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 Quadell (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 04:13, 1 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Highly dubious; orphaned here at en.wiki; deleted from Commons; lacks source information etc. —Danorton (talk) 01:34, 17 April 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 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 discussion was: Deleted, unrelated Commons image showing through.. – Quadell ^(talk) 02:32, 1 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Image of a sticker manufactured in 2006 by a United States firm- this does not qualify as Freedom of panorama and is thus a non-free image. Its acceptability under fair use guidelines is questionable at best, as in neither case of usage is there specific commentary on the image itself. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 01:52, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note that this same image was also just deleted from Commons as a copyvio (I don't recall the filename, unfortunately). —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 14:13, 18 April 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 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 discussion was: Not deleted

no indication of public domain; uploader stated in summary "deemed fair use." Orphaned image. Magog the Ogre (talk) 08:24, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• It's a faithful reproduction of a design to old to qualify for copyright. Especially with the crop, I can't imagine there's any new creative content here to worry about. – Quadell ^(talk) 02:28, 1 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• I agree with Quadell here. Based on the snippet of white background in the upper right, it also looks like it was scanned (as opposed to being photographed). IronGargoyle (talk) 18:16, 5 May 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 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 discussion was: Withdrawn by nominator. –Drilnoth (T • C • L) 00:14, 6 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

"Author, myself--from Haydn, Whit, "School for Scoundrels Notes on Fast and Loose," 2000." would seem to indicate that the image is from a copyrighted book. –Drilnoth (T • C • L) 15:17, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Yes... but since the uploader is User:Whit Haydn, I'd say he can license the image if he wants. – Quadell ^(talk) 02:26, 1 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • How do we know that he is who his username indicates? –Drilnoth (T • C • L) 14:02, 5 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Given the user's name and contribution history, I am inclined to agree with Quadell and assume good faith here. IronGargoyle (talk) 22:33, 5 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Okay; thanks for the additional comment. Withdraw. –Drilnoth (T • C • L) 00:13, 6 May 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 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 Quadell (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 04:13, 1 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Uses a Flickr free license but the member's account has been deleted there, so there is no way to verify if this is correct. Aspects (talk) 17:05, 17 April 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 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 Quadell (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 04:13, 1 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Uses a Flickr free license but the member's account has been deleted there, so there is no way to verify if this is correct. Aspects (talk) 17:08, 17 April 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 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 Quadell (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 04:13, 1 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned image that uses a Flickr free license but the member's account has been deleted there, so there is no way to verify if this is correct. Aspects (talk) 17:10, 17 April 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 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 Quadell (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 04:13, 1 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The uploader has licenced stating they are the copyright holder, however, he also states that it was found using a google image search and gives a url to a website (which doesn't currently work) from where it was downloaded. The copyright for the image will most likely belong to the photographer and/or the website which hosted the image. JD554 (talk) 20:39, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Somebody edit for me and says that i found the image in google image search, but is a li. I add now, the real summary. The image was taken from her OFFICIAL FAN SITE and i gave the right url. please check again,before you deleted!!

thank u! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Loveableone (talk • contribs) 03:42, 20 April 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.