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⚡ 00:02, 31 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

File:Shore bird identification panel at Blackpill, Swansea, Wales, in Welsh and English.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs).

• Probably one of those 2D things which are not covered by Commons:COM:FOP#United Kingdom. Stefan2 (talk) 00:11, 22 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• This photograph satisfies the Fair use test because it is used for nonprofit educational purposes, therefore it can be retained. Vouliagmeni (talk) 00:52, 23 March 2012 (CET)
  • It is used in an article on a society, not in an article on the said society's signs. Passes WP:NFCC in an article on the said signs, but I fail to see how it would pass WP:NFCC in the current article. --Stefan2 (talk) 12:46, 23 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Do you believe the person creating this was attempting to create a work of art?--Crossmr (talk) 00:30, 24 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • British information boards are unfree unless the author died before 1942 years ago and multiple tangible copies of the information board were distributed before 1942. See Commons:COM:VPC#Category:Information boards in the United Kingdom. --Stefan2 (talk) 01:27, 24 March 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⚡ 00:02, 31 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

File:Florida House Chamber.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs).

• Source page on Flickr shows noncommercial license. Kelly ^hi! 03:40, 22 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• I am the copyright holder to the photograph. While it has a Creative Commons license, it is a non-commercial, no derivative license, as noted above. The license allows non-profit organizations to use such photographs without the copyright holder's permission, as I understand, but I know that Wikipedia's policies are different. I have no problem with the photograph being used by Wikipedia and Wikimedia since they are non-profit educational organizations, but if the said organizations do not allow the use of photographs with non-commercial, no derivative licenses, then remove it since I retain those rights. S Martin (talk) 18:02, 23 March 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⚡ 00:02, 31 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

File:Fayetteville Street 1913.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs).

• Orphaned, no evidence of permission. Kelly ^hi! 04:11, 22 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Do you believe this was not published prior to 1923?--Crossmr (talk) 00:32, 24 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • That's irrelevant. If it can't be proved that the image is free, it needs to go away. There is no evidence of publication on the file information page. --Stefan2 (talk) 01:29, 24 March 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⚡ 00:02, 31 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

File:NC State Capitol 1890.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs).

• Orphaned, source page shows 'all rights reserved'. Kelly ^hi! 04:13, 22 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Question Can the North Carolina State Archives claim copyright on a 120 year old picture? --kelapstick^(bainuu) 13:10, 29 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • The image is copyrighted if either of the following two cases applies:
      1. Copyrighted if taken by an identified photographer who died in 1942 or later and the photo is not a work for hire and the photo was not published anywhere before 2003.
      2. Copyrighted if unpublished until at least the end of 1922 and then published at some point between 1923 and 2002 (inclusive). If the publication was before 1 March 1989, it additionally requires complying with formalities.
    • I would say that scenario 2 is unlikely. Scenario 1 might apply, but the Flickr page doesn't indicate any photographer, and a requirement for scenario 1 is that the photographer is identified. A person who was able to take a photo in 1890 might have been alive in 1942 if it was taken when the photographer was still very young. --Stefan2 (talk) 13:23, 29 March 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⚡ 00:02, 31 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

File:FireSA2.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs).

• from http://www.greenville.k12.sc.us/southside/SAM%20Pages/FireSA2.jpg 77.184.46.107 (talk) 07:11, 22 March 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⚡ 00:02, 31 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

File:Baljeet saini.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs).

• Given that this is a relatively low resolution photograph of a well known individual, with no camera metadata nor a clear statement that the uploader was the photographer, I find it doubtful that this file is actually free. My concerns are enhanced by the fact that the uploader also uploaded File:Uday kuwait.jpg, a photograph of a solider in Kuwait, which seems highly unlikely to have been taken by him/her. For the Uday image, I have converted it to non-free as the solider is now dead so it is non-replaceable, however Baljit Singh Saini, the subject of the image I'm nominating, is alive. CT Cooper · talk 13:16, 22 March 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⚡ 00:02, 31 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

File:Pete mckee.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs).

• Is the permission only for Wikipedia? There is also no evidence of permission. Stefan2 (talk) 13:54, 22 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • The uploader is still an active member of wikipedia. What did he say when you asked him about it?--Crossmr (talk) 00:35, 24 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • The question to the user is one line above your question to me. As you can see, he has not yet answered the question (or at least not here). --Stefan2 (talk) 01:21, 24 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      • Did you ask him about it on his talk page or immediately move to delete? You easily could have assumed good faith and asked them about it on their talk page before bringing it here.-Crossmr (talk) 02:53, 24 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
        • This is not a deletion discussion but a discussion on the copyright status of the image. If the discussion ends up unanswered, the image might be deleted, though. It is quite normal to take images here if it is suggested that they may be unfree. --Stefan2 (talk) 22:55, 25 March 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⚡ 00:02, 31 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

File:The bargain pete mckee.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs).

• Is the permission only for Wikipedia? There is also no evidence of permission. Stefan2 (talk) 13:56, 22 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • The uploader is still an active member of wikipedia. What did he say when you asked him about it?--Crossmr (talk) 00:36, 24 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • The question to the user is one line above your question to me. As you can see, he has not yet answered the question (or at least not here). --Stefan2 (talk) 01:21, 24 March 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: Delete - UK defines 2D works as "as any painting, drawing, diagram, map, chart or plan, any engraving, etching, lithograph, woodcut or similar work." Magog the Ogre (talk) 00:50, 31 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

File:Longstowe, Cambs village sign.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs).

• 2D art in the UK. Is this one of the disallowed things mentioned in Commons:COM:FOP#United Kingdom? Stefan2 (talk) 14:39, 22 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • I see 3D relief, that is not a 2D flat surface graphic work.--Crossmr (talk) 00:34, 24 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • I'm not sure if a 3D relief is sufficiently 3D. --Stefan2 (talk) 22:56, 25 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      • It is far more than simple words carved or etched into a surface. It has full and clear depth.--Crossmr (talk) 07:55, 27 March 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⚡ 00:02, 31 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

File:Geo Rix house.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs).

• Pre-1918 photo by "an unknown photographer." Published or not? If unpublished, it is copyrighted for 120 years since creation as an anonymous work. The text on the file information page suggests that it is very likely that it is unpublished. Stefan2 (talk) 14:42, 22 March 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⚡ 00:02, 31 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

File:Struble IA.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs).

• No FOP for 2003 US signs. The illustration on the left sign might be recent. Stefan2 (talk) 14:44, 22 March 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⚡ 00:02, 31 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

File:Struble John T.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs).

• Created before 1923, but no evidence of publication before 1923, so the template may be wrong. Family photos are usually unpublished. Stefan2 (talk) 14:45, 22 March 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⚡ 00:02, 31 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

File:Struble, John T.closeup.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs).

• 1902 US family photo. No evidence of publication. Family photos are usually unpublished. If anonymous, 70 years p.m.a. (for known photographers) or 120 years since creation (for anonymous photograpers) applies. Stefan2 (talk) 14:47, 22 March 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⚡ 00:02, 31 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

File:Geo. R sketch.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs).

• Portrait from "circa 1885-1895" with no evidence of publication. If unpublished and made by an unidentified photographer and taken in 1892 or later, it is copyrighted for 120 years since creation. If unpublished and made by a known photographer, it is copyrighted for 70 years after the death of the photographer. Stefan2 (talk) 14:51, 22 March 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⚡ 00:02, 31 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

File:Birobidzhan Synagogue.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs).

• Is this a crop of [1]? Stefan2 (talk) 15:46, 22 March 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⚡ 00:02, 31 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

File:InsanityRadioLogo2012.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs).

• Dubious own work. Above the threshold of originality of the United Kingdom and probably also unfree in the United States. Stefan2 (talk) 15:50, 22 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• I suggest you e-mail manager@insanityradio.com for confirmation that my organisation is the rightful owner of this imagine.

User:ChristalPalace 16:10, 22 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• • If you are the owner, please follow the instructions at WP:CONSENT. --Stefan2 (talk) 22:22, 22 March 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⚡ 00:02, 31 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

File:Ivan Milosevic (Luqa FC).jpg (delete | talk | history | logs).

• Dubious source: "Facebook, Ivan Milosevic" Stefan2 (talk) 15:56, 22 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  That's not a source, he's indicating where he previously published it.--Crossmr (talk) 03:08, 24 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  Possibly, but we can't assume that he is the same as the Facebook user without any evidence. See Wikipedia:Possibly unfree files/2012 February 29#File:Hibiscus brackenridgei flower.jpg for a similar case. Besides, note that the image appears here and here in smaller resolutions. The one with the word "cropped" in the file name is dated 2012-03-11 and the other one is dated 2012-03-06 (download the images using wget to check), which is earlier than the Wikipedia upload. No useful EXIF in any of the images. The one on Wikipedia has an EXIF date from January (Profile Date Time : 2012:01:25 03:41:57) and appears to have been edited on a Macintosh computer (Primary Platform : Apple Computer Inc.), but that is all I can get from the EXIF of the files. --Stefan2 (talk) 23:05, 25 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  The user is not listing facebook as a source. Full stop. Your deletion rationale claims the user is listing facebook as a source, he's clearly not, thus you have no reason to bring this here.--Crossmr (talk) 07:54, 27 March 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⚡ 00:02, 31 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

File:Pearl Necklace on chest.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs).

• looks to be a screenshot from a film or programme Cloudbound (talk) 18:25, 22 March 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⚡ 00:02, 31 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

File:Shmemis salamiyah syria.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs).

• Unable to find this particular photo in the Flickr user's photostream, but all other photos by this person are under a noncommercial license. Kelly ^hi! 19:04, 22 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Also note that it says "Content is already under http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-sa/2.0/" on the file information page. --Stefan2 (talk) 22:21, 22 March 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⚡ 00:02, 31 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

File:Hp Desktops.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs).

• Uploader claims CC-BY license but the summary box clearly lists HP as the author and I see no indication HP has released these images under the given license. They appear to be promotional shots from the HP website. OSborn ^arf_contribs. 19:04, 22 March 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⚡ 00:02, 31 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

File:Civil demand letter.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs).

• Presumably the author of the letter holds a copyright to it. Kelly ^hi! 19:49, 22 March 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⚡ 00:02, 31 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

File:Contemporary wabi-sabi tea bowl retouched.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs).

• Unable to verify source/license. Kelly ^hi! 19:51, 22 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • keep a very quick search notes that archive.org captured some photos that this user uploaded and they are indeed licensed as such [2]. There is no reason to doubt this photo was licensed out of the ordinary.--Crossmr (talk) 00:39, 24 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete No evidence that this particular photo was licensed under that licence, though. Needs OTRS. --Stefan2 (talk) 01:32, 24 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• The evidence is in the original uploader and the fact that other images at the time were uploaded with that license. There is no reason to assume otherwise.-Crossmr (talk) 02:55, 24 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Uploaders often mix up Creative Commons licences and might not notice an NC or ND or might not understand that an "all rights reserved" image isn't allowed here. See Commons:COM:F where it is explained how Commons checks Flickr images. This image hasn't gone through the review process mentioned on Commons. I have seen users assuming that all Flickr files are fine and free. --Stefan2 (talk) 23:13, 25 March 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 as F9 by Anetode (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 03:22, 23 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

• No evidence Flickr user is copyright holder of depicted poster. Kelly ^hi! 20:02, 22 March 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⚡ 00:02, 31 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

File:War Age.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs).

• Image is a collage of two screenshots. Not licensed correctly but I also don't think these are usable like this. -- ТимофейЛееСуда. 20:02, 22 March 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⚡ 00:02, 31 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

File:Chaos Age.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs).

• Image is a collage of two screenshots. Not licensed correctly but I also don't think these are usable like this. -- ТимофейЛееСуда. 20:02, 22 March 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⚡ 00:02, 31 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

File:Cowichan River.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs).

• Unable to verify source/license at Flickr. Kelly ^hi! 20:18, 22 March 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⚡ 00:02, 31 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

File:Masjid Selat Melaka.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs).

• Image does not match given source, which is "all rights reserved" in any case. Kelly ^hi! 20:27, 22 March 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 as G7 by Malik Shabazz (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 00:02, 23 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

File:Bill Jackson 1969edited.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs).

• Unable to verify source/license. Kelly ^hi! 20:31, 22 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• photo link
• license 2.0 link

There apparently was some confusion re CC 2.0 being converted to CC 3.0. Have removed the CC 3.0 license, added direct link to photo and license for it on the file page. We hope (talk) 20:41, 22 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Have now uploaded it to Commons with Flickrbot under the file name File:Bill Jackson Chicagoland area mall appearance, Spring of 1969.jpg. We hope (talk) 21:02, 22 March 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 Skier Dude (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) A file with this name on Commons is now visible. AnomieBOT⚡ 04:04, 3 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

• Orphaned. We have no real idea if the uploader is the photographer, and thus would have the legal right to release the image. I'm not sure how the CCI notice got there, but the bot did it, so there has to be a reason. Might have to do with the intermediate image of Jerry the cartoon mouse (might have been revdelled by the time you see this). That being said, all the other online versions trace their origin to this, and it looks like an awfully old photo. Not sure. Sven Manguard Wha? 22:50, 22 March 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.