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⚡ 10:53, 4 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

File:Paul New pic -Vincenzo Photography.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs).

• Promotional photo of a notable individual. Likely copyrighted. No reason given to suggest that uploader is copyright holder. FASTILY_sock^(TALK) 01:52, 21 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Pretty clearly a studio photo that is replaceable. — BQZip01 — ^talk 08:41, 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.

Tagged as non-free, rationale supplied. Angus McLellan (Talk) 11:19, 12 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

File:British 4th Infantry Division Insignia (New).png (delete | talk | history | logs).

• British Military Insignia , No indication of date other than adoption Sfan00 IMG (talk) 10:21, 21 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Relabel under Crown Copyright and add a FUR. I will do this prior to closure if there are no further objections, just let me know on my talk page. — BQZip01 — ^talk 17:57, 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 Kafziel (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 15:50, 26 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

• No FoP in France - Commons has tagged duplicate for deletion Sfan00 IMG (talk) 10:46, 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: deleted by After Midnight (talk · contribs). — ξ^xplicit 19:58, 5 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• File:P.T.at 26 tilaknagar.JPG

All the images uploaded by User:Amchishalachembur are described as "self-made", but they are all official looking portraits of Indian people, from different time periods, with differing qualities, and lack description/date/author specifications, see here. I suspect they are scanned or copied from other sources. Hekerui (talk) 13:46, 21 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• I concur. Enough of these are clear copies that all seem reasonably suspect. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 13:58, 21 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: The 12 images found on this source page here are clearly copyright and should have been simply speedied per WP:F9 because the uploader has falsely claimed them to be freely licenced. ww2censor (talk) 15:16, 21 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• More, though lower resolution then the uploaded images are found here. ww2censor (talk) 15:22, 21 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Good find! All that's left is File:P.T.at 26 tilaknagar.JPG. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 16:23, 21 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete remaining Image was created circa 1961 and is still copyrighted. Keep if an appropriate FUR is added. — BQZip01 — ^talk 17:55, 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⚡ 04:07, 5 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

• Image was nominated for semi-speedy deletion on the basis of a non-free content rationale, but the edit summary there shows that the real concern was over sourcing. Is this, or is this not, an FBI-created picture. PUF seems like the most appropriate venu to discuss this question. Angus McLellan (Talk) 20:48, 21 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep simply because you (or I) personally don't have online access to this image, that doesn't mean it isn't free. That is the responsibility of the uploader. Given its context and the accuracy of the person's claims (i.e. it is used on that website at least twice according to the tineye search), I see no reason to change its tag or remove the image. — BQZip01 — ^talk 08:13, 22 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete The photo could be from anywhere, was on a site that is copyrighted.

There seems to be a precedent to deleting these photos. http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=File:Dimaria2-1-.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Possibly_unfree_files/2008_January_24 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rainsystemo (talk • contribs) 03:47, 26 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• You cite the same photo for both, but I see your point. However, I cannot see the image you cite nor the image source in this case. The uploader claims it was an FBI photo. Given the context, it seems reasonable that the image could simply be labeled as "FBI photo", which would be enough for me. Since we do not have access and this person does, I'm inclined to believe them. In such a case, if the site claims copyright on it, they are in error (and is a major problem on the web). Additional supporting evidence would be appreciated. — BQZip01 — ^talk 04:00, 27 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete: there is no evidence to support the FBI source so we should err on the side of caution. The source page is unavailable directly but none of the archive.org pages (from 2000 to 2008) show this image, so that source is false, however tineye points to two different ganglandnews.com pages whose archived versions both show the image but don't confirm this to be an FBI image. The uploader has retired so we cannot ask him for any additional information. ww2censor (talk) 12:50, 27 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Must be extra careful with a person who is alive.--Effingcrazy (talk) 06:38, 28 March 2010 (UTC)Effingcrazy[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⚡ 10:53, 4 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

• Image PD tag said it is over 100 years old, but West Carleton was started in 1988. -- /MWOAP|Notify Me\ 21:08, 21 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Replaceable image. Keep only if the image gives an appropriate sourcing and a FUR (if needed). — BQZip01 — ^talk 08:14, 22 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Obviously not that old.--Effingcrazy (talk) 06:39, 28 March 2010 (UTC)Effingcrazy[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.