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 Drilnoth (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 01:59, 25 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Sourced only to copyrighted webpage. No evidence there seen for claimed PD-US Gov status. Uploader has been indef blocked, in part for repeat copyright violations. Infrogmation (talk) 00:12, 27 April 2009 (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 image 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 Quadell (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) A file with this name on Commons is now visible. AnomieBOT⚡ 20:44, 28 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Originally uploaded as fair-use, but now claimed to be GFDL. Given the edit history, User:Ozgurekmekci might be associated with Jack Bergstrand, but OTRS confirmation would be a good idea. dave pape (talk) 02:15, 27 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note This file is on Commons, as well: commons:File:Jack Bergstrand.jpg. Radiant chains (talk) 06:21, 28 April 2009 (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 Drilnoth (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 01:59, 25 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Website states "Copyright © (2004 - 2008) Free-Clipart-Pictures.net" — neuro^(talk) 16:37, 27 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• The fate of this file isn't really important to me any more, as I uploaded it years ago from a source I can't remember. THE AMERICAN METROSEXUAL 19:02, 27 April 2009 (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 image 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: Ma.rocha did not appear to make any edits to the image after nomination, and the concerns are still unfixed. Regardless, evidence of permission is also needed which is not indicated below.. –Drilnoth (T • C • L) 01:37, 11 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

–Drilnoth (T • C • L) 01:37, 11 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sourcing seems inconsistent with the own work claim. I suspect this image has been taken from elsewhere without permission. J Milburn (talk) 19:10, 27 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Used with permission of Silvergate Distributors (NA distributor). Schuco GmbH is source of image. Replaced nonworking image. --Ma.rocha (talk) 19:26, 27 April 2009 (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 Drilnoth (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 01:59, 25 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Very suspicious image- strangely cropped for no apparent reason, web resolution. User has uploaded many other suspicious images. I suspect this has been taken from elsewhere without permission. J Milburn (talk) 19:18, 27 April 2009 (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 image 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: Umm... Keep. PUF is for images currently tagged as free but which may be non-free. This image was already tagged as non-free. The proper venue for discussion is WP:FFD.. –Drilnoth (T • C • L) 01:40, 11 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

–Drilnoth (T • C • L) 01:40, 11 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This isn't a logo. A free image could easily be taken of those bottles. J Milburn (talk) 19:23, 27 April 2009 (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. Otherwise, unless there is another reason for listing here, the listing will be closed by an administrator and the image kept. AnomieBOT⚡ 20:44, 28 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Exactly so. There is no claim that this is a free license image. It is fair use of an unfree image. The objection here is not well taken. Fladrif (talk) 16:09, 29 April 2009 (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 Drilnoth (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 01:59, 25 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The source listed links directly to where the image was. Not what page it was on. The source website appears to be shut down. Just because the uploader relases his version as PD doesn't mean the original image was. I asked the uploader for a better source back in February with no response. Rockfang (talk) 21:33, 27 April 2009 (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.