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 12:00, 22 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

File:Globalwinnipeg.svg (delete | talk | history | logs).

• Is the geometry used in this logo simple enough for PD-textlogo copyright-exemption? Quibik (talk) 00:53, 25 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Yes Chevrons are explicitly mentioned as something that is NOT covered by copyright. — BQZip01 — ^talk 04:01, 25 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. I'm inclined to agree with BQZip01. This is too simple for copyright. IronGargoyle (talk) 13:39, 21 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Yes, it's simple enough. Reach Out to the Truth 00:06, 22 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:Nechvatal.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs).

• Used in the subjects official youtube channel: [1]. Given the uploader's problems with "self made" I strongly suspect that this image is not self-made Peripitus (Talk) 03:25, 25 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete agree with assessment. — BQZip01 — ^talk 04:12, 25 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• • I took this photograph of Nechvatal and own the copyright of it. I gave it to Nedchvatal and he used it in his youtube channel. Valueyou (talk) 14:15, 25 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 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:BwPascalDombis.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs).

• Undated image by a US based uploader of a Paris Based artist. Given the upload history with a confusion about self-made I suspect that the copyright for this image is not owned by the uploader. Peripitus (Talk) 03:31, 25 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Agree with this person's assessment. — BQZip01 — ^talk 04:13, 25 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• • I took this photograph of Pascal while in Paris and own the copyright of it. Valueyou (talk) 14:12, 25 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 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:Jane Lawrence Smith.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs).

• Image of a person who died in 2005 where it is claimed the image was made in 2010 - given the uploader's history I am most suspicious that this is not self-made Peripitus (Talk) 03:33, 25 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Given that the image is of a person who is not alive, it cannot be recreated and has a rationale for keeping it even if copyrighted. Given how blurry it is, I can see this image being a personal photo. The date on the image could easily be a "date uploaded" (our image uploading process needs some SERIOUS work; I can get it to work, but I'm far more experienced than most users); I'm willing to accept such an option and the person has some other uploaded amateurish images that seem to cleanly be PD. — BQZip01 — ^talk 04:17, 25 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  Yes and no. Given the uploader's other work, where they have attributed a date, and the many images that have been deleted as copyright violations...I am suspicious. If they can correctly attribute the work, and it meets the other points of NFCC, then NFCC#1 will not be a problem. The issue here is, is it their image (which is possible), and if not where did it come from. I note that an identical image File:JaneSmith.jpg was recently deleted as being on commons. I've asked the deleting admin there what the deal is as I cannot find it on commons - Peripitus (Talk) 05:53, 25 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  As I stated above, the image should be kept no matter what. What we need is to simply check our own boxes and make sure a valid source is there. In short, free or not free is the only question. If free, there is no issue (and I see no compelling evidence to the contrary). If not, a FUR simply needs to be added as the photo is irreplaceable (the subject is deceased and no free images are known to exist). — BQZip01 — ^talk 01:28, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• I took this photograph of Jane Smith and own the copyright of it. Valueyou (talk) 14:13, 25 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  Value, if you would be so kind as to explain the following, it would help your cause a great deal: what kind of camera did you use and what operating system are you using? — BQZip01 — ^talk 01:28, 26 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 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:TMTBus.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs).

• Previously uploaded (by the same user) as ((non-free logo)) which it patently is not, but no source was given. User has now re-uploaded the image with a ((PD-self)) which seems doubtful given the original tagging. It's also low-resolution and missing any camera metadata. (ESkog)^(Talk) 13:34, 25 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Given our pitiful uploading processes, I'm willing to give the uploader the benefit of the doubt. I see nothing compelling to remove this image (such as this image came from [www.google.com here]. — BQZip01 — ^talk 01:31, 26 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 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:ElmiraEntrancesign.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs).

• 1st use on the Wikipedia ≠ cc-by-sa-2.0
• 2nd are all the images used in the collage free?
• 3rd not encyclopedic, its just tossed in the trivia section IngerAlHaosului (talk) 14:36, 25 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• 1st - I am the original creator of this image that was used for a 24 foot sign at the entrance of the City of Elmira. The City obtained permissions for the use of all of the images in the collage. The image is provided by me (the creator) and the City for the free use on Wikipedia. I don't know what the proper licensing is... if you can modify it or tell me how to do it, I will. Lastly, I believe it is encyclopedic because it depicts seven people that have connections to the City of Elmira, as mentioned in the article above. Thanks. Souldrifter (talk) 01:01, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete unless the sources of all these images were under compatible licenses and appropriate licensing is authorized by the City of Elmira, we cannot keep this image. I think it is a nice collage and sure would spruce up the page (I don't think it is "just tossed in the trivia section"), but WP standards are that images must meet certain criteria. I endorse giving this person time to get appropriate permissions through the OTRS process. See WP:OTRS for more information. — BQZip01 — ^talk 01:36, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment tossed in the trivia section was not the best choice of words, what i meant to say was WP:TRIVIA--IngerAlHaosului (talk) 05:04, 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 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:ZombiesRising.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs).

• Photo of work of art. With no information on where it is take we can not be sure that FOP apply. MGA73 (talk) 20:57, 25 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Wrong forum This should simply be categorized under speedy deletion as it is a duplicate of the Commons image. — BQZip01 — ^talk 01:37, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• I'm the uploader, and found it on Flickr with a CC license as noted on the image. It used be on Zombie, but was removed some time ago. It's an orphaned image. I have no desire to keep it nor to delete it. Do with it what y'all think should be done. travisl (talk) 03:14, 28 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. After Midnight ⁰⁰⁰¹ 12:00, 22 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

File:Concord watch.JPG (delete | talk | history | logs).

• Work of artistic craftmanship /possible design right in item shown - No contest that it's uploaders photo. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 21:26, 25 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• I have the watch on my wrist right now. I really should upload a better photo of it.Donmike10 (talk) 21:29, 25 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Its functionality cannot be separated from decorative components. As such, its "intrinsic, utilitarian function" is that of being a watch and is ineligible for copyright. Internal mechanisms might be subject to patent restrictions, but even patents are PD. — BQZip01 — ^talk 01:44, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• KEEP!!!! I PHOTOGRAPHED, UPLOADED AND THE WATCH IS ON MY WRIST. THIS REALLY IS NOT THAT COMPLICATED. Donmike10 (talk) 05:14, 3 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per BQZip01. Utilitarian object. A product of simple design and daily use are allowable per Commons IronGargoyle (talk) 13:51, 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 discussion was: Keep. After Midnight ⁰⁰⁰¹ 12:00, 22 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

File:Plantronic office headset.JPG (delete | talk | history | logs).

• Design right query - No disupte as to it being uploder photo Sfan00 IMG (talk) 21:35, 25 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep as is. See above. — BQZip01 — ^talk 01:45, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

KEEP!!!! I PHOTOGRAPHED, UPLOADED AND THIS IS MY OFFICE HEADSET. THIS REALLY IS NOT THAT COMPLICATED. Donmike10 (talk) 05:14, 3 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep per my rationale above. IronGargoyle (talk) 13:52, 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 After Midnight (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 02:58, 19 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

File:Rory Delap Mistake.ogv (delete | talk | history | logs).

• Appears to be a Match of the Day video capture, copyright of the BBC and/or the Premier League. No OTRS ticket and I do not really see the either source releasing this content. Possibly fair use but I do not believe such a video is required - a short description perhaps, but no more. x42bn6 Talk Mess 22:38, 25 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep It needs to be attributed properly with a FUR, but I can see a rationale for keeping it. — BQZip01 — ^talk 01:50, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Maybe it's an editorial question but this is basically a foul from which Maynor Figueroa scored a wondergoal. The video showcases a lot more than just the foul on Delap's part. This is not a significant event in Delap's career by any means as fouls occur all the time. I just feel that something like: "Rory Delap gave away a foul from which Maynor Figueroa scored from the resulting free-kick, from 60 yards (or whatever it is)" is more than sufficient. x42bn6 Talk Mess 14:26, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Fair enough. I think it adds significantly to the article, but I agree it is an editorial question. I don't care one way or the other if it is removed, but it does need a FUR, if kept. — BQZip01 — ^talk 21:44, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Important. Adds to the article. Shows a common error made by Delap. He lacks concentration frequently throughout the game although due to his throwing ability is kept on the team.
  • Is it citable that Delap's lack concentration is notable? Lots of players such as Frank Sinclair don't have videos of their infamous lapses in concentration leading to own goals, for example. x42bn6 Talk Mess 01:06, 2 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.