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 Angusmclellan (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 02:07, 8 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

File:Southern Ontario 2.png (delete | talk | history | logs).

• Intricately detailed/professional style map. No reason given to suggest that uploader is copyright owner. FASTILY_sock^(TALK) 04:51, 25 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Almost certain it originated from MSN (it uses all the right fonts) - it should be speedied as copyvio. Orderinchaos 01:18, 2 January 2010 (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 Angusmclellan (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 02:07, 8 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

File:Night Southern Ontario 1.png (delete | talk | history | logs).

• Nighttime satellite shot of some kind. Unlikely uploader is copyright owner. FASTILY_sock^(TALK) 04:52, 25 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• This is clearly an unfree image; one would need to own a satellite to be able to release this copyright-free. Orderinchaos 01:29, 2 January 2010 (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 Skier Dude (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 04:25, 9 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

File:SigmaSigmaPhi.JPG (delete | talk | history | logs).

• Logo for some organization. If not, then no need for user created art (UE). FASTILY_sock^(TALK) 04:55, 25 December 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.

Either it's a derivative work based on Crown Copyright or it isn't. It looks close enough to me so I have have tagged this as ((PD-UKGov)) as I believe that best represents its status. Angus McLellan (Talk) 00:58, 8 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

File:6th Armoured Division flash.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs).

• Logo for a division of the UK armed forces. Likely copyrighted. If not, then no need for user created art (UE). FASTILY_sock^(TALK) 05:02, 25 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• The division was formed and disbanded during the Second World War; if it was under copyright protection it is now in the public domain as it was created more than 50 years ago per UK crown copyright.
• On top of which it is not a 100% pixel for pixel copy of the logo, it is an adaptaion - close enough but not spot on so its not a direct copy. At any rate an on-line version of the logo is not available hence why i created it (considering i dont believe the previous file accurately portrayed the divisional flash).--EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 18:48, 25 December 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.

As previous: ((PD-UKGov)). Angus McLellan (Talk) 01:00, 8 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

File:XXX Corps 1944-1945 shoulder flash.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs).

• Logo for some organization, likely copyrighted. If not, then no need for user created art (UE). FASTILY_sock^(TALK) 05:04, 25 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Per 6th Armoured Division reply.--EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 18:48, 25 December 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 Skier Dude (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 04:25, 9 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

File:New1corpus.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs).

• Appears to be artist's digital rendering of a structure. Unlikely uploader is copyright owner. FASTILY_sock^(TALK) 05:05, 25 December 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 Skier Dude (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 04:25, 9 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

• No evidence that the uploader is the actual copyright holder. Eeekster (talk) 11:37, 25 December 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 Skier Dude (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 04:25, 9 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

File:Sicmm1.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs).

• Image is from a slide show at http://www.sic.edu.ph/ and it is unlikely the uploader is the copyright holder. Eeekster (talk) 11:55, 25 December 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 Skier Dude (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 04:25, 9 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

File:ELISEO QUINATilla.JPG (delete | talk | history | logs).

• Copyrighted TV screenshot Alx 91 (talk) 18:17, 25 December 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 Fastily (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 02:12, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

File:Coat of arms of Montreal from 1938 by Alexander Liptak.png (delete | talk | history | logs).

• Logo/Seal of an organization/city council; likely copyrighted. If not, then no need for user created art (UE). FASTILY_sock^(TALK) 23:32, 25 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• The image is heavily based upon the grey version already on Coat of arms of Montreal, though I have slightly edited the cross and beaver, and more noticeably the colours to better match heraldic customs of using white for argent rather than the grey as in the original image. I discussed the colours with the original creator of the grey version, who allowed me use of his image to modify to create a white one, an image already released to the public domain. Apparently the city itself most recently uses a version that is grey, or perhaps it is silver leafed and appears grey in photographs; anyways, it was discussed and decided that the grey should be kept as the 'official' version with the white one added to the page for a more traditional version. Also to note, the arms of Montreal were never registered with the Canadian Heraldic Authority, the governmental offices charged with regulation of coats of arms, so the status of copyright is rather uncertain being that the arms never received official sanction and that a city does not have the authority to declare copyright of a coat of arms. [tk] XANDERLIPTAK 00:03, 26 December 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.