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 Fastily (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 02:04, 27 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

File:Hering, Gottlieb.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs).

• No evidence the image is no longer copyrighted, and 70+ for no author disclosure Secret ^account 04:55, 13 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. The file is an official portrait of a German Nazi, therefore clearly taken 70+ years ago and also it falls under public domain.Hoops gza (talk) 00:11, 14 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • The picture could have been taken in 1942 and later, so there's no evidence it fallen under public domain, and portraits are usually 70+ author, if the author is known. Secret ^account 06:54, 14 September 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 as F8 by Eustress (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 08:07, 25 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

File:107 almihdhar id card.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs).

• see commons:Commons:Deletion requests/File:107 almihdhar id card.jpg Magog the Ogre (talk) 06:42, 13 September 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 Fastily (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 02:04, 27 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

File:Tajiks of China.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs).

• This file is simply a scan of a movie poster from China. It has the name of the film and director and date it was playing. David Straub (talk) 08:02, 13 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I uploaded it from a flickr photo. the photo at flickr claims to be released under the license which I provided at wikipedia when I uploaded it. If the original flickr user lied about the license, (I am not the owner of the flickr account), then I did not intentionally upload a copyrighted file.DÜNGÁNÈ (talk) 00:25, 14 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Also, the photo which was previously on the article before I replaced it was fraduently released under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 2.5 License., when the original flickr photo showed no such permission, on the contrary, on the right side under "license", it says : " All Rights Reserved".

Due to the copyrighted status of the original photo, I searched on flickr for a photo and found it over here, on the right side, under "License", it provided a link to the "Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License", which allows for the photo to be used. If it is a scan of a movie poster, then its the original flickr user which posted fake information about the copyright.

And I have no particular interest in the photo, as I said, I was looking for a replacement of the original photo which was also copyrighted, you guys should delete both files.DÜNGÁNÈ (talk) 00:35, 14 September 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: Keep; file is tagged as non-free.-FASTILY ^(TALK) 00:17, 27 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

File:PS Honor Guard 2010.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs).

• Not a logo, probably copyright to someone other than the uploader Mtking ^(edits) 08:25, 13 September 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. AnomieBOT⚡ 08:07, 25 September 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 Fastily (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 02:04, 27 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

File:Malaysia Airlines Cabin Crew.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs).

• This is a case of clear flickr washing. The photo is small resolution, and it is clearly a promotional shot. A tineye search indicates usage on virginblue.com.au and a few other sites. Russavia ^{Let's dialogue} 18:15, 13 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. If Russavia bothers to look at the flickr description he will see a CC by-sa 2.0 licence which to the best of my understanding is acceptable on wikimedia sites. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 18:32, 13 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I am an admin on Commons, and I am well aware of how licencing works. Let me say that if this image was on Commons, I would have nuked it on sight as a clear copyvio. It is so blatant that I can't believe the speedy deletion was denied. Firstly, please read Commons:License laundering. Second, look at the flickr users other images -- they are all copyrighted, and they are of school kids -- this tells me it is a kid who apparently "owns" this photo. Third, a Google search indicates that this flickr user is bullshitting. How the hell can they own the copyright to this image, when a larger image is in use on the Auckland Airport website, and over at Cabincrew.com. The 5 minutes I wasted writing this could have been spent on uploading copyright-compliant materials to Commons, instead of wasting time on a clear copyvio. --Russavia ^{Let's dialogue} 18:53, 13 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• OK, delete. Russavia, if you had included the Google search link above in your original speedy tag instead of the slightly meaningless "flickr washing", you would have saved both of us more than five minutes. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 19:57, 13 September 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 Fastily (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 02:04, 27 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

File:Euclid Hitachi.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs).

• Tagged as PD-self, but attributed to someone other than the uploader. Acather96 (talk) 21:21, 13 September 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.