Wikipedia:Possibly unfree files/2012 February 16

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

File:The Green Hornet- 2010 film.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs).

• No evidence that the logo for the 2010 film meets
  WP:NFCC conditions for use at Green Hornet; the non-free use rationale appears invalid. The image does not provide information that is necessary for the interpretation of the article about the character or various adaptations. The article on the 2010 film already contains an image of the film poster with a proper rationale. The image is also of poor quality and contains significant artifacting. Kinu ^t/_c 00:24, 16 February 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 Skier Dude (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 07:03, 3 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

File:Tony lucca.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs).

• No indication that the author / manager / artist has released the image under a free license. Just says "image used by permission from Rock Ridge Music, the artist's manager and label" Crisco 1492 (talk) 00:30, 16 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• I have changed the entry to reflect that Rock Ridge Music is the owner of the image and that I have their permission to post it. If I selected the wrong licensing option, please let me know. I'm not sure how to change that portion. Thanks. LeaveDogLights (talk) 17:24, 16 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

To allow Wikipedia to use the image, the label also needs to allow everyone to use it under a free license. Actually, just saying "permission from record label" renders the file able to be speedily deleted under

this page. Crisco 1492 (talk) 07:35, 17 February 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 Skier Dude (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 07:03, 3 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

File:Odessmntg.jpeg (delete | talk | history | logs).

• The photos used in this collage aren't sourced.
  Stefan2 (talk) 01:14, 16 February 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 debate of the proposed deletion of the media 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: OTRS ticket provided Skier Dude (talk) 05:31, 3 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

File:Communication Culture Critique.GIF (delete | talk | history | logs).

• Dubious own work. Unclear if it is above or below the threshold of originality.
  Stefan2 (talk) 01:16, 16 February 2012 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Hello! I work for the International Communication Association, which publishes the text and created the cover artwork. Our executive director approved its release on Wikipedia via the Creative Commons License. I am new to uploading images; if should be licensed a different way, just let me know. Ica cbrady (talk) 8:42, 16 February 2012 EST
  • I think that this confirmation should be sent by e-mail to permissions-enwikimedia.org for confirmation. See
    Stefan2 (talk) 13:51, 16 February 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 media's

talk page or in a deletion review

). No further edits should be made to this section.

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 until permission is provided to OTRS. Please see

File:AubreyMcCormick Wiki.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs).

• Dubious own work. Uploader appears to have uploaded a lot of copyvios.
  Stefan2 (talk) 01:18, 16 February 2012 (UTC)[reply
  ]

Doesn't the image's metadata suggests that the uploader was in possession of the original digital photograph file which was then altered on the day of the upload? That would seem to make it more likely that it is an "own work". or am I getting this wrong? Meowy 00:31, 17 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The metadata state that the photo was taken in 2007 and photoshopped in 2012. The uploader may have found an old photo on the Internet, done some change in Photoshop (e.g. cropping) and then uploaded it here. The uploader has three images (this one taken with a Nikon camera, one taken with a Kodak camera and one without EXIF). People usually use few cameras. --

Stefan2 (talk) 18:20, 17 February 2012 (UTC)[reply

]

I guess the photoshoping will be the reduction in size and/or adding the vignette. But, family photos aside, you don't usually find large photos on the internet complete with full exif data - and tineye reveals no other versions (though that isn't conclusive of course). Having a past record of vopyvios might be an important decider - but only if those copy violations were definately for the use of the work of others. Meowy 15:49, 18 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Following the copyright information in the Exif data leads me to Synergii1 photography, which seems to be owned by a woman named Susan Shek, based out of New York. A check user could see where the editor is uploading from to help figure out if this is a copyvio. Crisco 1492 (talk) 23:57, 18 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

While I appreciate the lengths editors go to check copyrights, I do own the image. The image was given to me by Aubrey McCormick who owns the rights from the photographer. That is why all the data is included with the image (as referenced earlier).Glynnmania (talk) 21:31, 27 February 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 --

File:Savannah georgia globe off abercorn.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs).

• See
  Stefan2 (talk) 15:06, 16 February 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 debate of the proposed deletion of the media 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: kept uploader clarified ownership in description template Skier Dude (talk) 05:36, 3 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

File:SMKTS panorama.png (delete | talk | history | logs).

• Collage without any source for the included images.
  Stefan2 (talk) 15:20, 16 February 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 media's

talk page or in a deletion review

). No further edits should be made to this section.

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 Skier Dude (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 07:03, 3 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

File:Descent JITD Character.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs).

• Derivative work of
  Stefan2 (talk) 15:26, 16 February 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 Skier Dude (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 07:03, 3 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

File:Descent JITD Table.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs).

• Derivative work of
  Stefan2 (talk) 15:28, 16 February 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 Skier Dude (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 07:03, 3 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

File:20070107 Frealshakes.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs).

• Uploaded to English Wikipedia in 2010 but already used here in 2008.
  Stefan2 (talk) 15:54, 16 February 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 Skier Dude (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) A file with this name on Commons is now visible. AnomieBOT⚡ 07:03, 3 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

File:22 Jose Ronaldo Jarabo.JPG (delete | talk | history | logs).

• See
  Stefan2 (talk) 16:03, 16 February 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 Skier Dude (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 07:03, 3 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

File:Kev pic526.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs).

• See
  Stefan2 (talk) 16:31, 16 February 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 Skier Dude (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 07:03, 3 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

File:Laugarbrekka-Iceland-3.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs).

• Stefan2 (talk) 16:35, 16 February 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 Skier Dude (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 07:03, 3 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

File:Laugarbrekka-Iceland-1.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs).

• No freedom of panorama for signs in Iceland. See
  Stefan2 (talk) 16:36, 16 February 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 Skier Dude (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) A file with this name on Commons is now visible. AnomieBOT⚡ 07:03, 3 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

File:Vazgen kev24.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs).

• See
  Stefan2 (talk) 16:55, 16 February 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 Copyright Law is clear on this, commercial release is not given therefore unsuitable for Wikipedia. --

File:Mother Armenia, Yerevan, Day.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs).

• Per
  Stefan2 (talk) 18:20, 16 February 2012 (UTC)[reply
  ]

Under article 19 of the Armenian Law on Copyright it states that images of works protected by copyright are allowable for free use where "the use of lawfully disclosed works of literature and art and extracts thereof by way of illustration, in the publications, programs of broadcasting organizations, audio and video recordings of educational nature, to the extent justified by the purpose of illustration of education". Surely here the image illustrates the statue for the purpose of education and is an ILLUSTRATION of an art object (a statue), it is NOT a copy of the statue as defined in the Armenian copyright law. The copyright law defines a work as "a specific result of a creative work in the field of science, literature or arts, expressed in some objective form" and a copy of a work as "a duplicate of a work, made in any material form". A 2D-photographic image of a free-standing statue is not a duplicate the original statue under the Armenian copyright laws. Meowy 22:06, 16 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The problem is article 16: "Without the consent of the author and another copyright holder and without paying the author's remuneration it is permitted to reproduce, broadcast works of architecture, photography or figurative arts which are located in public places, with the exception of the cases when the image of the work is the main object of such reproduction or broadcasting, and when the image of the work is used for commercial purposes." --

Stefan2 (talk) 22:30, 16 February 2012 (UTC)[reply

]

Yes, but this illustration of the original work is not being used for commercial purposes, so doesn't it falls under the remit of article 19? Article 19 must be there to include something, after all! Surely the "main object" here is the wikipedia article, a work of educational nature, and the image itself is not the "main object" (images on Wikipedia have to be placed in articles to be additions to the written content - they are not stand-alone things). I understand that this might mean that a more restrictive and proscriptive copyright note might be needed for the image, but that would be preferable to loosing the image. Meowy 00:09, 17 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia requires that images be reusable for commercial purposes. The "main object" is the main object of the image, not the main object of the Wikipedia article. The non-commercial clause means that you can freely take photos of houses or statues in Armenia and put them in your own personal photo album (unlike France where the police technically could arrest you for doing such things). --

Stefan2 (talk) 10:10, 17 February 2012 (UTC)[reply

]

Your interpretation of the word "main object" is different from mine. I think "main object", under the Armenian law, is intended to mean the "main purpose" (the words used are "the main object of such reproduction" not "the main object IN such reproduction). So the law is saying that it is permitable to use an image of an object as long as the display of that image is not in a context in which the display of the image is the main purpose of the display. Because the image is being displayed in the context of a larger article, that display is not the main object (i.e., main purpose) of its display. I don't see a good reason why Wikipedia should require that images be reusable for commercial purposes, but if that is the way it is for the present then a lot of useful images are going to be excluded. Meowy 16:10, 17 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

"Main object": see

Stefan2 (talk) 18:38, 17 February 2012 (UTC)[reply

]

I can see that being true on Wikimedia Commons, where images are stand-alone items, but when used on Wilipedia they are never stand-alone items. You don't search for "Mother Armenia, Yerevan" on Wikipedia and get the choice of the article page and also separate pages for each photograph used in the article page, and also pages for any photographs of it on Wikipedia servers that are not being used on the article page. The use of images is always in articles, and the use within the article is always incidental and of secondary importance. Basically I'm trying to argue that things are not cut and dry here, and there is no need to consider things in the worst possible case and read copyright laws in the broadest of terms. It is the job of any alleged injured party do that (and common sense says that in this case there will be no injured party). Meowy 16:03, 18 February 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 debate of the proposed deletion of the media 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. Wizardman _{Operation Big Bear} 17:54, 3 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

File:Robert Goldston01.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs).

• It's not known if Robert Goldston is still alive. If so, this is reproducible and therefore this is not acceptable for fair use Mblumber (talk) 18:23, 16 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

"My father, Robert Goldston, was a renowned historian, and author." - Max Goldston (his son) http://www.maxgoldston.com/ It's pretty obvious he's no longer alive. Paul venter (talk) 05:53, 17 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• I think that the past tense on the linked web page (click on "bio" to see the statement) justifies fair use here. --
  Stefan2 (talk) 10:12, 17 February 2012 (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. AnomieBOT⚡ 07:03, 3 March 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 media's

talk page or in a deletion review

). No further edits should be made to this section.

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 Skier Dude (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) A file with this name on Commons is now visible. AnomieBOT⚡ 07:03, 3 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

File:Sahak Mesrop kev.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs).

• Per
  Stefan2 (talk) 18:23, 16 February 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 Skier Dude (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 07:03, 3 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

• Per
  Stefan2 (talk) 18:24, 16 February 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 Skier Dude (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 07:03, 3 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

• Per
  Stefan2 (talk) 18:31, 16 February 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 all per

File:Movses Khorenatsi Matenadaran.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs).

• Per
  Stefan2 (talk) 18:36, 16 February 2012 (UTC)[reply
  ]

This is a photo I took. Take a look at the Metadata section on the file page - the information and time stamp of the photo confirm that it was taken back in 2007.--Marshal Bagramyan (talk) 20:20, 16 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Under article 19 of the Armenian Law on Copyright it states that images of works protected by copyright are allowable for free use where "the use of lawfully disclosed works of literature and art and extracts thereof by way of illustration, in the publications, programs of broadcasting organizations , audio and video recordings of educational nature, to the extent justified by the purpose of illustration of education". Surely here the image illustrates the statue for the purpose of education and is an ILLUSTRATION of an art object (a statue), it is NOT a copy of the statue as defined in the Armenian copyright law. The copyright law defines a work as "a specific result of a creative work in the field of science, literature or arts, expressed in some objective form" and a copy of a work as "a duplicate of a work, made in any material form". A 2D-photographic image of a free-standing statue is not a duplicate the original statue under the Armenian copyright laws. Meowy 22:03, 16 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

See

Stefan2 (talk) 22:31, 16 February 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 all per

File:Tumanyan1 kev.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs).

• Per
  Stefan2 (talk) 18:38, 16 February 2012 (UTC)[reply
  ]

Under article 19 of the Armenian Law on Copyright it states that images of works protected by copyright are allowable for free use where "the use of lawfully disclosed works of literature and art and extracts thereof by way of illustration, in the publications, programs of broadcasting organizations , audio and video recordings of educational nature, to the extent justified by the purpose of illustration of education". Surely here the image illustrates the statue for the purpose of education and is an ILLUSTRATION of an art object (a statue), it is NOT a copy of the statue as defined in the Armenian copyright law. The copyright law defines a work as "a specific result of a creative work in the field of science, literature or arts, expressed in some objective form" and a copy of a work as "a duplicate of a work, made in any material form". A 2D-photographic image of a free-standing statue is not a "duplicate of the work" under the Armenian copyright laws. Meowy 22:09, 16 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

See

Stefan2 (talk) 22:31, 16 February 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 Skier Dude (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 07:03, 3 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

File:DaveShadoeStevensEddieMoneyAStarrMarkusSchulz1990.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs).

• Claims GFDL-self by attributes source to Source Dave Rajput. Eeekster (talk) 22:18, 16 February 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.