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 Explicit (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 03:02, 5 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

File:Klankosova.png (delete | talk | history | logs).

• Orphaned logo for Kohavision, probably not free -- ТимофейЛееСуда. 01:38, 27 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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.

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 Explicit (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 03:02, 5 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

File:Gorilla Rustling Jimmies, Nov 13.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs).

• Not used anyway and probably uploaded as a test Nasnema  Chat  04:50, 27 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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.

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 Explicit (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 03:02, 5 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

File:ParamGuru-ParamShishy.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs).

File:ParamSantBabaDeviSaheb.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs).

File:SwamiAshutoshGurusnehi.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs).

File:GurusnehiMeditating.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs).

• Obviously wrong PD reason. No evidence that they are free. Stefan2 (talk) 10:07, 27 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Editor previously uploaded same images, removed by Imagebot [1]. Scopecreep (talk) 15:54, 27 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete, there's no solid evidence that these meet Wikipedia's definition of "free" in any sense. If they had been own works by the uploader, and if they had depicted copyright-free subjects (e.g. landscapes), the license template would have been fine (if the author of an image marks it as PD for any reason, we can assume that s/he wants it to be PD, and thus PD-self is appropriate), but the uploader's attribution of others as the authors makes these images almost certain to be copyvios. Nyttend (talk) 17:45, 27 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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.

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 Explicit (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 03:02, 5 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

File:Sadguru Maharshi Santsewi Paramhansa.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs).

• Dubious own work given the other uploads by the user. Stefan2 (talk) 10:08, 27 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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.

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 Explicit (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 03:02, 5 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

File:Limno-Logo2.png (delete | talk | history | logs).

• Orphan logo, probably not free -- ТимофейЛееСуда. 12:43, 27 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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.

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 Explicit (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 03:02, 5 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

File:Icelandic 10K Kronur coin.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs).

• Coin: According to Commons:COM:CUR#Iceland, Icelandic post-1941 coins are unfree. This coin is possibly recent. Photo: Photographer unknown, see Commons:COM:ART#Photograph of an old coin found on the Internet. Stefan2 (talk) 13:48, 27 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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.

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 Explicit (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 03:02, 5 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

File:RICK SOPHER.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs).

• Older thumbnail copy here. Date of photography in {{Information}} doesn't match date of photography in EXIF. Stefan2 (talk) 13:52, 27 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. By itself, the date discrepancy isn't enough (it's the result of the upload form telling users to put the date of upload as the date in {{Information}}), but in conjunction with the thumbnail, it makes it much more likely that this was taken from somewhere online. Nyttend (talk) 17:39, 27 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment: Uploader is a single-purpose account editing the subject's biography, which means it's not unlikely they may really represent the owner of the image. Ask them to send a confirmation via OTRS? Fut.Perf. ☼ 20:25, 27 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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.

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 Explicit (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 03:02, 5 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

File:London-dreams-Ajay-Vipul-Paris-fabriqate.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs).

File:London-dreams-Vipul-Camera-fabriqate.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs).

File:London-dreams-Salman-Ajay-Vipul-TeamMeeting-fabriqate.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs).

File:London-dreams-Salman-Asin-Vipul-EiffelTower-fabriqate.JPG (delete | talk | history | logs).

File:London-dreams-Vipul-LightCheck-fabriqate.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs).

File:London-dreams-Vipul-Man-behind-the-movie-fabriqate.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs).

File:London-dreams-Vipul-Man-behind-the-movie2-fabriqate.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs).

• Images are all behind the scenes photos for the movie London Dreams. I believe they are all copyright by the producer. A few days after they were uploaded here, they were posted full size on the movie blog and the same day smaller versions of the image were posted on Facebook -- ТимофейЛееСуда. 15:03, 27 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Due to the image sizes and the dates when they were uploaded, they're not blatant copyvios, but I would truly be surprised to find that these were created by the uploader and then used without attribution (which would be legal, as they're marked PD-self) both by the movie blog and the Facebook profile. It's much more likely that these were published on some other website or that the uploader found them on some other website, so we really should delete them per Occam's razor. Nyttend (talk) 17:32, 27 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment. The uploader's user name indicates they are a representative of this company. Quote: "FabriQate developed an innovative social media campaign for the 2009 movie ‘London Dreams’. The challenge was to reach an international market and the campaign utilised viral microsites extensively". So, clearly some COI promotional editing going on here, and a blockable username – but with the ironical advantage that we can probably take the licenses as genuine. Fut.Perf. ☼ 18:07, 27 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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.

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: closed, wrong venue. — ξ^xplicit 01:21, 5 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

File:Magician Mickey poster.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs).

• Movie poster image with no WP:FUR -- ТимофейЛееСуда. 15:10, 27 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Just select "No fair use rationale (CSD F6)" from Twinkle's "DI" list, since it already has a non-free licence. --Stefan2 (talk) 17:50, 27 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Done. Thanks. -- ТимофейЛееСуда. 02:29, 28 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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.

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 Explicit (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 03:02, 5 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

File:Montage savannah.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs).

• Image is montage of 4 photos with unknown original sources and licenses. -- ТимофейЛееСуда. 15:22, 27 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. The sources for all of them are given as "I (toneythegreat (talk)) created this work entirely by myself.", and the licenses for all of them are given as PD-self. It's entirely possible for an individual to take several photos and then merge them all into a montage without putting any of them online first. Do you have any substantive reason(s) to doubt the uploader's claims? Nyttend (talk) 17:34, 27 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete The top image appears to be a copyvio from here. I haven't tried searching for the other images, so I don't know if they are copyvios or not. --Stefan2 (talk) 17:48, 27 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Bottom right one is from File:Savannah Estados Unidos5233.JPG, which is cc-by-sa/GFDL, but by a different user and unattributed. Hence, even if in this case the situation could be remedied by adding the attribution, the "entirely by myself" claim is proven to be false, and together with the evidence Stefan2 found, this is enough to delete. Incidentally, experience tells us that this is almost always the case with montages like this where an uploader claims "own work" but doesn't speak about the provenance of the components. For that reason, I must say I find a quick "keep" vote without first trying to help with investigating the case rather irresponsible. Fut.Perf. ☼ 18:27, 27 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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.

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, see previous nomination. — ξ^xplicit 01:21, 5 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

File:NAIA 1973 HOF-1.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs).

• Image is a scanned copy of a NAIA Hall of Fame induction pamphlet from 1973. Most likely copyright owned by the NAIA, including of the images within the document. -- ТимофейЛееСуда. 15:29, 27 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Have you checked the scanned document and found a copyright notice? If not, why don't you believe the uploader? I'd be quite surprised if an informal publication, such as a program for an induction ceremony, were to bear a copyright notice. Nyttend (talk) 17:36, 27 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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.

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, see previous nomination. — ξ^xplicit 01:21, 5 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

File:NAIA 1973 HOF-2.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs).

• Image is a scanned copy of a NAIA Hall of Fame induction pamphlet from 1973. Most likely copyright owned by the NAIA, including of the images within the document. -- ТимофейЛееСуда. 15:29, 27 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Have you checked the scanned document and found a copyright notice? If not, why don't you believe the uploader? I'd be quite surprised if an informal publication, such as a program for an induction ceremony, were to bear a copyright notice. Nyttend (talk) 17:37, 27 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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.

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, see previous nomination. — ξ^xplicit 01:21, 5 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

File:NAIA 1973 HOF-3.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs).

• Image is a scanned copy of a NAIA Hall of Fame induction pamphlet from 1973. Most likely copyright owned by the NAIA, including of the images within the document. -- ТимофейЛееСуда. 15:29, 27 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Have you checked the scanned document and found a copyright notice? If not, why don't you believe the uploader? I'd be quite surprised if an informal publication, such as a program for an induction ceremony, were to bear a copyright notice. Nyttend (talk) 17:37, 27 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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.

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 Explicit (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) A file with this name on Commons is now visible. AnomieBOT⚡ 03:02, 5 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

File:Press 2.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs).

• Thumbnail here which is dated 1 April 2009 according to wget. The copy on Wikipedia was uploaded on 16 April 2009. Stefan2 (talk) 21:17, 27 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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.

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 Explicit (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) A file with this name on Commons is now visible. AnomieBOT⚡ 03:02, 5 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

File:Camping.JPG (delete | talk | history | logs).

• Both credited to "I, the copyright holder of this work" and to "www.cityofmedfordwi.com". Might be unfree. Stefan2 (talk) 22:36, 27 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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.

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, permission received. — ξ^xplicit 01:21, 5 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

File:Ashraf Habibullah wearing hat, jacket, and tie.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs).

• "Photo taken at the 2011 CSI Christmas Party" but "Date and time of data generation: 2009-04-12T18:17:45". Also: the uploader only has two images with EXIF metadata and both indicate different camera models. I guess the uploader's other uploads should be checked too. Stefan2 (talk) 23:41, 27 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hey Stefan,

Sorry for the inconvenience. I uploaded this photo as my own though it was emailed to me, with permission to use in the article, by Ashraf. I appreciate your diligence and I respect the necessity of proper licensing procedures through Creative Commons. I initially tried to upload this photo through the appropriate process, but quickly became confused regarding some of the items. Perhaps you or another editor could advise me on what to do from here and serve as a mentor through the process. There are five photos uploaded to the Ashraf Habibullah article, and I'm interested in properly licensing (as free content) the two shown on the page, and deleting the other three. I think these photos may serve a valuable encyclopedic purpose because Ashraf pioneered computer applications for structural engineering, which is the field in which I work. Thank you for your time. Mike P. Abell 16:51, 28 April 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mikepabell (talk • contribs)

Then you need to send in permission to OTRS. Please follow the instructions at WP:CONSENT. --Stefan2 (talk) 17:10, 28 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you!! Mike P. Abell 17:20, 28 April 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mikepabell (talk • contribs)

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.

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 Explicit (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 03:02, 5 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

File:ITtoolbox Logo (HI RES).JPG (delete | talk | history | logs).

• This file appears to be a version of the Toolbox.com logo as shown on this press release. There's no apparent link between the user who claimed "own work" and the ownership of the company. —Darkwind (talk) 23:46, 27 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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.