Wikipedia:Possibly unfree files/2009 May 21



File:Yeti1.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 ⚡  02:12, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

License is very unlikely. Orphaned, no source. –Drilnoth (T • C • L) 00:06, 21 May 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:Kacchera.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 ⚡  02:12, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

Confused licensing; tagged both (which is almost certainly inappropriate, as I doubt this image is "ubiquitous in the published image-processing literature"—it is certainly not used in that way here) and. The source is given as Sikhdharma.org, which says at the bottom, "Copyright © 2009 Sikh Dharma International. All Rights Reserved." No evidence is given that the copyright holder has released all rights to this image. If this image is not free, it must be deleted, since it is easily replaceable by a freely licensed image and thus would be a violation of the non-free content policy (see NFCC #1). —Bkell (talk) 04:29, 21 May 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. Otherwise, unless there is another reason for listing here, the listing will be closed by an administrator and the image kept. AnomieBOT ⚡ 13:30, 23 May 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:Vistadb3 box150.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 ⚡  03:17, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

Non-free file not used by any article pages. Copyright states "Template:(c) 2006 Vista Software. All rights reserved." Kiore (talk) 06:51, 21 May 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:Dmitri_Donskoi_(TK-208).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 ⚡  02:12, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

License does not allow derivatives. Rettetast (talk) 12:51, 21 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep. "Reuse" term on the license implies derivatives, and "reprint" term implies copying. Clearly a free license. IronGargoyle (talk) 19:15, 22 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Stifle (talk) 16:03, 6 June 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:Marian-marinica.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 ⚡  13:30, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

Image's metadata indicates Photoshop rather than camera info, and it looks like a press photo. I doubt this is the uploader's own work. (ESkog)(Talk) 14:50, 21 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Editor has no history of copyright violations, and no offending external source for the image can be found. I am inclined to assume good faith here. IronGargoyle (talk) 19:18, 22 May 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:1921SOUTHEYEdt.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 ⚡  02:12, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

"Public domain" is not a source. –Drilnoth (T • C • L) 16:34, 21 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Based on Canadian copyright law, the main body of this image is in the public domain (having been taken before 1949). That said, the subsidiary images seem to be newer. IronGargoyle (talk) 19:20, 22 May 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:Yorick wilks.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 ⚡  13:30, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

Marked as "attribution only" but the copyright statement on the linked website states "Users of this website may also make use of these materials posted on our website but only for non-commercial research and study." which is not the same thing. Peripitus (Talk) 21:40, 21 May 2009 (UTC)
 * You are right. Shame! Sorry for the inconveniences. JosebaAbaitua (talk) 07:24, 22 May 2009 (UTC)130.206.138.231 (talk) 07:23, 22 May 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:Noblesville Deer Creek.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 ⚡  03:17, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

Not a work of the federal government, as claimed. Municipal government website is cited as source, but no other indication of copyright. Mosmof (talk) 23:40, 21 May 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.