Wikipedia:Possibly unfree files/2008 May 10

Image:Br sky 2.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 I4 by AnomieBOT ⚡  01:48, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

Claims the image is self-made, but the user apparently does not own a camera, so I'm not sure how the licensing could be valid. Mosmof (talk) 04:04, 10 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Speedy delete - Per nom.  a s e nine  say what?  17:41, 19 May 2008 (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:NSplate.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 I3 by AnomieBOT ⚡  01:48, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

Appears to be a derivative work of copyrighted material belonging to Nova Scotia. —  pd_THOR  undefined | 05:08, 10 May 2008 (UTC)


 * KEEP Canadian Copyright Law- section 29 []  Angela2109 (talk) 19:04, 11 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Use of Wikipedia is not restricted to "research or private use", and any intellectual property on Wikipedia must allow for commercial use, so the section of the copyright law that you cite doesn't apply here. --Mosmof (talk) 19:55, 11 May 2008 (UTC)
 * The licensing says that the uploader is releasing the copyright for that image of a Nova Scotian license plate, despite it not being their copyright to release. —   pd_THOR  undefined | 07:24, 12 May 2008 (UTC)


 * "KEEP How can a Licence plate be a derivative work, So every pic of a vehicle with a plate visible is derivative work?, Licence plates are public. They become part of the car. --Angela2109 (talk) 01:32, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
 * I don't understand your argument. License plates are "pubilc"?  They are in the public eye, but that doesn't mean their copyright is thusly annulled; if that were the case, what then would copyrights even mean?  Further, what do you mean by "become part of the car"; license plates are attached to the automobile, but what significance does that play in the plates' copyright status?  —   pd_THOR  undefined | 07:24, 12 May 2008 (UTC)


 * KEEP I'm not releasing Nova Scotias copyright, My photo of an automobile, in public, that happens to show a NS plate, is being released. in no way is it a derivative work. Then A photo of a ford car showing with fords logo is a derivative work, no, the logo is part of the car, as is a licence plate. It is simply a photo of a nova scotia car with their name on it.--Angela2109 (talk) 16:25, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Ultimately this is specifically an image of a mounted Nova Scotian license plate, for the purposes of depicting the same. The design and appearance of that image is privy to the government of NS, and is nobody elses to release or claim.  —   pd_THOR  undefined | 16:36, 12 May 2008 (UTC)


 * upon researching Nova Scotia Gov website it states: any government images or media me be used if they are scaled-down, low-resolution images to provide critical commentary or research--Angela2109 (talk) 17:23, 12 May 2008 (UTC).
 * Provided that's the case, that'd be great! Can you point us to a reliable source for it?  —   pd_THOR  undefined | 18:04, 12 May 2008 (UTC)


 * KEEP The reliable source is as follows  --Angela2109 (talk) 20:31, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Uh, correct me if I'm missing anything, but the link you provided is a web style guideline for Nova Scotia government sites, and seems to have nothing to do with image reusage on other websites. --Mosmof (talk) 22:35, 12 May 2008 (UTC)


 * KEEP where is the text from a reliable source indicating or even suggesting that a licence plate is even a copyrightable work? It seems to me that licence plates fall into a loophole. you cant copyright a number or a blurry image beheind the number. why are people fighting this so hard? its just a small cropped low-res image. Hardly taking away from the integrity of wikipedia. --Angela2109 (talk) 12:59, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
 * No one's trying to get the image deleted - it's just that you keep citing irrelevant laws when you can just give it a fair use rationale and be done with it. ALL intellectual property is copyrighted by default, even work that you dismiss as just "a number or a blurry image behind the number". Respecting intellectual property rights has everything to do with integrity. --Mosmof (talk) 15:26, 13 May 2008 (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:PEIplate.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 I3 by AnomieBOT ⚡  01:48, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

Appears to be a derivative work of copyrighted material belonging to Prince Edward Island. —  pd_THOR  undefined | 05:08, 10 May 2008 (UTC)


 * KEEP Images or art printed on licence plates in Canada do not fall under any copyright laws, they are in Public Domain   Angela2109 (talk) 19:05, 11 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Use of Wikipedia is not restricted to "research or private use", and any intellectual property on Wikipedia must allow for commercial use, so the section of the copyright law that you cite doesn't apply here. --Mosmof (talk) 19:55, 11 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Again, the licensing says that the uploader is releasing the copyright for that image of a Prince Edward Island license plate, despite it not being their copyright to release. —   pd_THOR  undefined | 07:24, 12 May 2008 (UTC)


 * if this is the case then the thousands of images showing Licence Plates must be removed due to copyright. --24.57.90.162 (talk) 01:25, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Depending on their depiction and purposing of the image, then possibly. See Commons:Deletion requests/License plates 2.  —   pd_THOR  undefined | 07:24, 12 May 2008 (UTC)


 * OK, This image is a scan of a real plate. but because its not in public and only shows the the plate then it ma be considered a derivative work. I made a mistake releasing to public domain, but it is only being used as an example of what a PEI plate might look like.--Angela2109 (talk) 16:31, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Change to fair use. Stifle (talk) 14:47, 13 May 2008 (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:(selena_li)_-6.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 ⚡  01:48, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

Appears to be an WP:SPA contribution to circumvent WP:NFCC. —  pd_THOR  undefined | 05:10, 10 May 2008 (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:MilesMont.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 G12 by AnomieBOT ⚡  01:48, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

Source listed not GFDL Sfan00 IMG (talk) 11:40, 10 May 2008 (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:Ozzy.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 F4 by AnomieBOT ⚡  02:26, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

Source site not GFDL Sfan00 IMG (talk) 11:45, 10 May 2008 (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:Ozzy.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 F4 by AnomieBOT ⚡  01:48, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

Source site not GFDL Sfan00 IMG (talk) 11:45, 10 May 2008 (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:Porkrollfrying2.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 I4 by AnomieBOT ⚡  01:48, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

No evidence of PD release by copyright holder. Kelly hi! 15:19, 10 May 2008 (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:EVHSyearbook 2008.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 I3 by AnomieBOT ⚡  01:48, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

This is a photo of a high school yearbook cover. The photo was apparently made by the uploader, who released it under a CC-license, but he presumably can't release the cover that way. — Aleta  Sing 15:39, 10 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete Uploader makes no indication that he owns the cover, merely that he took the picture. If so he doesn't own the copyright so CC is not applicable. Olaf Davis | Talk 09:05, 11 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Fair use might be applicable... Opinions? Aleta  Sing 19:17, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Hmm. Well, I think it obeys everything in the fair use policy except "Non-free content is used only if its presence would significantly increase readers' understanding of the topic, and its omission would be detrimental to that understanding." Since it just appears in an article about the school that doesn't really say much about the yearbook itself, I'm not sure that's the case.
 * Similarly, the fair use section on images says "Cover art from various items, for identification only in the context of critical commentary of that item (not for identification without critical commentary)." Again, I'm not sure the article's coverage is really 'critical commentary' here. Happy as ever to be contradicted by someone with more experience of the policy, though. Olaf Davis | Talk 08:07, 14 May 2008 (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:Kushk-e Ahmad Shahi, Niavaran Palace Complex.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 AnomieBOT ⚡  01:48, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

The image is only licensed under cc-by-3.0 if it is used on Wikipedia, this restrictive use effectively makes the image non-free and is not compatible with Wikipedia's GFDL licensing. <b style="color:green;">Polly</b> (<b style="color:red;">Parrot</b>) 20:20, 10 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep. I interpret it to mean that images from the site used on Wikipedia are licensed under cc-by-3.0. The intent of the user is clear enough to me - that he wants to release the images on Wikipedia if they are to be used there. GFDL is not the only possible license for Wikipedia images. Stifle (talk) 22:12, 10 May 2008 (UTC)
 * The Flickr uploaders words were As requested by a friend, I granted a special license for WikiPedia: All my CC-BY-NC-SA photos can be used under CC-BY-3.0 just on WikiPedia (*.wikipedia.com) and WikiMedia (*.wikimedia.com). The problem being there is no such thing as a special cc-by-3.0 license for Wikipedia alone, either an image is under a free license or it isn't. The flickr uploader's intent seems to be to try to restrict the cc-by-3.0 license to Wikipedia as seems eveident by the words just on WikiPedia, that just isn't possible with a cc-by-3.0 license. <b style="color:green;">Polly</b> (<b style="color:red;">Parrot</b>) 22:32, 10 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Avoid copyright paranoia. Stifle (talk) 22:57, 10 May 2008 (UTC)
 * How does that address the contradictions of a cc-by-3.0 licensed image that can only be used on Wikipedia? <b style="color:green;">Polly</b> (<b style="color:red;">Parrot</b>) 23:07, 10 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Stong Keep. Polly, there is something called common-sense and that emanates very clearly from the above statement by User:Stifle. Here Hamed Saber, the photographer, clearly and unequivocally states that his photographs can be used without reservation, provided that his name be given and a link be made to his flickr webpage. I have undisputedly met both requirements. Please read the third paragraph of Hamded Saber's statement. To be honest with you, Polly, I am utterly mystified by your claim that the use of the photograph at issue has been disputed. No one has disputed this use except you. As it stands, you have wasted my entire Saturday by a mere whim. This is just inexcusable. What I have written here is exactly what I wrote to you 8 hours ago, and you have behaved like someone oblivious to reason, single-mindedly pursuing your despicable aim of wasting my time and that of others. First you tagged the photograph for immediate deletion. Then, after I referred you to the above-mentioned flickr page of Hamed Saber's, you contrived another reason to delete the photograph. --BF 23:49, 10 May 2008 (UTC)
 * No he states his images can be used under the cc-by-3.0 license "Just on Wikipedia", how is that "without reservation"? Common sense would dictate that you cannot have a cc-by-3.0 license restricted to Wikipedia it just isn't possible. <b style="color:green;">Polly</b> (<b style="color:red;">Parrot</b>) 00:03, 11 May 2008 (UTC)
 * But that is why I said that we should use our common-sense. Just imagine, that Hamed Saber has made all that effort to write a page full of text, giving a permission that in practice would turn out to be useless. Why should he have done that? You should consider the spirit of his text (and that is what Stifle has done so perfectly): Hamed Saber wants his photographs to be used on Wikipedia, otherwise like so many other people on flickr he would not have bothered; he would have used the default option, namely that without his explicit permission his photographs would not be used. Look, he is just someone who is doing photography as a hobby and is more than happy that other people use his photographs. He is not a professional, so he may not have formulated his statements as a corporate lawyer would do. Here is a man (i.e. Hamed Saber) who to his best ability (he is not an English-speaking person and insofar as I understand, he lives in Iran) has expressed his wish, in a language that is not his mother tongue, that his photographs can be used. And now you are trying to build a case for why we should not be using his photographs. As for why he has used the word Just, well it seems to me that he simply does not appreciate what just means --- the fact is that if you take this just too seriously, then you will have to conclude that he has done all that effort for nothing. That is the conclusion that I decline to reach. I do not know what to say more, really; the entire discussion looks surreal to me. --BF 00:43, 11 May 2008 (UTC)


 * I've sent a flickrmail to Hamed Saber asking if he'll clarify the wording of his permission. <b style="color:green;">Polly</b> (<b style="color:red;">Parrot</b>) 00:37, 11 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Good. But as I wrote to you earlier, flickr is filtered in Iran (I have been told by more than one person), so that he may not be able to connect to his flickr account. In other words, should you not hear from him, that will not imply that he were against use of his photograph on Wikipedia. --BF 00:49, 11 May 2008 (UTC)
 * One further note. Polly, why haven't you written to Hamed Saber before causing this mayhem? It is more than evident that no one besides you has any interest in your self-induced problem, so why have you been dragging me along and wasting my time? --BF 01:51, 11 May 2008 (UTC)
 * With all due respect it isn't me who has uploaded the images, but you. The onus is on yourself to see that the licensing is correct. I am in contact with Hamed Saber, though at the moment there is a certain degree of confusion regarding acceptable CC licenses to Wikipedia. I remain optimistic that this can be resolved. <b style="color:green;">Polly</b> (<b style="color:red;">Parrot</b>) 18:12, 11 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment It's clear, as BF points out, that the photographer intended for his photographs to be usable by Wikipedia. However what is not clear is that he understands that images placed on Wikipedia can be used elsewhere. Yes, it's perfectly possible that he means 'I will release them to Wikipedia, whereupon they will become CC-by-3.0 and therefore reusable elsewhere, but no-one can take them from flickr for other purposes'. If he confirms this via flickr message then by all means we should keep the pictures. However, it also seems entirely possible to me that he means Wikipedia can take the images but only if we promise not to let them be reused elsewhere - in which case we can't use them (see Image_use_policy). In the event that he doesn't respond to the message on flickr, I think we have to play it safe and not use the images. Therefore, my vote is to Delete unless we receive clarification from him that Wikipedia can in fact let the images be reused.
 * Having looked through his comment again, I'm fairly sure the first interpretation I suggested is the correct one. I still think that it's possible to interpret his wording the other way, though, so we should probably play it safe unless he replies and clarifies. I'm perfectly willing to be contradicted on this by someone with more experience in this area, though. Olaf Davis | Talk 20:57, 11 May 2008 (UTC)
 * As an aside to BF, you could have been far more cordial in your arguments. Comments like "you have wasted my entire Saturday by a mere whim" and "your despicable aim of wasting my time" are not called for, nor are they helpful. If Polly is incorrect then it's because she has misunderstood policy: I don't see any evidence at all that she's deliberately wasting your time. Olaf Davis | Talk 16:42, 11 May 2008 (UTC)
 * I apologise to Polly (do you hear me Polly?) if, as I am convinced now, she has been trying to be super-meticulous. The problem on Wikipedia is that one often does not know the person with whom one comes into collision and visual contact (the whole body language) is missing. The fact however is that I had not saved the photograph for five seconds that it was tagged for deletion. Such hasty tagging invariably invokes in me the feeling that the person doing the tagging must either be acting maliciously or must suspect me of wrong-doing. The problem was compounded by the fact that when one of the senior editors gave the green light, that the photograph could stay, Polly immediately attached the present tag to the photograph (she also deleted, unintentionally I believe, the caption of the photograph at issue in one of the Wikipedia entries). That my Sunday was wasted, was an absolutely true and sincere statement.


 * More on the subject matter. As I have said earlier, it simply does not seem logical to me that Hamed Saber (the owner of the photograph at issue) would have gone through all the motions, writing a full page about how to use his photographs on in particular Wikipedia, if he had a different intention as implied by his text. Polly now says that she is in touch with Hamed Saber, so let us wait and see what happens. --BF 19:46, 12 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Delete - Wikipedia is mirrored by lots of sites, and as such this cannot be done without a complete license.  a s e nine  say what?  16:15, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Hamed Saber has now kindly agreed to change the license of all his images to cc-by-sa-2.0 so this is resolved. <b style="color:green;">Polly</b> (<b style="color:red;">Parrot</b>) 21:11, 14 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Kept, cc. Gwen Gale (talk) 21:41, 30 May 2008 (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:FadlallahBaqirSadr.jpg
<div class="boilerplate metadata vfd xfd-closed" style="background-color: #e5ecf5; margin: 1em 0 0 0; padding: 0 10px 0 10px; border: 1px solid Gray;">
 * 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 I4 by AnomieBOT ⚡  01:48, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

Tagged for speedy as "Dubious 'self made' claim; appears to be a scan of print publication" Carlosguitar (Yes Executor?) 22:34, 10 May 2008 (UTC)
 * It is purely my own work, perhaps bro Carlosguitar got confused by the footer text I had added to the image using the FotoCanvas application. NEDian (talk) 23:08, 10 May 2008 (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:WykagylPark1.JPG
<div class="boilerplate metadata vfd xfd-closed" style="background-color: #e5ecf5; margin: 1em 0 0 0; padding: 0 10px 0 10px; border: 1px solid Gray;">
 * 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 I4 by AnomieBOT ⚡  01:48, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

The image is tag as being public domain because it was published prior to 1923. The date given in the summary is 1923, which is not prior to 1923 and is most likely false as the uploader's puppetmaster has a history of repeatedly providing false information about images. There is no date on the image and the only source given is the name of the company who produced the image. BlueAzure (talk) 23:42, 10 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom since 1923 is certainly not before 1923. Likewise WykagylPark2, 3 and 4. Olaf Davis | Talk 16:22, 11 May 2008 (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:WykagylPark2.JPG
<div class="boilerplate metadata vfd xfd-closed" style="background-color: #e5ecf5; margin: 1em 0 0 0; padding: 0 10px 0 10px; border: 1px solid Gray;">
 * 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 I4 by A file with this name on Commons is now visible. AnomieBOT ⚡ 01:48, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

The image is tag as being public domain because it was published prior to 1923. The date given in the summary is 1923, which is not prior to 1923 and is most likely false as the uploader's puppetmaster has a history of repeatedly providing false information about images. There is no date on the image and the only source given is the name of the company who produced the image. BlueAzure (talk) 23:49, 10 May 2008 (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:WykagylPark3.JPG
<div class="boilerplate metadata vfd xfd-closed" style="background-color: #e5ecf5; margin: 1em 0 0 0; padding: 0 10px 0 10px; border: 1px solid Gray;">
 * 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 I4 by AnomieBOT ⚡  01:48, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

The image is tag as being public domain because it was published prior to 1923. The date given in the summary is 1923, which is not prior to 1923 and is most likely false as the uploader's puppetmaster has a history of repeatedly providing false information about images. There is no date on the image and the only source given is the name of the company who produced the image. BlueAzure (talk) 23:54, 10 May 2008 (UTC)
 * I agree with BlueAzure. In addition, due to the lack of captioning and other information, the image has minimal encyclopedic value. --Orlady (talk) 17:58, 12 May 2008 (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:WykagylPark4.JPG
<div class="boilerplate metadata vfd xfd-closed" style="background-color: #e5ecf5; margin: 1em 0 0 0; padding: 0 10px 0 10px; border: 1px solid Gray;">
 * 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 I4 by AnomieBOT ⚡  01:48, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

The image is tag as being public domain because it was published prior to 1923. The date given in the summary is 1923, which is not prior to 1923 and is most likely false as the uploader's puppetmaster has a history of repeatedly providing false information about images. There is no date on the image and the only source given is the name of the company who produced the image. BlueAzure (talk) 23:59, 10 May 2008 (UTC)
 * I agree with BlueAzure. In addition, due to the lack of captioning and other information, the image has minimal encyclopedic value. --Orlady (talk) 17:57, 12 May 2008 (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.