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 Wizardman (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 01:53, 15 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Uploader claims that the image is "known to have come from a press kit or similar source," but the source webpage says no such thing, and the bottom of the page says "Copyright © 2009 Cornell University Department of History." Uploader also did not provide a fair use rationale. —Notyourbroom (talk) 00:14, 6 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• 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⚡ 14:19, 11 August 2009 (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 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: keep As FoP would apply fot his image. Skier Dude (talk) 02:19, 20 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Shop sign.. - FOP applicable? Sfan00 IMG (talk) 13:19, 6 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• FOP Exists in the UK. Keep --Hammersoft (talk) 13:30, 7 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Definitely a valid FOP case in the UK, and I doubt the sign even reaches the threshold of originality for copyright. IronGargoyle (talk) 13:11, 12 August 2009 (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 media's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

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 B (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 14:19, 11 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Unused, No permission - Looks like promotional. - Sfan00 IMG (talk) 13:43, 6 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• The permissions are contradictory. Supposedly released into PD, but the uploader says "Anyone must have my authorization to use my picture for any reason other than personal use". That's an incompatible license with Wikipedia. Delete --Hammersoft (talk) 13:32, 7 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Out of scope at any rate, and I don't think it sporting to hold her to the PD declaration. Powers ^T 14:11, 7 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Non-free and not useful on Wikipedia. --Apoc2400 (talk) 00:01, 8 August 2009 (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.