Wikipedia:Possibly unfree files/2008 September 14



Image:Lindseyalley.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 by AnomieBOT ⚡  01:55, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

No evidence permission was granted to use the image under the GFDL. Nv8200p talk 00:52, 14 September 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:Poster9438738.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 by AnomieBOT ⚡  01:55, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

Orphaned, probably UE, and doubtful that the uploader is the copyright holder. Ricky81682 (talk) 01:16, 14 September 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:Howtofixblock.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 ⚡  01:55, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

I'm not sure but this may be a derivative work of Internet Explorer, making the uploader unable to freely license it. Otherwise, frankly, I think this should be deleted as an unencyclopedia image. Ricky81682 (talk) 01:30, 14 September 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:MyMansingle.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 by AnomieBOT ⚡  01:55, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

Official Luv' Fan Club may not be the copyright owner. If so, these images in the article about Luv' are considered as fair use, which they may be replaceable by free images. Sdrtirs (talk) 02:21, 14 September 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:Christy Johnson.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 G5 by AnomieBOT ⚡  01:55, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

The uploader indicates that the rights to display this photo have been purchased, and has added a CC attribution sharealike license. Given that they are not the holder of the copyright image, the it's highly unlikely they have any right to release the image for othrers to use under any license much less a creative commons license. Whpq (talk) 13:09, 14 September 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:Barnawartha2.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 ⚡  01:55, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

This image description says that this image is under a free license but it doesn't say which license it is released and there is no confirmation that the copyright owner allows it to be released under a free license accepted in Wikipedia. Sdrtirs (talk) 14:15, 14 September 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:Sv Bogorodica detroid mich..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 by AnomieBOT ⚡  01:55, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

I find it highly questionable whether the user is the copyright holder of this image. It seems to be a painting of some kind, not a photo, and I'm pretty confident it has been taken from some website or book. Todor→Bozhinov 16:03, 14 September 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:Government_Palace_-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 by AnomieBOT ⚡  01:55, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

It is unclear if images from a Peruvian Government site have been released into the public domain. The source provided is a link directly to the image, and you need to cut back to the main address to be able to access anything -- but it is in Spanish (I think) and I can not tell. A number of the images uploated by this user have the same source and tag. The images are not in use and should be moved to commons if they are free or deleted if they are not. Here are a few other images like this I have looked at Image:Government Palace.jpg and Image:Osambela palace.jpg. A number of others are in use and a change of license should be applied if so determined.Jordan 1972 (talk) 18:18, 14 September 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.

Special:Contributions/Onemorewikiuser

 * 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- F ASTILY  (TALK) 02:02, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

The images listed here largely are tagged as free use, but seem to be fair use. I put a note on the editor's talk page, but I would appreciate someone else reviewing the uploads. Thanks. -- Suntag  ☼  22:32, 14 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete - Total duck test (low resolution, no metadata, etc.) Note I found the sources of two and tagged for speedy deletion (I9).  Does not speak well for the others.  Эlcobbola  talk 01:40, 15 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Update: images were taken from this site. All but Image:AL Filling Station.jpg (which I could not locate therein) have been tagged for speedy deletion.  Эlcobbola  talk 03:09, 15 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment - the filling stattion image looks like a badly resized version of this image. -- Whpq (talk) 15:15, 15 September 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:Jacobandrosepenner.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 ⚡  01:55, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

Professional photo Samuell Lift me up or put me down 23:07, 14 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Probably PD-Canada, but needs some source information to back up any such claim. --dave pape (talk) 16:31, 15 September 2008 (UTC)
 * If the image was taken after 1949, he would be 70 years old in the picture. Does he look like he's 70 years old? This image is obviously in the public domain. The style of dress was nothing like that in the early 50s either. IronGargoyle (talk) 21:16, 15 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Yes, I don't really doubt that the photo was taken before 1949. I just prefer to be a stickler for proper sourcing - with no indication of where this came from, all we have is an anonymous user claiming that it's a photo of Jacob & Rose Penner (I have seen more than one case on Commons where an "it's-really-old-so-I-won't-bother-to-give-a-source" image proves to be something other than what was claimed).  --dave pape (talk) 21:32, 15 September 2008 (UTC)
 * I was about to agree with you that maybe we should not assume good faith here. There are a large swath of image warnings on the uploader's talk page... but... I also notice that the user stopped contributing in 2005, when image policies were MUCH less strict. I don't see bad faith in any of the uploads. There is no reason, then, to assume the image is something other than what it claims to be, unless there is evidence to the contrary. If evidence comes forth, we can always revisit. IronGargoyle (talk) 05:08, 16 September 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.