Wikipedia:Possibly unfree files/2013 April 11



File:Katy Yeung, student at the University of Toronto Mississauga.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The result of the discussion was: nomination withdrawn. Dianna (talk) 04:52, 21 April 2013 (UTC)
 * File:Katy Yeung, student at the University of Toronto Mississauga.jpg ([ delete] | talk | [ history] | [ logs]).


 * Someone other than the uploader took the photo. Also, the uploader's stipulation that the image is for the user's userpage only makes it not free enough for this wiki. Dianna (talk) 00:20, 11 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Comments: Thanks for your advices. My friend helped me to take that photo, and I own the photo now. Yet, she doesn't have a Wikipedia user page, and she's not willing to put her name on Wikipedia. Indeed, you are welcome to delete it as it's not free enough for this wiki. Thanks a lot! Katyyeung (talk) 02:16, 11 April 2013 (UTC)
 * If you want to keep the picture here, just ask the person who took it to send an email to the OTRS team using the instructions at commons:Commons:OTRS. -- Dianna (talk) 04:12, 18 April 2013 (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:Parental Leave Policies Across the World.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 ⚡  10:04, 18 April 2013 (UTC)


 * File:Parental Leave Policies Across the World.jpg ([ delete] | talk | [ history] | [ logs]).


 * It looks to me like the graph is the work of the Boston Globe, not the US government as shown in the licensing tag. Dianna (talk) 01:23, 11 April 2013 (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:Anandbagh1.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 ⚡  10:04, 18 April 2013 (UTC)


 * File:Anandbagh1.jpg ([ delete] | talk | [ history] | [ logs]).


 * There is no metadata to support that it is the uploader's work. The uploader has cpvio history here on en.wiki. Rahul Bott (talk) 06:00, 11 April 2013 (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:Oke.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 ⚡  02:02, 20 April 2013 (UTC)


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


 * Similar to http://www.flickr.com/photos/14496798@N06/2367340489 which is not under a Creative Commons style license Sfan00 IMG (talk) 12:54, 11 April 2013 (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:Bushmaster.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: Deleted; the source shows an Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 3.0 Unported license, not compatible with the file being hosted here. -- Dianna (talk) 00:13, 20 April 2013 (UTC)
 * File:Bushmaster.jpg ([ delete] | talk | [ history] | [ logs]).


 * Available here in a blog post from 2005, file modification date from 2002, both well before the image was uploaded here. Rosenzweig (talk) 18:25, 11 April 2013 (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:Scott 1942.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 ⚡  02:02, 20 April 2013 (UTC)


 * File:Scott 1942.jpg ([ delete] | talk | [ history] | [ logs]).


 * Scanned from printed source? Eeekster (talk) 19:30, 11 April 2013 (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:Cheaper the Better Logo.jpeg

 * 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 ⚡  02:02, 20 April 2013 (UTC)


 * File:Cheaper the Better Logo.jpeg ([ delete] | talk | [ history] | [ logs]).


 * 2013020710002475 was originally opened by a person associated with the company that owns this logo. As far as I can tell the release of the file as PD was never completed, and even then it's not entirely clear that the person would have the authority to do so. In all probability they were just trying to create an article (User:CheaperTheBetter was blocked, likely for that) and misunderstood the purpose of the release. That makes it basically an orphaned non-free logo. 2013041110012112 was opened today, essentially asking us to delete the logo, but I'm not sure that this is a clear CSD#F5 so I opted for FFD instead. § FreeRangeFrog  croak 19:31, 11 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Delete I'm not convinced that the logo is copyrightable (it might be a PD-textlogo and thus free), but it doesn't seem to be useful for us anyway since we don't have any article about the company, so let's delete it anyway. F5 only applies to files listed as unfree, but this file is currently listed as free. For unfree files listed as free, use F9 or F11 instead. See also the previous discussion at User talk:Sphilbrick/Archive 32 where I discussed the image with an OTRS volunteer. It seems that nothing really happened after that. --Stefan2 (talk) 20:51, 11 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Comment Noted about the speedy criteria, thank you. As for the logo being PD by threshold of originality, I'd say there's really no point on even going there. But you guys are the experts. It seems from the discussion on SPhilbrick's talk page that my estimation about why the logo ended up that way was correct. I added a note to the original ticket and if he sees it maybe he'll comment here. § FreeRangeFrog croak 21:24, 11 April 2013 (UTC)
 * I'm uncertain about whether this meets the threshold of originality or not. It could maybe go either way. In any case, since we have no use for the logo, I have no problem with deleting it. I'm not sure if the deletion would need a full 7-day process, though. --Stefan2 (talk) 21:27, 11 April 2013 (UTC)
 * I'm sure no tears would be shed if an admin decided to speedy at this point. § FreeRangeFrog croak 21:55, 11 April 2013 (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.