NARA. --Stefan2 (talk) 13:20, 10 September 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 with addition of {{PD-US-no notice}}. Dianna (talk) 01:38, 16 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

File:WLWC Advertisement (1957).jpg (delete | talk | history | logs).

• "Uncopyrighted advertising from 1957; Author is a defunct corporation that is no longer in business." does not explain why it is in public domain Bulwersator (talk) 15:37, 5 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Looks like a US advertisement from a US newspaper. Is this the entire advertisement? If so, I would assume that it is {{PD-US-no notice}}. --Stefan2 (talk) 16:31, 5 September 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; image is PD in the US and its country of origin. Dianna (talk) 01:42, 16 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

File:Stockport 1835 arms.png (delete | talk | history | logs).

• "This file has no author information" + "life of the author plus 70 years." + date is 1905, author alive in 1942 is quite likely possinility Bulwersator (talk) 15:43, 5 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Unable to establish the artist's identity. However it would appear that as a "Work First Published Outside the U.S. by Foreign Nationals or U.S. Citizens Living Abroad Before 1923" (published in UK in 1905) it is public domain for US and therefore Wikipedia purposes. I am open to correction on this.Lozleader (talk) 10:49, 6 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It would also qualify as PD-UK as unknown authors come into the public domain 70 years after creation (1975) which makes it public domain in the us as well. MilborneOne (talk) 21:46, 8 September 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 Diannaa (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 02:03, 16 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

• "This file is in the public domain, because This is based on the Maestro Concept package planer and is public " is not valid Bulwersator (talk) 15:46, 5 September 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: Deleted as F7; a freely licensed picture of the ball team could readily be created and used instead. Dianna (talk) 01:56, 16 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

File:T A San Marino finals 2011.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs).

• "San Marino has no copyright relations with the USA" but Wikipedia:Public_domain#Countries_without_copyright_treaties_with_the_U.S. - "On Wikipedia, such works may be used under a "public domain" claim only if their copyright in the country of origin has expired, even though legally the work is in the public domain in the U.S." Bulwersator (talk) 15:48, 5 September 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: Delete as F8; it's a copy of File:Wikipedesketch1.png from the Commons. Dianna (talk) 06:07, 14 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

File:Test picture for testing purposes.png (delete | talk | history | logs).

• "This file is in the public domain, because CC " - what? Bulwersator (talk) 15:56, 5 September 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: Deleted as F7; the person is still alive so a freely licensed image could be created and uploaded. Dianna (talk) 01:59, 16 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

File:Tolo TV Sayed makhdoom raheen Wikipedia only.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs).

• "Afghanistan has no copyright relations with the USA" but Wikipedia:Public_domain#Countries_without_copyright_treaties_with_the_U.S. - "On Wikipedia, such works may be used under a "public domain" claim only if their copyright in the country of origin has expired, even though legally the work is in the public domain in the U.S." Bulwersator (talk) 15:59, 5 September 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: Delete as F7: The subject is alive, and there's no reason why a free altermative could not be created and uploaded. Dianna (talk) 02:14, 16 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

File:Ravan A. G. Farhâdi Wikipedia only.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs).

• "Afghanistan has no copyright relations with the USA" but Wikipedia:Public_domain#Countries_without_copyright_treaties_with_the_U.S. - "On Wikipedia, such works may be used under a "public domain" claim only if their copyright in the country of origin has expired, even though legally the work is in the public domain in the U.S." Bulwersator (talk) 15:59, 5 September 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 F7 by Diannaa (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 04:04, 16 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

File:Interview with Mark Sidwell Wikipedia only.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs).

• "Afghanistan has no copyright relations with the USA" but Wikipedia:Public_domain#Countries_without_copyright_treaties_with_the_U.S. - "On Wikipedia, such works may be used under a "public domain" claim only if their copyright in the country of origin has expired, even though legally the work is in the public domain in the U.S." Bulwersator (talk) 15:59, 5 September 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 Diannaa (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 04:04, 16 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

File:Judges on afghan star season 3 Wikipedia onlyjpg.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs).

• "Afghanistan has no copyright relations with the USA" but Wikipedia:Public_domain#Countries_without_copyright_treaties_with_the_U.S. - "On Wikipedia, such works may be used under a "public domain" claim only if their copyright in the country of origin has expired, even though legally the work is in the public domain in the U.S." Bulwersator (talk) 16:00, 5 September 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 Diannaa (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 04:04, 16 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

File:IUST logo solid black.svg (delete | talk | history | logs).

• "Iran has no copyright relations with the USA" but Wikipedia:Public_domain#Countries_without_copyright_treaties_with_the_U.S. - "On Wikipedia, such works may be used under a "public domain" claim only if their copyright in the country of origin has expired, even though legally the work is in the public domain in the U.S." Bulwersator (talk) 16:01, 5 September 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 Diannaa (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 04:04, 16 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

File:Tom Smith, US Senate Candidate.png (delete | talk | history | logs).

• "This file is in the public domain, because Freely distributed campaign media " - Freely distributed campaign media may be fully copyrighted Bulwersator (talk) 16:04, 5 September 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: The file has an OTRS ticket in place. Dianna (talk) 02:25, 16 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

File:Touchdown Jesus 2.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs).

• "This file is in the public domain, because copyright of the original work is expired. " it is extremely unlikely that it is 100+ years old Bulwersator (talk) 16:06, 5 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• 1963, to be precise. Mangoe (talk) 21:45, 10 September 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 F9 by Diannaa (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 04:04, 16 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

File:Triangle Park.png (delete | talk | history | logs).

• "This file is in the public domain, because Project of the Quezon City Government " is not valid Bulwersator (talk) 16:07, 5 September 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 with addition of fair-use rationale. Dianna (talk) 02:30, 16 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

File:Uganda Game and Fisheries Department Logo.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs).

• "This file is in the public domain, because The copyright was owned by the Uganda Protectorate, a defunct government " does not mean that it is not copyrighted Bulwersator (talk) 16:08, 5 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Bulwersator, thank you for your generous contribution to making Wikipedia a more valuable resource. This concern may be correct but it is specious. The Template:Non-free use rationale logo is applicable in this case. If you would are interested in applying your charitably donated time reviewing copyright concerns more productively in future, please refer to the documentation of this template for use with similar content. Keitsist (talk) 17:00, 5 September 2012 (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⚡ 11:36, 6 September 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, with the addition of fair-use rationales for two articles. Dianna (talk) 14:32, 21 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

File:UNC Chapel Hill Cornerstone.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs).

• "This file is in the public domain, because Photo of a mural painted nearly sixty years ago in a public building.(Combination Court House and Post Office) " - sixty fails PD-old, in fails freedom of panorama Bulwersator (talk) 16:08, 5 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• I would argue that regardless of age, the mural is in a public courthouse/post office. Therefore it is reasonable to argue it is in the public domain as it was created using tax dollars. Eric Cable  |  Talk  17:31, 8 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Furthermore, I believe {{Non-free historic image}} is appropriate for this particular image. Eric Cable  |  Talk  17:37, 8 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep While there may be some disagreement over what the correct licensing tag should be, there appears to be more than one that would apply to be able to keep this image on Wikipedia. Sf46 (talk) 18:11, 9 September 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. Dianna (talk) 04:05, 17 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

File:Urals blank map.png (delete | talk | history | logs).

• "This file is in the public domain, because generated from PD vector data " is not valid + unused Bulwersator (talk) 16:10, 5 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment it's a blank map, it's supposed to be unused, you mark it up and upload a derivative image if you use it. -- 76.65.131.248 (talk) 20:48, 8 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep If the uploader created the image themselves using PD vector data, as stated, then why itsn't it in the public domain? If you think the image description or license tag needs to be a little more clear, how about advising the uploader of this instead of nominating it for deletion/discussion, etc? Sf46 (talk) 18:16, 9 September 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 Diannaa (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 05:07, 17 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

File:Vasilly Sigarev.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs).

• "This file is in the public domain, because It is on Russian Wikipedia " is unfortunately invalid Bulwersator (talk) 16:13, 5 September 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 Diannaa (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 05:07, 17 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

File:Vijaya Lakshmi Nehru Pandit Signature.png (delete | talk | history | logs).

• see http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Deletion_requests/File:Vijaya_Lakshmi_Nehru_Pandit_Signature.png Bulwersator (talk) 16:14, 5 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Wikipedia only cares about the copyright status in the United States and not about the copyright status in the source country. --Stefan2 (talk) 18:57, 5 September 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 F9 by Diannaa (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 05:07, 17 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

File:Virginia Senator Richard Black - 13th District.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs).

• "This file is in the public domain, because Virginia Senator Photo " is not valid Bulwersator (talk) 16:14, 5 September 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; the source website clearly shows that the book was published in 1918. Dianna (talk) 02:35, 16 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

• "This file is in the public domain, because the work depicted was published in 1918 " -- it may be later edition, photo itself may be unfree (image of 3D object etc) Bulwersator (talk) 16:15, 5 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - image is definitely of first edition. Sindinero (talk) 16:36, 5 September 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; link provided on file shows a 1918 publication date. Dianna (talk) 03:37, 17 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

• "This file is in the public domain, because the work depicted was published in 1920" -- it may be later edition, photo itself may be unfree (image of 3D object etc) Bulwersator (talk) 16:16, 5 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - image is definitely of first edition. Sindinero (talk) 16:37, 5 September 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 with corrected permissions. Dianna (talk) 03:45, 17 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

File:Wikipedia-logo-ckb.png (delete | talk | history | logs).

• "This file is in the public domain, because detailed reason given here " Bulwersator (talk) 16:19, 5 September 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 F9 by Diannaa (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 05:07, 17 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

File:ValCity Convention.JPG (delete | talk | history | logs).

• "This file is in the public domain, because Work of the City Government of Valenzuela " but linked page contains " CITY GOVERNMENT OF VALENZUELA Copyright © 2011 " Bulwersator (talk) 16:23, 5 September 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 revert to version known to have been published in 1918. Dianna (talk) 03:05, 17 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

File:Clement Studebaker.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs).

• "Image from Findagrave" is not specific enough. Stefan2 (talk) 17:38, 5 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• I've linked to the source page but in any case a photograph from life of someone who died over a century ago in the USA is plainly PD. Mangoe (talk) 21:24, 10 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • It says that the photo was taken "circa 1900", but it is not possible to tell if it is a published photo or not. Unpublished photos are copyrighted for life+70 years (if the photographer is known) or for creation+120 years (if the photographer is unknown). --Stefan2 (talk) 21:30, 10 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • Well, we could revert to the previous version of the file, which SI says was published in 1918. Mangoe (talk) 21:53, 10 September 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 with addition of fair use rationale for one article. Dianna (talk) 14:53, 21 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

File:Wolfgang Falck.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs).

• {{PD-HHOFFMANN}} image without National Archives link. Far from all Hoffmann images are seized Nazi property, so all {{PD-HHOFFMANN}} images need a link to the United States National Archives so that it is possible to determine if the photo is seized property or not. Without a link to the United States National Archives, the image should be treated as unfree. Stefan2 (talk) 17:46, 5 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose on procedural grounds As I've just posted at User talk:Stefan2#Hoffmann images, this and the many, many subsequent nominations lodged today really should be bundled in some way given that this is essentially a group nomination. The individual nominations make it needlessly difficult for other editors to comment. As a general comment, I agree that specific sources are needed to demonstrate that these have in fact been taken from this PD collection, but I really don't think that this is a good way of going about things. Nick-D (talk) 11:41, 6 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. It is far more likely that this image belongs to the huge collection of more than 200k images taken by the USA from Nazi Germany and thus in the public domain for the USA. Assuming it to be unfree is unwarranted. Binksternet (talk) 17:20, 6 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment These Hoffmann requests have resulted in a long discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Military history/Archive 114#Heinrich Hoffmann Images. The closing administrator should read that discussion.

In short: The uploader claims that the uploader obtained the images from Wartenberg Trust and not from NARA. --Stefan2 (talk) 13:20, 10 September 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: Delete. The image was not found at NARA, and we have a free-use Bundesarchiv image at the Commons. See File:Bundesarchiv Bild 183-2006-0529-501, Nikolaus v. Falkenhorst.jpg. Dianna (talk) 15:03, 21 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

• {{PD-HHOFFMANN}} image without National Archives link. Far from all Hoffmann images are seized Nazi property, so all {{PD-HHOFFMANN}} images need a link to the United States National Archives so that it is possible to determine if the photo is seized property or not. Without a link to the United States National Archives, the image should be treated as unfree. Overwritten by a completely different image. Both images have the same problem. Stefan2 (talk) 17:47, 5 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. It is far more likely that this image belongs to the huge collection of more than 200k images taken by the USA from Nazi Germany and thus in the public domain for the USA. Assuming it to be unfree is unwarranted. Binksternet (talk) 17:20, 6 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment These Hoffmann requests have resulted in a long discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Military history/Archive 114#Heinrich Hoffmann Images. The closing administrator should read that discussion.

In short: The uploader claims that the uploader obtained the images from Wartenberg Trust and not from NARA. --Stefan2 (talk) 13:20, 10 September 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 with the addition of a fair use rationale. Dianna (talk) 15:20, 21 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

• {{PD-HHOFFMANN}} image without National Archives link. Far from all Hoffmann images are seized Nazi property, so all {{PD-HHOFFMANN}} images need a link to the United States National Archives so that it is possible to determine if the photo is seized property or not. Without a link to the United States National Archives, the image should be treated as unfree. Stefan2 (talk) 17:48, 5 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. It is far more likely that this image belongs to the huge collection of more than 200k images taken by the USA from Nazi Germany and thus in the public domain for the USA. Assuming it to be unfree is unwarranted. Binksternet (talk) 17:20, 6 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment These Hoffmann requests have resulted in a long discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Military history/Archive 114#Heinrich Hoffmann Images. The closing administrator should read that discussion.

In short: The uploader claims that the uploader obtained the images from Wartenberg Trust and not from NARA. --Stefan2 (talk) 13:20, 10 September 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 with the addition of a fair-use rationale. Dianna (talk) 21:52, 21 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

• {{PD-HHOFFMANN}} image without National Archives link. Far from all Hoffmann images are seized Nazi property, so all {{PD-HHOFFMANN}} images need a link to the United States National Archives so that it is possible to determine if the photo is seized property or not. Without a link to the United States National Archives, the image should be treated as unfree. Stefan2 (talk) 17:48, 5 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. It is far more likely that this image belongs to the huge collection of more than 200k images taken by the USA from Nazi Germany and thus in the public domain for the USA. Assuming it to be unfree is unwarranted. Binksternet (talk) 17:20, 6 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment These Hoffmann requests have resulted in a long discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Military history/Archive 114#Heinrich Hoffmann Images. The closing administrator should read that discussion.

In short: The uploader claims that the uploader obtained the images from Wartenberg Trust and not from NARA. --Stefan2 (talk) 13:20, 10 September 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, with the addition of a fair-use rationale. Dianna (talk) 22:11, 21 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

• {{PD-HHOFFMANN}} image without National Archives link. Far from all Hoffmann images are seized Nazi property, so all {{PD-HHOFFMANN}} images need a link to the United States National Archives so that it is possible to determine if the photo is seized property or not. Without a link to the United States National Archives, the image should be treated as unfree. Stefan2 (talk) 17:48, 5 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. It is far more likely that this image belongs to the huge collection of more than 200k images taken by the USA from Nazi Germany and thus in the public domain for the USA. Assuming it to be unfree is unwarranted. Binksternet (talk) 17:20, 6 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment These Hoffmann requests have resulted in a long discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Military history/Archive 114#Heinrich Hoffmann Images. The closing administrator should read that discussion.

In short: The uploader claims that the uploader obtained the images from Wartenberg Trust and not from NARA. --Stefan2 (talk) 13:20, 10 September 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 with the addition of a fair-use rationale. Dianna (talk) 22:23, 21 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

• {{PD-HHOFFMANN}} image without National Archives link. Far from all Hoffmann images are seized Nazi property, so all {{PD-HHOFFMANN}} images need a link to the United States National Archives so that it is possible to determine if the photo is seized property or not. Without a link to the United States National Archives, the image should be treated as unfree. Stefan2 (talk) 17:48, 5 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. It is far more likely that this image belongs to the huge collection of more than 200k images taken by the USA from Nazi Germany and thus in the public domain for the USA. Assuming it to be unfree is unwarranted. Binksternet (talk) 17:20, 6 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment These Hoffmann requests have resulted in a long discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Military history/Archive 114#Heinrich Hoffmann Images. The closing administrator should read that discussion.

In short: The uploader claims that the uploader obtained the images from Wartenberg Trust and not from NARA. --Stefan2 (talk) 13:20, 10 September 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: Delete; I was unable to find an online source that predates the upload. I am restoring Jim Sweeney's upload of this soldier. See File:Albert Frey (SS officer).jpg. Dianna (talk) 22:47, 21 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

• {{PD-HHOFFMANN}} image without National Archives link. Far from all Hoffmann images are seized Nazi property, so all {{PD-HHOFFMANN}} images need a link to the United States National Archives so that it is possible to determine if the photo is seized property or not. Without a link to the United States National Archives, the image should be treated as unfree. Stefan2 (talk) 17:49, 5 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. It is far more likely that this image belongs to the huge collection of more than 200k images taken by the USA from Nazi Germany and thus in the public domain for the USA. Assuming it to be unfree is unwarranted. Binksternet (talk) 17:20, 6 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment These Hoffmann requests have resulted in a long discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Military history/Archive 114#Heinrich Hoffmann Images. The closing administrator should read that discussion.

In short: The uploader claims that the uploader obtained the images from Wartenberg Trust and not from NARA. --Stefan2 (talk) 13:20, 10 September 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 with the addition of a fair-use rationale. Dianna (talk) 23:24, 21 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

File:FrickeKurt1.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs).

• {{PD-HHOFFMANN}} image without National Archives link. Far from all Hoffmann images are seized Nazi property, so all {{PD-HHOFFMANN}} images need a link to the United States National Archives so that it is possible to determine if the photo is seized property or not. Without a link to the United States National Archives, the image should be treated as unfree. Stefan2 (talk) 17:49, 5 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. It is far more likely that this image belongs to the huge collection of more than 200k images taken by the USA from Nazi Germany and thus in the public domain for the USA. Assuming it to be unfree is unwarranted. Binksternet (talk) 17:20, 6 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment These Hoffmann requests have resulted in a long discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Military history/Archive 114#Heinrich Hoffmann Images. The closing administrator should read that discussion.

In short: The uploader claims that the uploader obtained the images from Wartenberg Trust and not from NARA. --Stefan2 (talk) 13:20, 10 September 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: convert to non-free. SchuminWeb (Talk) 02:43, 22 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

• Another {{PD-HHOFFMANN}} without National Archives link. Stefan2 (talk) 18:05, 5 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. It is far more likely that this image belongs to the huge collection of more than 200k images taken by the USA from Nazi Germany and thus in the public domain for the USA. Assuming it to be unfree is unwarranted. Binksternet (talk) 17:20, 6 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment These Hoffmann requests have resulted in a long discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Military history/Archive 114#Heinrich Hoffmann Images. The closing administrator should read that discussion.

In short: The uploader claims that the uploader obtained the images from Wartenberg Trust and not from NARA. --Stefan2 (talk) 13:20, 10 September 2012 (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⚡ 03:02, 19 September 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: Kept as a low-resolution non-free file for use in the info box. Dianna (talk) 01:58, 19 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

File:Heinrich Bleichrodt.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs).

• Another {{PD-HHOFFMANN}} without National Archives link. Overwritten twice by completely different photos and the first photo might not even be a Hoffmann photo. Stefan2 (talk) 18:06, 5 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. It is far more likely that this image belongs to the huge collection of more than 200k images taken by the USA from Nazi Germany and thus in the public domain for the USA. Assuming it to be unfree is unwarranted. Binksternet (talk) 17:20, 6 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment These Hoffmann requests have resulted in a long discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Military history/Archive 114#Heinrich Hoffmann Images. The closing administrator should read that discussion.

In short: The uploader claims that the uploader obtained the images from Wartenberg Trust and not from NARA. --Stefan2 (talk) 13:20, 10 September 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: Kept with the addition of a fair-use rationale. Dianna (talk) 22:39, 22 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

File:PannwitzHv-1.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs).

• Another {{PD-HHOFFMANN}} without National Archives link. Overwritten and the first upload might not even be a Hoffmann photo. Stefan2 (talk) 18:06, 5 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. It is far more likely that this image belongs to the huge collection of more than 200k images taken by the USA from Nazi Germany and thus in the public domain for the USA. Assuming it to be unfree is unwarranted. Binksternet (talk) 17:20, 6 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment These Hoffmann requests have resulted in a long discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Military history/Archive 114#Heinrich Hoffmann Images. The closing administrator should read that discussion.

In short: The uploader claims that the uploader obtained the images from Wartenberg Trust and not from NARA. --Stefan2 (talk) 13:20, 10 September 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, with the addition of a fair-use rationale. Dianna (talk) 22:48, 22 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

• Another {{PD-HHOFFMANN}} without National Archives link. Stefan2 (talk) 18:06, 5 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. It is far more likely that this image belongs to the huge collection of more than 200k images taken by the USA from Nazi Germany and thus in the public domain for the USA. Assuming it to be unfree is unwarranted. Binksternet (talk) 17:20, 6 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment These Hoffmann requests have resulted in a long discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Military history/Archive 114#Heinrich Hoffmann Images. The closing administrator should read that discussion.

In short: The uploader claims that the uploader obtained the images from Wartenberg Trust and not from NARA. --Stefan2 (talk) 13:20, 10 September 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 with the addition of a fair use rationale. This is a duplicate post. Dianna (talk) 22:50, 22 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

• Another {{PD-HHOFFMANN}} without National Archives link. Stefan2 (talk) 18:07, 5 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. It is far more likely that this image belongs to the huge collection of more than 200k images taken by the USA from Nazi Germany and thus in the public domain for the USA. Assuming it to be unfree is unwarranted. Binksternet (talk) 17:20, 6 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment These Hoffmann requests have resulted in a long discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Military history/Archive 114#Heinrich Hoffmann Images. The closing administrator should read that discussion.

In short: The uploader claims that the uploader obtained the images from Wartenberg Trust and not from NARA. --Stefan2 (talk) 13:20, 10 September 2012 (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⚡ 04:03, 21 September 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 with the addition of a fair-use rationale. This is a duplicate post. Dianna (talk) 22:52, 22 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

• Another {{PD-HHOFFMANN}} without National Archives link. Stefan2 (talk) 18:07, 5 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. It is far more likely that this image belongs to the huge collection of more than 200k images taken by the USA from Nazi Germany and thus in the public domain for the USA. Assuming it to be unfree is unwarranted. Binksternet (talk) 17:20, 6 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment These Hoffmann requests have resulted in a long discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Military history/Archive 114#Heinrich Hoffmann Images. The closing administrator should read that discussion.

In short: The uploader claims that the uploader obtained the images from Wartenberg Trust and not from NARA. --Stefan2 (talk) 13:20, 10 September 2012 (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⚡ 04:03, 21 September 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: Kept with the addition of a fair-use rationale. Dianna (talk) 23:06, 22 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

• Another {{PD-HHOFFMANN}} without National Archives link. Stefan2 (talk) 18:08, 5 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. It is far more likely that this image belongs to the huge collection of more than 200k images taken by the USA from Nazi Germany and thus in the public domain for the USA. Assuming it to be unfree is unwarranted. Binksternet (talk) 17:20, 6 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment These Hoffmann requests have resulted in a long discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Military history/Archive 114#Heinrich Hoffmann Images. The closing administrator should read that discussion.

In short: The uploader claims that the uploader obtained the images from Wartenberg Trust and not from NARA. --Stefan2 (talk) 13:20, 10 September 2012 (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⚡ 23:01, 22 September 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 Diannaa (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 16:09, 21 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

• Another {{PD-HHOFFMANN}} without National Archives link. Stefan2 (talk) 18:08, 5 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. It is far more likely that this image belongs to the huge collection of more than 200k images taken by the USA from Nazi Germany and thus in the public domain for the USA. Assuming it to be unfree is unwarranted. Binksternet (talk) 17:20, 6 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment These Hoffmann requests have resulted in a long discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Military history/Archive 114#Heinrich Hoffmann Images. The closing administrator should read that discussion.

In short: The uploader claims that the uploader obtained the images from Wartenberg Trust and not from NARA. --Stefan2 (talk) 13:20, 10 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• This is a duplicate posting. The result was Delete, because I was unable to find the image at NARA, and we already have a properly sourced fair-use image for this pilot. See File:Erich Hartmann.jpg. -- Dianna (talk) 21:55, 21 September 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: Delete; the image was not found in the NARA archive, and we have a free-use image from the Bundesarchiv. See File:Bundesarchiv Bild 146-1986-013-04, Helmut Wick (cropped).jpg. Dianna (talk) 00:41, 23 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

• Another {{PD-HHOFFMANN}} without National Archives link. Stefan2 (talk) 18:09, 5 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. It is far more likely that this image belongs to the huge collection of more than 200k images taken by the USA from Nazi Germany and thus in the public domain for the USA. Assuming it to be unfree is unwarranted. Binksternet (talk) 17:20, 6 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment These Hoffmann requests have resulted in a long discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Military history/Archive 114#Heinrich Hoffmann Images. The closing administrator should read that discussion.

In short: The uploader claims that the uploader obtained the images from Wartenberg Trust and not from NARA. --Stefan2 (talk) 13:20, 10 September 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: Deleted; the image was not found at the NARA site, and we have a free-use Bundesarchiv Bild. File:Bundesarchiv Bild 183-2006-0822-500, Gotenhafen, Generalleutnant Karl Mauss.jpg. Dianna (talk) 00:59, 23 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

• Another {{PD-HHOFFMANN}} without National Archives link. Stefan2 (talk) 18:10, 5 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. It is far more likely that this image belongs to the huge collection of more than 200k images taken by the USA from Nazi Germany and thus in the public domain for the USA. Assuming it to be unfree is unwarranted. Binksternet (talk) 17:20, 6 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment These Hoffmann requests have resulted in a long discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Military history/Archive 114#Heinrich Hoffmann Images. The closing administrator should read that discussion.

In short: The uploader claims that the uploader obtained the images from Wartenberg Trust and not from NARA. --Stefan2 (talk) 13:20, 10 September 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 Diannaa (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 04:07, 17 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

• Permission to "post it on my and other web-sites" is not the same thing as permission to publish it under GNU or Creative Commons licences. Stefan2 (talk) 18:12, 5 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• The uploader deleted this section yesterday without fully addressing the concerns. The permission statement on the file information page has now been changed to state something different to the previous statement. If the uploader has permission for the image, then the uploader needs to send evidence of permission to OTRS. See WP:CONSENT and WP:IOWN. --Stefan2 (talk) 08:35, 9 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• KEEP - As stated in the file description: The photo was given to me by H.R.H. Prince Eugen of Bavaria. I was given permission by the AUTHOR to post it on my and any other web-sites and use this image at my discretion. The AUTHOR also gives a permission to anyone to use this image freely wherever and whenever she/he want. The AUTHOR is Miss Koss! Not Prince Eugen of Bavaria. Miss Koss gave me the permission and Prince Eugen gave me the photo! Unfortunately, Stefan2 does not understand that and nominated this image without merit!Mariaflores1955 (talk) 14:52, 10 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • As explained to you, you have to comply with WP:IOWN and WP:CONSENT. You can't just add lots of unsourced statements. See WP:BURDEN. Your comment above is full of ^{[citation needed]} tags everywhere. --Stefan2 (talk) 15:03, 10 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • • Keep. It complies with both WP:IOWN and WP:CONSENT.Bolekpolivka (talk) 18:24, 10 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
        • What's the OTRS ticket number? --Stefan2 (talk) 18:29, 10 September 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.