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 G12 by SchuminWeb (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 04:34, 27 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

• No evidence of permission or of release into public domain GrapedApe (talk) 03:39, 24 September 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 as G12 by SchuminWeb (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 04:34, 27 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

• No evidence of permission or of release into public domain GrapedApe (talk) 03:39, 24 September 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 as G12 by SchuminWeb (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 04:34, 27 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

• No evidence of permission or of release into public domain GrapedApe (talk) 03:39, 24 September 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⚡ 01:50, 8 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

• Very dubious licensing claim. The Royal Australian Air Force isn't in the habit of taking civilians for joy flights so they can get nice photos of fighter aircraft flying in formation. Even those who are fortunate enough to fly are rarely allowed to take a camera unless it's for the purpose of taking photos in the course of their employment, in which case the employer owns copyright, not the photographer. The uploader has also claimed File:C0206103.jpg, which shows an Australian Army Armoured Personnel Carrier on manoeuvres. For a civilian to get two such rare shots is almost unthinkable in this country. AussieLegend (talk) 10:07, 24 September 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⚡ 01:50, 8 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

File:C0206103.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs).

• Very dubious licensing claim. The Royal Australian Army isn't in the habit of allowing civilians to accompany them on manoeuvres so they can get nice photos. Even those who are fortunate enough to be allowed to tag along would only be allowed if it's in the course of their employment, in which case the employer owns copyright, not the photographer. The uploader has also claimed File:Twinhornetsd.JPG, which shows two RAAF Hornets flying in formation. For a civilian to get two such rare shots is almost unthinkable in this country. AussieLegend (talk) 10:12, 24 September 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⚡ 01:50, 8 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

File:Wbhd052710-4n.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs).

• Screencaps are not PD Hipocrite (talk) 13:05, 24 September 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⚡ 01:50, 8 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

File:Vijay-spotted.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs).

• The uploader of this image has had some confusion specifically about non-free content guidelines, and I am concerned that this one may reflect some confusion with copyright ownership. Perhaps this was cropped from a previously published picture? Given the low resolution and small size and the metadata, I think it would be very helpful to see the complete or original picture in determining if copyright status is correct. Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 13:24, 24 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Metadata for this file indicates the copyright is held by "WWW.TKADA.COM". --AussieLegend (talk) 13:40, 24 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• There you go. It helps to read the full thing. :) I saw "Adobe Photoshop CS2 Windows" and didn't even look any lower. That said, this casts even more doubt on the subsequent images. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 13:48, 24 September 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⚡ 21:02, 4 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

File:Vijay Amritraj 1.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs).

• Please see the listing for File:Vijay-spotted.jpg, immediately above. Same uploader, and same concerns apply. Again, seeing the original picture could very much help in determining copyright status. Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 13:26, 24 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This file is created by myself. I agree that File:Vijay-spotted.jpg is a concern since I misunderstood with the Copyrights status. It has nothing to do here. Do consider it. You may get similar but not this. Ungal Vettu Pillai 16:24, 27 September 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Keyan20 (talk • contribs)

Can you supply a high res version of the original? Given that you uploaded the image immediately above, which you now confess is not yours, with a comment that "I created this work entirely by myself", some verification would be nice. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 16:35, 27 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

To be frank with you. Through One of my family member (very close) I got this photo. I dont have any other in hand. Ungal Vettu Pillai 16:56, 27 September 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Keyan20 (talk • contribs)

• Speedy Delete as blatant copvio. Image is taken by Steve Powell, sold via Getty Images. (See 1981: Vijay Amritraj of India returns the ball during a match.) Soundvisions1 (talk) 19:25, 4 October 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⚡ 01:50, 8 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

File:Kamal-and-Shruthi.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs).

• Please see the listing for File:Vijay-spotted.jpg, immediately above. Same uploader, and same concerns apply. Again, seeing the original picture could very much help in determining copyright status. Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 13:29, 24 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I created this file entirely by myself. Do consider it. I accept that File:Vijay-spotted.jpg is a concern as I misunderstood with the Copyrights status. But this file has nothing to do with others. Ungal Vettu Pillai 15:55, 27 September 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Keyan20 (talk • contribs)

So you're saying that you stood there with a camera and photographed these two individuals? --AussieLegend (talk) 16:27, 27 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes I did it. Ungal Vettu Pillai 17:00, 27 September 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Keyan20 (talk • contribs)

• Comment: May or may not be true but shruti n kamal says "This photo was taken on January 1, 2006 using a Canon EOS-1Ds Mark II" and is "All Rights Reserved" by aryashwin. Doubtful to be the original source because there are several other images, all taken from elsewhere. But it is possible the image being discussed here came from there. Soundvisions1 (talk) 14:34, 5 October 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⚡ 01:50, 8 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

File:Kamal-and-KS ravikumar.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs).

• Please see the listing for File:Vijay-spotted.jpg, immediately above. Same uploader, and same concerns apply. Also, this is an unusual (though not impossible) vantage for a layperson. Again, seeing the original picture could very much help in determining copyright status. Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 13:31, 24 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I created this work entirely by myself. No other version available. Ungal Vettu Pillai 15:44, 27 September 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Keyan20 (talk • contribs)

As above, so you're saying that you stood there with a camera and photographed these two individuals? --AussieLegend (talk) 16:29, 27 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I am frank again. My friend's friend is working as a assistant and through him I got it. I lost his contacts. So I cannot provide other versions here. Do consider it. Understand. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Keyan20 (talk • contribs) 17:03, 27 September 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⚡ 01:50, 8 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

File:Kamal-with-Queen Elizabeth II.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs).

• lease see the listing for File:Vijay-spotted.jpg, immediately above. Same uploader, and same concerns apply. Again, seeing the original picture could very much help in determining copyright status. Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 13:33, 24 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Found a similar image here. --AussieLegend (talk) 14:06, 24 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I created this entirely by myself. None other version available. Ungal Vettu Pillai 16:06, 27 September 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Keyan20 (talk • contribs)

What about the other photo? Is that yours too? Did you use a camera? --AussieLegend (talk) 16:30, 27 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I did it also. Ungal Vettu Pillai 17:06, 27 September 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Keyan20 (talk • contribs)

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: delete - the low resolution is not enough to qualify as de minimis. If someone would like to a) write a fair use rationale or b) can show that the said logo was first published in the US without a copyright notice (((PD-pre1978))) (or, if first published abroad, also published in the US within 30 days of first publication abroad) or c) can show it was first published in the US or within 30 days in the US but follows the conditions of ((PD-US-not renewed)), I would be happy to undelete. (You can also post request at WP:REFUND). Magog the Ogre (talk) 02:19, 9 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

File:IMG 2314.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs).

• Appears to be a non-free logo. If so this picture would be a derivative work and also non-free. Angus McLellan (Talk) 16:21, 24 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I am unsure whether this photo I took qualifies as fair use or not. It is clearly not a high resolution picture and is only intended for encyclopedic purposes so I don't see why it would be an issue. But in ignorance, I rather get some comments from the rest of the community. Hamsterlopithecus (talk) 19:39, 24 September 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⚡ 01:50, 8 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

• This image has no source (where on the German Wikipedia?) and an invalid license. There are clearly PD images of SMS Wolf out there for those who have time to look. Anything first published in Nerger's or Witschetzky's books is ((PD-US-1923-abroad)) and if first published in Alexander's 1939 Cruise of the Raider Wolf then ((PD-US-no-renewal)). Angus McLellan (Talk) 17:01, 24 September 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⚡ 01:50, 8 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

File:Forgotten-Bird-of-Paradise.png (delete | talk | history | logs).

• Film cover, unlikely uploader is copyright holder Acather96 (talk) 18:10, 24 September 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⚡ 01:50, 8 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

File:Horse Statue and I School.JPG (delete | talk | history | logs).

• Derivative work of the horse statue. No evidence that the statute is PD or released under a free license. GrapedApe (talk) 19:05, 24 September 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: Relisted --ARTEST4ECHO ^{(talk|contribs)} 18:46, 27 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

File:Tallahassee Police Dept rc03461.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs).

• No evidence on the source website http://www.floridamemory.com/PhotographicCollection/ or the item catalog for this image that it has been released into the public domain. MilborneOne (talk) 21:43, 24 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• The user has uploaded a lot of images from the floridamemory website some in the public domain, some with non-free rationales. A comment on File:Murat Graves.jpg indicates an assumption from correspondence with the The State Archives of Florida that the images should be cc-by-sa although it also indicates wikipedia use only. All looks a bit of a mess. MilborneOne (talk) 22:58, 24 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Sorry also found Category:Images from the Florida Photographic Collection but it only has 15 images. MilborneOne (talk) 22:59, 24 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Restricting this to the image in the original nomination, elsewhere the Florida archives show this image used in a page layout - here, RC00695, so it seems almost certain that the 1937 date given is publication as well as creation. A 1937 publication required renewal. That alone, never mind the need for registration, makes this 93%+ likely to be free. If one is willing to accept that something containing pictures of Tallahassee city employees was likely published by the City of Tallahassee, that will rise to 100% since there is no renewal registered by the city. A more general discussion should be held elsewhere. Angus McLellan (Talk) 23:31, 24 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: Having dealt with Florida Memory in the past I can say with certainty that each image needs to be taken individually. Anyone can verify also by viewing the Disclaimer and Copyright Information page, which clearly states Some of the images may be protected by copyright. For this image, as the nom indicated, there is no clear release of copyright on the information page. Publication info is "ca. 1937" and "Included in the photograph are Sydney Keller, Barney Gatlin, ? Bradley, Bill Bass, ? Henderson, G.G. Powledge, and C.A. Bryant." There is no source given (i.e - photographer). Soundvisions1 (talk) 20:07, 4 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - ugh. I had a long, acrimonious, and ultimately useless discussion with a user over his uploads belonging to the state of Florida: Wikipedia:Possibly unfree files/Florida uploads by User:83d40m. I dare you to read it all. I even had the user revert me on the ((PD-Florida)) template. In short: if this was taken by a public institution in Florida other than a university, it most likely is PD. Magog the Ogre (talk) 02:24, 9 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Reply: Magog you clearly did not understand the discussion and the laws in play at that discussion. The discussion with at least 3 other users (Not just one) was making attempts to explain why some materials, including some from the USF system, could be considered "free". And the reversion you speak of was to a template that you attempted to reword to state something that was not factual. And even now your comment of "if this was taken by a public institution in Florida other than a university..." shows you *still* do not understand the law(s) that had been discussed. As for *this* image, as I said above anyone can read the page on the source website and it clearly states Some of the images may be protected by copyright. If somebody can read that and than state "it most likely is PD" despite the source image location not stating any such thing there is clearly a lack of understanding with what the meaning of words such as "Some", "may be protected" and "copyright" are. Not all images on that website come from state organizations. For example the Richard Parks Collection was donated by his family, nothing to to do with government work. Soundvisions1 (talk) 20:07, 9 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Well, perhaps I don't understand. What an obviously dumb thing it was to copy a well sourced statement verbatim from the Copyright status of work by the Florida government article - silly me! I should have listened to that poorly worded filibuster from the uploading editor that none of the administrators could figure out either. Magog the Ogre (talk) 20:18, 9 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Reply: I am not sure what you are getting at. The "well sourced statement" that all of us used were taken from locations such as State of Florida, Department of State, State of Florida - The Florida Constitution and University of South Florida System - Office of the General Council. "Poorly worded" in your eyes is the law as written? None of those "poorly worded" laws say "if this was taken by a public institution in Florida other than a university, it most likely is PD". And what matters in *this* discussion is what the source says - and that does not say "if this was taken by a public institution in Florida other than a university, it most likely is PD" either. Again, it, in what I perceive to be plain English, says Some of the images may be protected by copyright. I don't find that "poorly worded" and it is a "well sourced statement" *direct* from the source. Soundvisions1 (talk) 13:31, 10 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• No, I'm talking about the removal of a statement which I added that was copied verbatim from one of our articles from a sourced statement. At this point I just gave up because the uploading user appeared to have an agenda with no desire to listen to my reasoning, whereas his own reasoning was the poorly worded retort. Magog the Ogre (talk) 22:33, 10 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to here to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, --ARTEST4ECHO ^{(talk|contribs)} 18:37, 27 October 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⚡ 01:50, 8 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

• Derivative work of that statue, which was created in 1998, so it is still copyrighted by the sculptor. GrapedApe (talk) 22:09, 24 September 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) A file with this name on Commons is now visible. AnomieBOT⚡ 01:50, 8 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

• Clearly not PD; not suitable for use as non-free content as it depicts a living person, see WP:NFC#UULP Angus McLellan (Talk) 23:36, 24 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It appears that the original image was completely changed for this unfree one. Hamsterlopithecus (talk) 16:23, 26 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The original one was non-free and orphaned. Angus McLellan (Talk) 20:11, 27 September 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⚡ 01:50, 8 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

File:Wbhd092010-2n.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs).

• Screencap, clearly not PD; also not acceptable as non-free content per WP:NFC#UULP since it shows a living person Angus McLellan (Talk) 23:39, 24 September 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.