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 SchuminWeb (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 15:11, 24 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

• Looks like enough art to qualify for copyright. Eeekster (talk) 02:34, 10 March 2011 (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 SchuminWeb (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 15:11, 24 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

File:Old Mill 1922.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs).

• The image has been taken from the Gateshead council website, which claims copyright and does not appear to license its images for reuse. Apparently the picture was taken in 1922. I don't know if this could qualify as public domain, but presumably should not be here under a creative commons license. BelovedFreak 13:46, 10 March 2011 (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 SchuminWeb (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 15:11, 24 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

File:Queens Head 1900.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs).

• The image claims to have been taken from the Gateshead council website, which claims copyright and does not appear to license its images for reuse. Apparently the picture was taken ca. 1900. I don't know if this could qualify as public domain, but presumably should not be here under a creative commons license. BelovedFreak 13:52, 10 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This picture, and all of the pictures listed below used in the article Sheriff Hill, falls under the public domain use but I do not know how to tag this properly- none of the tags I have looked at seem appropriate and I would be grateful for guidance here so that they can be tagged accurately Meetthefeebles (talk) 18:00, 12 March 2011 (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 SchuminWeb (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 15:11, 24 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

File:Tuns 1900.JPG (delete | talk | history | logs).

• This image description states that it is in the public domain because copyright has expired in the US (life of author +100 years). The description does not say when it was taken or who the author was. The source link does not go to a page with this image on. If it turns out to have been taken in 1900 (guessing from the file name, and per the caption in the article), we still do not know the lifespan of the author. BelovedFreak 13:58, 10 March 2011 (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 SchuminWeb (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 15:11, 24 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

File:The Causeway Hotel.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs).

• The image has been taken from the Gateshead council website (I can't actually see the image on that link), which claims copyright and does not appear to license its images for reuse. Apparently the date that the picture was taken is unknown so it cannot be determined whether or not it would qualify as public domain. Presumably it should not be here under a creative commons license either. BelovedFreak 14:03, 10 March 2011 (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 SchuminWeb (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 15:11, 24 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

File:Venetie Italie 223.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs).

• This image prominently features a sculpture on display at the Peggy Guggenheim Museum in Venice. Not only does the US not permit pictures of sculptures under Freedom of Panorama, but neither does Italy. (If it did, we could at least move it to Commons.) I don't believe a FUR can be asserted. Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 14:09, 10 March 2011 (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 SchuminWeb (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 15:11, 24 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

File:The Hermatage.JPG (delete | talk | history | logs).

• This image description states that it is in the public domain because copyright has expired in the US (life of author +100 years). The description does not say when it was taken but does give the name of an author. The source link does not go to a page with this image on. Without knowing the date or the lifespan of the author (C R Walton), (and based on the other images uploaded by the user in question) I don't think we can be sure this copyright has expired. BelovedFreak 14:11, 10 March 2011 (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: close. This is obviously a derivative work, and non-free. However, there are two images of this sculpture in the Horse and Rider (Marini) article. However, as there are two images of a non-free artwork, there should only be one here, and neither one has a fair use rationale. I will be listing both at FFD so that the community can determine which one it wants. SchuminWeb (Talk) 13:38, 24 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

File:Marini at the Hirshhorn.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs).

• As Freedom of Panorama does not liberate sculptures in the U.S., this image may not be usable under free license. Anybody know any other angle under which this can be retained, either under free license or fair use? (NFC might permit for Horse and Rider (Marini), but probably not the other articles, and I myself am not comfortable asserting fair use in an article that lacks any critical commentary whatsoever. :/) Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 15:04, 10 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment: Lets start with what I think we all agree on: The image is free, the statue isn't. So I have marked it as a ((derivative)) and I could see adding ((Non-free 3D art)) and FUR to it as well for use in the Horse and Rider (Marini) article as that article is about the sculpture itself. However that article is already using File:Horse-and-rider.JPG and there isn't a need for two non-free images in the article, as there is not much context for both. Also, per policy we don't allow for a non-free content gallery, which is how this image is being used at the moment. In that regards this image fails a few of the Wikipedia:Non-free content criteria - 8. Contextual significance and 9. Restrictions on location. It's use in List of public art in Washington, D.C., Ward 2 is purely for decoration, thus fails policy, so I have removed it from there. As for Marino Marini (sculptor) - the needed "Contextual significance" (or sourced critical commentary) is not there and ,again, simply being used for decoration at this point - so I have also removed it from that article. At this point if a valid reason can be given for use in the Horse and Rider (Marini) article we might be able to retain it. Soundvisions1 (talk) 16:25, 10 March 2011 (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⚡ 21:14, 10 March 2011 (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 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 Jujutacular (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 21:14, 10 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

File:MK43Editorial.pdf (delete | talk | history | logs).

• Blatent upload of a copywritten periodical. Small Arms Defense Journal is copywritten by Chipotle Publishing LLC. I think the uploader might have meant to simply reference it. bahamut0013^words_deeds 15:27, 10 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy as a copyvio: Seems likely the up-loader simply meant to cite the source, but the "self" ((PD-author)) license is clearly not correct. Soundvisions1 (talk) 16:35, 10 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• I did just mean to reference it. Although I will request permission from the editor of the magazine since I have a contact there. I understand that this isn't a perfect article, but I was asking for help from other seasoned Wikipedians to actually improve the article, not just try to delete it. I can get the proper permissions for all of the articles and images referenced. I am directly connected to many of the weapons manufacturers. Please let me know what I can do to remedy this so the article is not deleted! Thank you, Littlemslawandorder (talk) 17:41, 10 March 2011 (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 SchuminWeb (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 15:11, 24 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

• "Image taken by one of my acquaintances." Seems dubious. From Tineye, I found the image used at http://www.as7apcool.com/vb/showthread.php?t=90984&page=64 about a third of the way down in a thread from 2007 (before this image was uploaded). B (talk) 23:45, 10 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: First problem - it is using a "self" license and the summary says "Image taken by one of my acquaintances" That is for sure not the way to verify the license. And second, as was pointed out by B - the image is likely to be a copyvio. Either way - if "one of my (The uploaders) acquaintances" can get an OTRS in than keep it, if not than delete. Soundvisions1 (talk) 01:06, 11 March 2011 (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.