Wikipedia:Possibly unfree files/2009 January 23



File:Dpd leaflet.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 discussion was: Keep; file is tagged as non-free.- F ASTILY  (TALK) 01:45, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

Base image is subject to Oireachtas copyright; I don't think that it can be released to PD by the uploader. Stifle (talk) 12:09, 23 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep: Image was issued by now defunct government department of P&T, but even if we assume the usual 50-year rule for official works, now a fair-use rationale has been added for each use and image size has been reduced in keeping with fur, so should not be deleted. ww2censor (talk) 17:43, 29 January 2009 (UTC)
 * You might want to change the fair use tag; it's definitely not a postage stamp. Stifle (talk) 20:09, 3 February 2009 (UTC)
 * It was produced by the then extant Irish postal authority and there is no other licence that really suits it, otherwise please suggest one. Thanks ww2censor (talk) 18:15, 15 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Non-free fair use in should be fine. Stifle (talk) 12:53, 16 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Done. ww2censor (talk) 15:53, 16 February 2009 (UTC)


 * 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 ⚡ 02:04, 25 February 2012 (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.

File:PromoNeoLogo.png

 * The following discussion is an archived inquiry of the possible unfree image below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the media's talk page or in a deletion review).  No further edits should be made to this section. 

The result of the debate was: Delete; deleted by AnomieBOT ⚡  13:16, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

Unlikely free release of a corporate logo. No documentation of permissions.  MBisanz  talk 13:08, 23 January 2009 (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.

File:2222222.jpg

 * The following discussion is an archived inquiry of the possible unfree image below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the media's talk page or in a deletion review).  No further edits should be made to this section. 

The result of the debate was: Delete; deleted by AnomieBOT ⚡  13:16, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

Image of a logo that says self made but user shows a history of uploading logos as "self" under free licenses. image upload log Soundvisions1 (talk) 14:29, 23 January 2009 (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.

File:Dsda.jpg

 * The following discussion is an archived inquiry of the possible unfree image below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the media's talk page or in a deletion review).  No further edits should be made to this section. 

The result of the debate was: Delete; deleted by AnomieBOT ⚡  13:16, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

Image of a logo that says self made but user shows a history of uploading logos and other files as "self" under free licenses. image upload log Soundvisions1 (talk) 14:31, 23 January 2009 (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.

File:Hypermetropic emmetropic myopic eyeballs fig 4 page 11 PSWG.jpg

 * The following discussion is an archived inquiry of the possible unfree image below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the media's talk page or in a deletion review).  No further edits should be made to this section. 

The result of the debate was: Delete; deleted by AnomieBOT ⚡  13:16, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

Summary declaration declares that the book is over 50 years old and therefore PD, copyright tag says it is author's life + 100 years, author died in the 1930s.  MBisanz  talk 19:32, 23 January 2009 (UTC)
 * The book where you can also find the image is available for free on the www. Also other picutures of the book are now present in the article. Seeyou (talk) 19:37, 23 January 2009 (UTC)
 * See for example the first download page 11. Seeyou (talk) 20:04, 23 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Just because they can be freely downloaded on the internet does not make them free for Wikipedia purposes. They must exist under a free license.  MBisanz  talk 07:09, 24 January 2009 (UTC)
 * If you are right the other pictures in the article also have a problem. Interesting Keep me informed. Seeyou (talk) 12:24, 24 January 2009 (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.

File:Mobile GMaps.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 ⚡  02:04, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

I'm not sure if this image can be released as public domain. Chase me ladies, I&#39;m the Cavalry (talk) 19:39, 23 January 2009 (UTC)
 * May I ask what made you think that? Cristian Streng (talk) 09:03, 27 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Mobile Gmaps might be in the public domain, but the image of the map itself, and the image of the phone, are not. That said, I am probably going to AFD this, seeing as you created both the article and the software. Chase me ladies, I&#39;m the Cavalry (talk) 16:25, 27 January 2009 (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.

Images uploaded by User:User765

 * The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the media below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the media's talk page or in a deletion review).  No further edits should be made to this section. 

The result of the discussion was: all deleted  Skier Dude  ( talk ) 20:39, 8 February 2009 (UTC) Images of minor celebrities claimed to be own work. I suspect copyvios. --Kam Solusar (talk) 20:36, 23 January 2009 (UTC)


 * File:Julia Paes.jpg - low resolution, border, looks like a promo photo, no EXIF data.
 * File:Paes.jpg - no EXIF data, no name of the photographer
 * File:Thammy Miranda.jpg - low resolution, border, promo photo, no EXIF data
 * File:Amanda Ireton.jpg - promo photo, also available on her official site.
 * File:McLeod, Samantha.gif - looks like a screenshot, user also uploaded File:Mcleods Lword.JPG (fair use image) which seems to be from the same source.
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the media's talk page or in a deletion review).  No further edits should be made to this section.

File:Admiral Piotti.jpg

 * The following discussion is an archived inquiry of the possible unfree image below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the media's talk page or in a deletion review).  No further edits should be made to this section. 

The result of the debate was: Image does not exist. If the image name in the header contains a typo, feel free to correct the typo and un-close this discussion. AnomieBOT ⚡ 12:13, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

Image notes "Unknown photographer" but has the GFDL licence - I cannot determine where this image comes from but it is unlikely to be free Peripitus (Talk) 20:59, 23 January 2009 (UTC)
 * I believe it is an official Navy photo. Aren't those photos, along with other Governmental releases free use?Bert Schlossberg (talk) 21:04, 23 January 2009 (UTC)
 * You need to identify the source - while it looks official navy where did it come from ? - Peripitus (Talk) 21:16, 23 January 2009 (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.

File:Kasabian2G.jpg

 * The following discussion is an archived inquiry of the possible unfree image below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the media's talk page or in a deletion review).  No further edits should be made to this section. 

The result of the debate was: Delete; deleted by AnomieBOT ⚡  19:44, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

Noted as self-made by Derek Coburn but with image notes saying it was made by Jim Abiss - a copy exists here. Seems self-uploaded rather than self-made Peripitus (Talk) 21:12, 23 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Considering uploader's contributions, he/she is not trustworthy. Thuresson (talk) 23:03, 4 February 2009 (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.

File:Frederick-seddon.jpg

 * The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the media below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the media's talk page or in a deletion review).  No further edits should be made to this section. 

The result of the discussion was: Lisc. & fair use fixed Skier Dude  ( talk ) 20:40, 8 February 2009 (UTC) The uploader claims to have "Scanned by [him/her] from a copy in [his/her] collection." However, the image is directly acquired from   This image, created in 1912, belongs to the Hulton Archive without any proof of publishing before 1923.  Unless it is proven to be published before 1923 or its creator has died more than 70 years ago, it cannot be qualified under public domain. Jappalang (talk) 22:05, 23 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Stifle (talk) 12:14, 6 February 2009 (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 media's talk page or in a deletion review).  No further edits should be made to this section.

File:Delegates to Miss RD Universe 05.JPG

 * The following discussion is an archived inquiry of the possible unfree image below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the media's talk page or in a deletion review).  No further edits should be made to this section. 

The result of the debate was: Delete; deleted by AnomieBOT ⚡  13:16, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

Uploader claims ownership of image set, but as they are all professionally-taken and are on another website, it's unclear that he/she owns said images. &mdash;/M endaliv /2¢/Δ's/ 23:30, 23 January 2009 (UTC)


 * The PUI template had been removed from the image page so I didn't realise this was listed here, right away. Anyway I tagged the image with di-no permission along with a tonne of others bu this uploader that are sourced to various forums and myspace fan pages and such. Not much to discuss here I think. Either he sends acceptable release into to the OTRS que or the images get speedy deleted. --Sherool (talk) 15:16, 1 February 2009 (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.