Wikipedia:Possibly unfree files/2007 November 28



Image:Penguin_City.jpg

 * 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 A file with this name on Commons is now visible. AnomieBOT ⚡ 00:06, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

No evidence of CC licensing from Bob Lynch as claimed. Jusjih (talk) 02:54, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

This is Bob Lynch. I thought I'd given proper copyright but it appears that I'm wrong. I'll try to sort it out later. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 194.73.217.244 (talk) 10:19, 4 December 2007 (UTC)


 * All of the comments on the above 194.73.217.244 talk page are vandalism warnings. I seriously doubt the above comment is actually from Bob Lynch. I think this image is suitable for deletion. User:Pedant (talk) 20:12, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Not deleted --B (talk) 01:09, 15 December 2007 (UTC)
 * 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.

Image:Scientologylogo.png

 * 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 AnomieBOT ⚡  01:16, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

Derivative work from an image deleted per Jusjih (talk) 04:03, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
 * 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.

Image:Slmcsbanner.jpg

 * 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 I9 by AnomieBOT ⚡  01:16, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

With slmcs.org indicated, GFDL-self claim seems questionable. Jusjih (talk) 04:42, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
 * 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.

Image:Transparent uno.jpg

 * 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 I8 by A file with this name on Commons is now visible. AnomieBOT ⚡ 01:16, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

This image is merely showing how the CD looks like. I think it should be tagged the same way than a CD cover. Definitely non GFDL. -- lucasbfr talk 09:29, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Note from the uploader of the image: I don't agree at all. It is not a straight copy of the CD cover (if you can call a transparent sleeve a cover in the first place) and IMO it infringes copyrights as much as a photo of somebody holding a mobile phone infringes Nokia's trademarked designs. Furthermore I took the photo myself (yep, that's my hand), so I really fail to see what's wrong with a GFDL license. Rien Post (talk) 01:15, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
 * GFDL makes sense to me, assuming that is your hand and not a refugee from the Addams Family...--uɐɔlnʌɟoʞǝɹɐs 01:44, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Does that mean the case is closed and I can remove the PUI tags? Where does this go from here? Rien Post (talk) 14:08, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
 * "Listings should be processed by an administrator after being listed for 14 days. Images that are accepted following this fourteen-day period should have added to the image talk page and a copy of the issue and/or discussion that took place here put on the image talk page as well."--uɐɔlnʌɟoʞǝɹɐs 14:24, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Not deleted --B (talk) 01:24, 15 December 2007 (UTC)
 * 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.

Image:Colcannon 4215w.jpg

 * 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 A file with this name on Commons is now visible. AnomieBOT ⚡ 01:16, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

If the text had simply been posted on WP, it would obviously have been a copy-vio, and I see no difference here. Porcupine (prickle me! · contribs · status) 17:23, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Actually, it wouldn't have been a copyvio, as recipes have been held to be generally non-copyrightable -- http://smallbusiness.findlaw.com/copyright/copyright-realworld/recipe-copyrighting(1).html.--uɐɔlnʌɟoʞǝɹɐs 22:22, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
 * The photo was of a generic recipe on the back of a bag of potatoes; it is no more copyright than a photo of a street scene containing adds in shop windows. (Sarah777 (talk) 22:27, 28 November 2007 (UTC))
 * Agreed, should be kept. The Evil Spartan 04:38, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep. User:Pedant (talk) 20:00, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
 * 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.

Image:BAP Palacios and BAP Villar (Sep 1973-USN).JPG

 * 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 I8 by AnomieBOT ⚡  01:16, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

Resolved - Image is USN photo. SkierRMH ( talk ) 23:48, 14 December 2007 (UTC) Source is given as Peruvian Navy Archive, but the image is tagged as PD-USGov... Lupo 20:50, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Well, the explanation about the source is quite simple: This picture was taken during the UNITAS exercise in 1973, from a US Navy ship, but i found it in a collection of pictures of the Peruvian Navy Archive. That`s why the source is the Peruvian Navy Archive, but the picture was taken by the US Navy. Greetings.Cloudaoc 22:22, 3 December 2007 (UTC)


 * 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.

Image:Villianc.svg

 * 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 G6 by AnomieBOT ⚡  01:16, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

Closed on commons, should be closed here. Thanks, Luc "Somethingorother" French 01:36, 6 December 2007 (UTC) This is the same as Villianc.jpg, which itself is in danger of being PUI'ed. RageSamurai21655 (talk) 21:05, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Oh come on. It was created by the same person who did Image:Piratey, vector version.svg. Obviously both are amalgams of several type-characters, the end result of which is considered own work, right? --190.74.108.43 01:26, 2 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Yes, but Villianc.jpg is in danger of being deleted because it looks too much like Snidely Whiplash. RageSamurai21655 18:48, 2 December 2007 (UTC)
 * If you go to the actual debate, you'll find that it's probably not going to be deleted: the mustached, hook-nosed, top-hatted villain was a well known stereotype well before Snidely Whiplash was even a sketch. Thanks, Luc "Somethingorother" French 01:26, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
 * My mistake: It was closed already, as a keep. . So this should be closed. Thanks, Luc "Somethingorother" French 01:29, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
 * 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.