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 Diannaa ( talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 01:01, 9 April 2013 (UTC) reply

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

• No evidence uploader is copyright holder. Kelly ^hi! 00:58, 29 March 2013 (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 Diannaa ( talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 01:01, 9 April 2013 (UTC) reply

File:TheBellaTwinsHouseShow12.jpg ( delete | talk | history | logs).

• Looks like a case of Flikr-washing. Eeekster ( talk) 03:42, 29 March 2013 (UTC) reply
  • Comment I can't find any example of any of this photo reproduced elsewhere online (using Tin Eye and Google). The Flickr user claims to be a (well known) female wrestler so would have every opportunity to take some of these photos. My reservation is the lack of exif data on this photo, the other files names/formats/data suggest they are taken from a variety of sources and the clear evidence that some other photos in the photostream haven't been taken by the subject of the photo. It's questionable, to say the least! Sionk ( talk) 03:08, 3 April 2013 (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; two different high-end cameras were used; the uploader should get an OTRS ticket. Dianna ( talk) 23:15, 8 April 2013 (UTC) reply

File:Haghartsin Monastery angel.jpg ( delete | talk | history | logs).

• The uploader claims that the image previously appeared at http://www.ody-see.com/ and there is no OTRS ticket. Stefan2 ( talk) 10:08, 29 March 2013 (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; two different high-end cameras were used; the uploader should get an OTRS ticket. Dianna ( talk) 23:21, 8 April 2013 (UTC) reply

File:Mahabalipuram Temple at dusk.jpg ( delete | talk | history | logs).

• The uploader claims that the image previously appeared at http://www.ody-see.com/ and there is no OTRS ticket. OTRS permission is needed for files uploaded after 15 March 2006 if the file appeared outside Wikipedia before it was uploaded here. Stefan2 ( talk) 10:10, 29 March 2013 (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 Secret ( talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 23:02, 29 March 2013 (UTC) reply

File:Destiny's Child InEntirety.jpg ( delete | talk | history | logs).

• This upload contains six photos. Uploader claims to be copyright holder, but where did these component photos come from? B ( talk) 12:04, 29 March 2013 (UTC) reply
  • They are taken from various different places. For example, the leftmost photo is a copyright violation. -- Stefan2 ( talk) 17:59, 29 March 2013 (UTC) reply
    • Gone Secret ^account 21:46, 29 March 2013 (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 B ( talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 18:14, 6 April 2013 (UTC) reply

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

• This is an orphaned image that is not currently, and is not likely ever to be, used on any page. Additionally, the licensing section contradicts licensing information given in the summary. --Falcon Darkstar Momot ( talk) 16:40, 29 March 2013 (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 Diannaa ( talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 01:01, 9 April 2013 (UTC) reply

File:Julio Tavarez.jpg ( delete | talk | history | logs).

• Just been cropped by a diferent user but the original looks far to much like the official photograph at http://danr.org/elected-officials/ (Copyright © 2013 · All Rights Reserved · Dominican American National Roundtable) to be the work of the uploader MilborneOne ( talk) 19:35, 29 March 2013 (UTC) reply
  • That site is almost certainly NOT the actual originator of those photos. They have a large number of photos with different shapes, sizes, backgrounds, etc. It's obvious that they got them from somewhere else. The original uploader of this photo - Cacique07505 ( talk · contribs) - is presumably someone working for Tavarez, but of course we would need permission sent to OTRS to keep the image. -- B ( talk) 17:12, 6 April 2013 (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 F8 by Magog the Ogre ( talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) A file with this name on Commons is now visible. AnomieBOT ⚡ 05:05, 31 March 2013 (UTC) reply

File:Boxley Street Housing.jpg ( delete | talk | history | logs).

• Missing link to Flickr. See Commons:Template:Flickr no source. Stefan2 ( talk) 19:45, 29 March 2013 (UTC) reply

• Keep I found the link [1].  Ryan  Vesey 19:49, 29 March 2013 (UTC) reply
  • Thanks for finding it. I tried searching for the image on Google but didn't find anything. Flickr images often don't seem to show up there. -- Stefan2 ( talk) 19:57, 29 March 2013 (UTC) reply
• Keep I don't see the problem. There is a link to the Flickr page and the original photo is still CC licensed. Sionk ( talk) 19:53, 29 March 2013 (UTC) reply

• Just in case you didn't know, the link wasn't there when this request was made. In any case, this discussion should be closed as it is unambiguously a free file. Stefan2, do you know the proper way to show the flickr reference? I know on commons they have a system to confirm that the file was released (in case the author changes it in the future).  Ryan  Vesey 19:57, 29 March 2013 (UTC) reply
  • The easiest way to get the source right is to use tools:~bryan/flickr/upload to upload the file. This also avoids the risk of uploading a thumbnail image as happened here. -- Stefan2 ( talk) 19:59, 29 March 2013 (UTC) reply

Also, by using that tool, you will ensure that the licence is correct. Currently it's not (Wikipedia indicates the wrong licence version number). -- Stefan2 ( talk) 20:40, 29 March 2013 (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 B ( talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 18:14, 6 April 2013 (UTC) reply

File:Time magazine cover, Dave Brubeck, November 1954.jpg ( delete | talk | history | logs).

• Not one of the public domain issues listed in s:Time (magazine). This appears to be Time, Vol. 64, No. 19: copyright registration number B00000503304 (1954-11-04), renewal number RE0000136553 (1982-08-12), and appears in the normal electronic Public Catalog of the Copyright Office (WebVoyage). Closeapple ( talk) 22:19, 29 March 2013 (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.