Wikipedia:Possibly unfree files/2010 June 2



File:Goodwin Fish Guts and Gasoline.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 ⚡  01:57, 16 June 2010 (UTC)


 * File:Goodwin Fish Guts and Gasoline.jpg ([ delete] | talk | [ history] | [ logs]).


 * The uploader has claimed to be Peter Nielsen when uploading File:Alison Goodwin in 2009.jpg, so cannot also be Alison Goodwin, the painter of this picture. Fences  &amp;  Windows  00:43, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

The uploader, Peter Nielsen, is the husband of Alison Goodwin and made upload with Alison at his side giving instruction to accept the license agreement. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.169.159.7 (talk) 11:33, 8 June 2010 (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:Goodwin- Fixity in our Joys.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 ⚡  01:57, 16 June 2010 (UTC)


 * File:Goodwin- Fixity in our Joys.jpg ([ delete] | talk | [ history] | [ logs]).


 * The uploader refers to Alison Goodwin in both the first and third person in the descriptor, and has claimed to be someone else when uploading File:Alison Goodwin in 2009.jpg. Fences  &amp;  Windows  00:45, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

The uploader, Peter Nielsen, is the husband of Alison Goodwin and made the upload with Alison at his side giving instruction to accept the license agreement. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.169.159.7 (talk) 11:34, 8 June 2010 (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:NSDGGuadalupe.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 ⚡  17:05, 2 June 2010 (UTC)


 * File:NSDGGuadalupe.jpg ([ delete] | talk | [ history] | [ logs]).


 * Web resolution. Lacks meta data for an image claimed as self-made. Bluemask (talk) 01:17, 2 June 2010 (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:Girl Sucking MD.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 ⚡  01:57, 16 June 2010 (UTC)


 * File:Girl Sucking MD.jpg ([ delete] | talk | [ history] | [ logs]).


 * Low resolution and small size makes me think this was lifted from some other website, and thus a possible copyvio. Tabercil (talk) 02:41, 2 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Blatantly a professional porn shot, no way is that a free image or the work of the uploader (a new user, looks like a troll to me). Fences  &amp;  Windows  19:06, 2 June 2010 (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:Chris_Tiu.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 ⚡  01:57, 16 June 2010 (UTC)


 * File:Chris Tiu.jpg ([ delete] | talk | [ history] | [ logs]).


 * the appearance of Smart Communications logo watermark suggests this is from a promotional material and not self-made. Bluemask (talk) 04:23, 2 June 2010 (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:New_SM_North_1985.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 ⚡  01:57, 16 June 2010 (UTC)


 * File:New SM North 1985.jpg ([ delete] | talk | [ history] | [ logs]).


 * Scanned from an unknown source suggesting the original is not self-made. Bluemask (talk) 04:35, 2 June 2010 (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:SM_North.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 ⚡  01:57, 16 June 2010 (UTC)


 * File:SM North.JPG ([ delete] | talk | [ history] | [ logs]).


 * Possibly from SM Malls promotional materials. Bluemask (talk) 04:44, 2 June 2010 (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:Dudleyward.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 ⚡  01:57, 16 June 2010 (UTC)


 * File:Dudleyward.jpg ([ delete] | talk | [ history] | [ logs]).


 * The image lacks verifiable source information so it's not possible to assert it being in the public domain. Fair-use rationale could be used instead. Ecemaml (talk) 06:42, 2 June 2010 (UTC)
 * I cannot remember the precise source so content for it to be deleted. Dormskirk (talk) 21:11, 2 June 2010 (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:NAVBedenham.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; solution offered. -  F ASTILY  (T ALK ) 00:17, 16 June 2010 (UTC)
 * File:NAVBedenham.jpg ([ delete] | talk | [ history] | [ logs]).


 * The image lacks verifiable source information so it's not possible to assert it being in the public domain. Fair-use rationale could be possibly used instead Ecemaml (talk) 06:43, 2 June 2010 (UTC) PS: the same comment applies to File:RFA Ennerdale.JPG
 * Image is likely PD as expired Crown Copyright. Mjroots (talk) 05:19, 6 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Thank you Mjroots. I don't understand what Ecemaml is complaining about. ( Same with Ennerdale). Dmgerrard (talk) 18:35, 11 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Dmgerrard, as the uploader, could you tell us where you obtained this image? Did that source indicate who, where, and when this photo was taken? —RP88 (talk) 18:43, 11 June 2010 (UTC)
 * I got it from a print in my collection. The reverse is stamped "Photographic Section HMS Osprey, Portland OCT 1950 Crown Copyright Reserved." Dmgerrard (talk) 19:04, 11 June 2010 (UTC)
 * I've updated the image description page for File:NAVBedenham.jpg to reflect the new information you've provided. Please review it for accuracy.  If I might make a suggestion, in the future when you upload images you definitely want to include this kind of source details.  It makes it much easier to for others to help you out, verify copyright status, etc.  In particular, I notice that one of your other images, File:RFA Ennerdale.JPG, was deleted a while ago because the image lacked details about its source.  If you reupload it to use at RFA_Ennerdale_(A173) including these kind of details will prevent an admin from deleting it for lack of proper sourcing. —RP88 (talk) 19:35, 11 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Hi, Dmgerrard, what I was complaining about was the lack of source information which allows us to verify the assertion of being in the public domain. With regard to this one, as it was published in 1950 and its original copyright was Crown Copyright, it's currently in the public domain, but without such information, it's pretty much impossible to claim such valid license. --Ecemaml (talk) 20:46, 15 June 2010 (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:Nandamuri.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 ⚡  12:01, 2 June 2010 (UTC)


 * File:Nandamuri.jpg ([ delete] | talk | [ history] | [ logs]).


 * Simply unbelievable that this is the own work of the editor in question. See also the multiple results on tineye. ⇦REDVƎRS⇨ 07:46, 2 June 2010 (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:Balayya.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 ⚡  01:57, 16 June 2010 (UTC)


 * File:Balayya.jpg ([ delete] | talk | [ history] | [ logs]).


 * No convincing evidence that uploader has rights to release this image. tineeye result here. ⇦REDVƎRS⇨ 07:51, 2 June 2010 (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:Don2008jpeg.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 ⚡  01:57, 16 June 2010 (UTC)


 * File:Don2008jpeg.jpg ([ delete] | talk | [ history] | [ logs]).


 * Image is originally published at http://www.prlog.org/10137906-martin-sells-interest-in-martin-salinas-and-opens-don-martin-public-affairs-in-austin-tx.html, under a restricted CC-SA-ND license, which is different from the license shown on Wikipedia. There is no indication on the WP image site as to who the copyright holder actually is, or that they have subsequently released the image under the cited license (CC-SA) GregJackP (talk) 14:20, 2 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Copyright holder is the professional photographer, Susan Hoverman, who emailed the proper release to Wikipedia today.   Dmartinaus (talk)  —Preceding undated comment added 04:32, 3 June 2010 (UTC).
 * Are you associated with the image uploader, Austin3301‎? Those who upload images need to follow the instructions at WP:PERMISSIONS when uploading other people's works to Wikipedia.  In particular, you and/or  Austin3301 need to modify the image description to include details about the author, date, and copyright details of this image. —RP88 (talk) 15:17, 3 June 2010 (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:Donmartin2.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 ⚡  01:57, 16 June 2010 (UTC)


 * File:Donmartin2.jpg ([ delete] | talk | [ history] | [ logs]).


 * Image originally published at http://www.donmartin.com/bio, with copyright notice (rights held by Don Martin Public Affairs). Image uploaded to Wikipedia with no indication of who the copyright holder is or whether they gave permission for the file to be released under a CC-SA license. GregJackP (talk) 14:33, 2 June 2010 (UTC)
 * This photograph appears on my web page but the photo is not copyrighted by Don Martin Public Affairs and has been used extensively by me in other uses. I own the photo and am registering it under an attribution license. Dmartinaus (talk) 04:40, 3 June 2010 (UTC)
 * I would appreciate your removing the puf|log tag at this time.  Copyright has been registered and properly applied to the photograph. I would remove the tag myself but don't wish to be presumptuous. Dmartinaus (talk) 04:52, 3 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Moot. There's a copy now on commons at File:Martin200.jpg. VernoWhitney (talk) 15:51, 14 June 2010 (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.