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. Magog the Ogre (talk) 09:07, 14 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

• Unable to verify source/license. Possibly derivative of non-free 3D art. Kelly ^hi! 15:33, 23 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete The source is given in the description: Warhammer 40,000. --Stefan2 (talk) 15:51, 23 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep There comes a point where these actions almost seem in bad faith. We all know flickr changed how they hosted images awhile ago. This lead to a lot of flickr pages being moved/hidde/deleted. These images have been around for years. Assuming good faith there is no reason to believe that the uploaders were not honest with the licensing as they saw it 3-5 years ago when they uploaded these photos. If you wanted to take issue with them, you should have done so at that time.--Crossmr (talk) 00:04, 24 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • Can you provide an OTRS ticket confirming permission from Games Workshop Group plc for this photo? It is additionally unknown if permission is available from the photographer or not; the file page on Flickr has been turned into a private page. --Stefan2 (talk) 01:46, 24 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      • Possibly derivative doesn't mean it is. There is no direct focus on any of the models. There is no need for a release from GWG.--Crossmr (talk) 01:51, 24 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
        • However, the photo only focuses on the figurines, so permission is needed. --Stefan2 (talk) 01:53, 24 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
          • No it doesn't. It also focuses on the players arm and table. In fact the focal point of the photo seems to the players hand and center of the terain on the table. Also going through my edits to try and find a problem falls under hounding on wikipedia.--Crossmr (talk) 01:58, 24 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      • Why are you suggesting that people get permission from Games Workshop? If the images are free, no permission is needed because the license is sufficient. If the images are not free, no permission is needed because the necessary justification is our NFCC--not permission from the source. Permission is neither necessary nor sufficient to host a non-free image. Protonk (talk) 03:51, 31 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. The primary focus is on the figures. Without the figures the picture would be useless, without the hand it would form the same purpose as it does now. Ergo, the figures are the point of as well as the focus of the picture. Derivative work, no permission from the copyright holder. Not relevant to a deletion for non-free but also poor quality. QU ^TalkQu 00:20, 25 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep I think the claim that any shot of these figurines constitutes derivative work is stretching it in the extreme. The purpose was originally to illustrate the Warhammer 40K article talking about how different freeform tabletop games are (in terms of played experience) from hex games or non-figurine games. The person, the measuring tape, the table and the baseplates are all important to the encyclopedic usefullness of the image. Another image (from the same author on Flickr) is now serving that purpose and a non-free close up of a Tyranid model is there to provide clear visual information on models. I chose those three carefully. It would be an unacceptable retreat from the appropriate space for PD to apply the standards of derivative works maximally. Protonk (talk) 03:51, 31 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. The figurines themselves are copyrighted and, because of their purpose in this picture, would no way constitute as de minimis. The only way is salvaging this image is by adding a fair use rationale and non-free license, but because the file is not used in any article, would be deleted as orphaned anyways. — ξ^xplicit 07:29, 3 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • My worry (now that this file has been removed from the WH40K and wargaming miniatures pages) is that we'll apply a similar argument to claim that File:Battle 12.jpg is also a derivative work and we'll be left with no image supporting the claims made in this section of the article. A non-free image won't work because it wouldn't meet the NFCC and it would be (in the eyes of a reasonable, uninterested editor) duplicative to the non-free image in that section already. Protonk (talk) 19:16, 4 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to better gauge consensus and proper policy. Magog the Ogre (talk) 05:02, 4 April 2012 (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⚡ 02:03, 12 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

• Obviously a professional promotional shot of the subject. Dubious self-made claim, but I can't locate a source for this one right now. Uploader has previously uploaded several copyvios of the same subject, after first trying to use one marked as non-free. If they made this one themselves, why did they first try to use a non-free one from the subject's Facebook account? Fut.Perf. ☼ 05:44, 4 April 2012 (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⚡ 02:03, 12 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

• Dubious own work claim, same situation as above. Known unreliable uploader, but can't locate the source right now. Fut.Perf. ☼ 05:46, 4 April 2012 (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⚡ 02:03, 12 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

File:92Bucklea.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs).

• it is a derivative of copyrighted work created after 1950, so this file may be unfree (it may be PD as work of federal government or something else, but there is no information about something like this) Bulwersator (talk) 06:14, 4 April 2012 (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⚡ 02:03, 12 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

File:91Bucklea.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs).

• it is a derivative of copyrighted work created after 1950, so this file may be unfree (it may be PD as work of federal government or something else, but there is no information about something like this) Bulwersator (talk) 06:14, 4 April 2012 (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⚡ 02:03, 12 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

File:85Bucklea.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs).

• it is a derivative of copyrighted work created after 1950, so this file may be unfree (it may be PD as work of federal government or something else, but there is no information about something like this) Bulwersator (talk) 06:15, 4 April 2012 (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⚡ 02:03, 12 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

File:89Buckleb.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs).

• it is a derivative of copyrighted work created after 1950, so this file may be unfree (it may be PD as work of federal government or something else, but there is no information about something like this) Bulwersator (talk) 06:15, 4 April 2012 (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⚡ 02:03, 12 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

File:89Buckle.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs).

• it is a derivative of copyrighted work created after 1950, so this file may be unfree (it may be PD as work of federal government or something else, but there is no information about something like this) Bulwersator (talk) 06:15, 4 April 2012 (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⚡ 02:03, 12 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

File:77Buckle.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs).

• it is a derivative of copyrighted work created after 1950, so this file may be unfree (it may be PD as work of federal government or something else, but there is no information about something like this) Bulwersator (talk) 06:15, 4 April 2012 (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⚡ 02:03, 12 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

• it is a derivative of copyrighted work created after 1950, so this file may be unfree (it may be PD as work of federal government or something else, but there is no information about something like this) Bulwersator (talk) 06:16, 4 April 2012 (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⚡ 02:03, 12 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

File:Quickpoint Brochure.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs).

• Dubious own work. Stefan2 (talk) 14:31, 4 April 2012 (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⚡ 02:03, 12 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

File:Romney-chuck-testa.png (delete | talk | history | logs).

• Invalid license. It appears to be a derivative of the Chuck Testa video, which is under copyright. It could theoretically be repurposed as a fair-use file, but I don't believe it would meet the non-free content criteria. --Bongwarrior (talk) 15:02, 4 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Why wouldn't it? There is only one element from that video, while the rest is from other, public domain sources. --Kaz (talk) 17:05, 4 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • What are the public domain sources? Kelly ^hi! 18:07, 4 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • It would fail non-free content criteria #1 (no free equivalent) and #8 (contextual significance), both for basically the same reason: an image isn't really necessary to understand the concept, which is already adequately explained in the article with text. Non-free content can be used only when there is no possible free alternative that would convey the same information. The fact that the image also contains public domain material is irrelevant: any image that is a derivative of non-free content will itself be non-free, and therefore subject to the same restrictions as any other non-free image. It may seem like an image that is 25% non-free is more acceptable to use than an image that is 100% non-free, but from a policy standpoint there really isn't any difference. --Bongwarrior (talk) 22:34, 4 April 2012 (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 F9 by Malik Shabazz (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 05:03, 5 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

File:2014-Chevrolet-Impala.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs).

• This is from a press release and is copyrighted by GM. Bobby Tables (talk) 20:48, 4 April 2012 (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: delete. The image can not be found in the Flickr user's photo stream, where all the content is licensed as noncommercial and no derivatives works. Given this, WP:OTRS would be required to verify that the uploader is in fact the same user on Flickr and released this one specific image was released under the public domain. Until then, I will err on the side of caution and delete. — ξ^xplicit 23:19, 20 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

File:One OClock Gun.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs).

• Unable to confirm that Flickr user is same as Wikipedia user. Kelly ^hi! 21:47, 4 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep unless we can demonstrate that the image was uploaded on Flickr before it was on Wikipedia. Otherwise, it just looks like the user on Wikipedia wanted to source it to himself, but to do so with another site's identity. Magog the Ogre (talk) 09:05, 14 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment I can't find it on Flickr. --Stefan2 (talk) 13:01, 14 April 2012 (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. — ξ^xplicit 01:04, 16 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

File:NYC Flag Alternative.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs).

• Noncommercial image at Flickr source. Kelly ^hi! 22:31, 4 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - er, this is unquestionably ((PD-shape)). Magog the Ogre (talk) 09:05, 14 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Ineligible for copyright. The current licence tag needs to be changed, though. --Stefan2 (talk) 13:00, 14 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• PD-shaped Bulwersator (talk) 14:46, 14 April 2012 (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.