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 Explicit (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) A file with this name on Commons is now visible. AnomieBOT⚡ 09:33, 10 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

• No exif data and this [1] identical image seems to come from 2005, 2 years before its upload Simon Speed (talk) 01:49, 24 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Obvious copyvio with evidence to back it up. Completely replaceable. — BQZip01 — ^talk 16:33, 24 February 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 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, tagged non-free. After Midnight ⁰⁰⁰¹ 04:49, 13 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

• Since the artist is still alive, the claim that the image is irreplaceable is false. Woogee (talk) 02:39, 24 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Also see File:MDoret.jpg a duplicate of this, tagged for deletion. Editor is a new user. Dougweller (talk) 06:33, 24 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• This is already tagged as non-free. I think you want to take this issue to Category:Disputed non-free Wikipedia files. --After Midnight ⁰⁰⁰¹ 16:10, 24 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Did you read the pink box with its clear instructions on how to proceed? Woogee (talk) 19:31, 24 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Could you be more specific? There are many pink boxes; to which are you referring? PUF is for "discussing images that are marked as available under a free license or public domain, but have disputed source or licensing information." File:Doret.jpg is tagged as non-free already, so this is the wrong forum for you to dispute the rationale for fair use of the image. --After Midnight ⁰⁰⁰¹ 15:37, 25 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Image is clearly non-free and replaceable. Moreover, a speedy delete could be appropriate as it is already on the commons. — BQZip01 — ^talk 16:15, 24 February 2010 (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⚡ 09:33, 10 March 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 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, tagged non-free. After Midnight ⁰⁰⁰¹ 04:50, 13 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

• image not found at source provided Alan - talk 05:07, 24 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Close This is indeed one of a few posters the company has released and is appropriately labeled as non free. As such, this is a file maintenance issue, not a "possibly unfree" file issue (it is already non-free and that fact is noted). Just pick an appropriate source from the link I've provided. — BQZip01 — ^talk 16:19, 24 February 2010 (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⚡ 09:33, 10 March 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 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. After Midnight ⁰⁰⁰¹ 11:49, 22 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

File:Sleep mask.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs).

• No exif data, small web sized image obviously from a catalog, only upload of user whose only other contribution was to add it to a page. Simon Speed (talk) 13:13, 24 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep I wouldn't say it is so obvious. I've seem many productions of contributors that were of significant quality. I'm willing to accept the contributor at his word in the absence of any contravening evidence. — BQZip01 — ^talk 16:32, 24 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Unless other evidence is provided, I don't see a reason not to assume good faith here. IronGargoyle (talk) 13:38, 21 March 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 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 Explicit (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 09:33, 10 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

File:M karunanidhi.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs).

• No evidence of permission, and no fair use rationale, picture is from here . Off2riorob (talk) 19:18, 24 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete ASAP. Picture is completely replaceable. — BQZip01 — ^talk 23:25, 24 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • How long are these discussions kept open? Off2riorob (talk) 16:44, 6 March 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 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 After Midnight (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 02:58, 19 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

• Source says picture is "assumed to be in the public domain", no evidence this is so. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 19:37, 24 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep That is the responsibility of the source, not the uploader. If evidence surfaces that the image is not PD, we should remove it. — BQZip01 — ^talk 23:27, 24 February 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.