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 Stifle (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 17:58, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Blatant screenshot from "wicked the musical", likely non-free. — neuro^(talk) 00:11, 6 March 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 Stifle (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 17:58, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No CC statement on website. — neuro^(talk) 01:53, 6 March 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 Stifle (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 17:58, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Same image found at http://www.striperonline.com/kayaking_lake_ronkonkoma.htm. No idea whether the uploader owns this image. Mosmof (talk) 03:28, 6 March 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 Maxim (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 04:01, 14 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

pretty obviously a professional image; uploader has arleady uploaded other copyrighted images stolen from Discovery.com and other sites -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 04:28, 6 March 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 Stifle (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 17:58, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Spongebob Squarepants titlecard, not GFDL. — neuro^(talk) 06:38, 6 March 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 Stifle (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) A file with this name on Commons is now visible. AnomieBOT⚡ 17:58, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Screenshot of copyrighted computer program, not GFDL. — neuro^(talk) 14:16, 6 March 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 Stifle (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 17:58, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Image has doubtful authorship claims; other uploads by the same user have been deleted following Wikipedia:Possibly unfree images/2008 October 30#Image:Suchart Thadathamrongvej.jpg. Paul_012 ^(talk) 14:19, 6 March 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 Stifle (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 17:58, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Doubtful authorship claim; watermark icon on lower-right corner suggests image was taken from elsewhere. Paul_012 ^(talk) 14:31, 6 March 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 Stifle (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 17:58, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Image taken from movie set or screenshot Paul_012 ^(talk) 14:32, 6 March 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 Stifle (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 17:58, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Image is likely taken from screenshot of the film or other promotional material. Paul_012 ^(talk) 14:34, 6 March 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 Stifle (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 17:58, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Image is likely taken from screenshot of or other promotional material for the film. Paul_012 ^(talk) 14:35, 6 March 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 Lucasbfr (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 07:40, 2 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Image taken from website of the Thai cabinet, (see [1].) For the reasons given at Commons:Commons:Deletion requests/Official photographs of Thai politicians, these images are not automatically public domain. Paul_012 ^(talk) 14:48, 6 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe not in Thailand but this is not the Thai wikipedia but the English one. Thai laws won't apply here and makes any complaints regarding eventual "violations" of Thai law irrellevant. Here, the image is Public Domain, and it shows a person of historical interest, a former Prime Minister of Thailand. This, in addition makes it an important picture, and, obviously, there is no other. --Maxl (talk) 15:33, 15 March 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 Andrew c (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 15:26, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

1. The image is likely taken from this page and has no further source information confirming it to be a work of the Bureau of the Royal Household. 2. The Bureau of the Royal Household has only explicitly stated that it allows use according to CC-BY-NC-ND 2.5 for works published here; only via telephone have Thai Wikipedians been told that other such works of the Bureau may be used under the same license, which in any case is unsuitable for Wikipedia. Paul_012 ^(talk) 14:50, 6 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• It was never asserted that this is a work of the Bureau of the Royal Household. It came from a student manual, and was probably taken by a university photographer, rather than a Bureau photographer. The permission of the Bureau is not required. Patiwat (talk) 22:20, 7 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Regardless, we don't have permission from the university student manual publishers either. -Andrew c ^[talk] 14:05, 6 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 Stifle (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 17:58, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

central_vietnam is suspected of Flickr washing. See Commons:Commons:Deletion requests/Flickr uploads by central vietnam. Paul_012 ^(talk) 14:58, 6 March 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 Stifle (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 17:58, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

central_vietnam is suspected of Flickr washing. See Commons:Commons:Deletion requests/Flickr uploads by central vietnam. Paul_012 ^(talk) 14:58, 6 March 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 Stifle (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 17:58, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

central_vietnam is suspected of Flickr washing. See Commons:Commons:Deletion requests/Flickr uploads by central vietnam. Paul_012 ^(talk) 15:08, 6 March 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 Stifle (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 17:58, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

central_vietnam is suspected of Flickr washing. See Commons:Commons:Deletion requests/Flickr uploads by central vietnam. Paul_012 ^(talk) 15:09, 6 March 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: Kept, no evidence of copyvio. Closed by User:Quadell 22:43, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

User:Rootje's uploads have disagreeing EXIF data, and the user's contributions show that he/she has claimed false authorship of other images, casting doubt on the claimed authorship of this image. Paul_012 ^(talk) 15:18, 6 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There is no reason to believe that Rootje didn't take this image. It looks like there's a lot of superstition from the part of Paul_012. The image looks quite genuine, and just because he might have uploaded a few images before which he hadn't personally taken is not enough to assume false play here as well. You have, as yet, failed to prove your claims! --Maxl (talk) 16:02, 15 March 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: Kept, no evidence of copyvio. Closed by User:Quadell 22:43, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

User:Rootje's uploads have disagreeing EXIF data, and the user's contributions show that he/she has claimed false authorship of other images, casting doubt on the claimed authorship of this image. Paul_012 ^(talk) 15:18, 6 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There is no reason to believe that Rootje didn't take this image. It looks like there's a lot of superstition from the part of Paul_012. The image looks quite genuine, and just because he might have uploaded a few images before which he hadn't personally taken is not enough to assume false play here as well. You have, as yet, failed to prove your claims! --Maxl (talk) 16:02, 15 March 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: Kept, no evidence of copyvio. Closed by User:Quadell 22:43, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

User:Rootje's uploads have disagreeing EXIF data, and the user's contributions show that he/she has claimed false authorship of other images, casting doubt on the claimed authorship of this image. Paul_012 ^(talk) 15:18, 6 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There is no reason to believe that Rootje didn't take this image. It looks like there's a lot of superstition from the part of Paul_012. The image looks quite genuine, and just because he might have uploaded a few images before which he hadn't personally taken is not enough to assume false play here as well. You have, as yet, failed to prove your claims! --Maxl (talk) 16:03, 15 March 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 Stifle (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 17:58, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I highly doubt that the uploader owns this image of an album cover. Pandacomics (talk) 16:53, 6 March 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 Stifle (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 17:58, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Copyrighted logo, unlikely that uploader is copyright holder. — neuro^(talk) 22:56, 6 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I believe this is a case for "fair use". The "possibly unfree" section is the wrong one here. --Maxl (talk) 16:04, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Since it was tagged as free use, it is open to challenge here. I've deleted it; if someone wants to make a fair use claim on the image they can contact me and I'll restore it. Stifle (talk) 16:52, 20 March 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.