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 Non-free file that fails NFCC#1. Deleted by Nthep (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA)

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

• These arms were only granted in 1970. As heraldic imagery is typically granted by a specfic organisation it would hold copyright surely? I'm skeptical as to how this can be Creative Commons in the original. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 08:08, 18 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I took a look at the original source, and the although the maintainer of that site - who seems to actually draw the coat of arms images there - seems to have given permission to use the images, they are only there under fair use. I think this is a case on confusion on having been given permission to use the images, but the actual design is what gets copyrighted, so it actually needs to be fair use. VanIsaac_{WS Vex}^contribs 05:45, 19 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The answer is that a textual representation of the coat of arms is in the public domain (see Commons:COM:COA#Definition and representation) and that anyone can make his own slightly different drawing based on the same textual representation and put that drawing under a free licence. See for example Commons:Category:Coats of arms of municipalities of Sweden where people have done this for every Swedish municipality. For example, the five Alingsås coats of arms at the top all look slightly different but all fit the same textual representation. In this case, though, it seems that the uploader has stolen someone else's drawing (meaning that the licence claim is wrong), so I assume that this should be deleted per WP:NFCC#1, as someone could create a freely licensed alternative image in the same way as people have produced freely licensed replacements in the Swedish municipality category on Commons. --Stefan2 (talk) 09:25, 20 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Nom Withdrawn - Converted to fair use Sfan00 IMG (talk) 10:28, 20 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The problem is that the image violates WP:NFCC#1 per my statement above, so fair use is no option. --Stefan2 (talk) 10:37, 20 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 by INeverCry (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 21:14, 7 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

File:Dick McKee.JPG (delete | talk | history | logs).

• This is a photograph of an artwork, whilst it may be the uploaders own photo, I'm not sure the original work is theirs. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 14:00, 18 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 by Diannaa (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 06:04, 3 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

File:CalebVHaynes-Amarillo1951.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs).

• Photo source gives no indication that this was taken by a military photographer. Kelly ^hi! 15:44, 18 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Photo replaced by USAF portrait on commons. Binksternet (talk) 17:35, 18 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 by INeverCry (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 18:12, 7 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

File:Vazgen Sargsyan memorial in Yerablur.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs).

• 3D sculpture in Armenia - No Freedom of Panorama.  Ronhjones  ^(Talk) 21:34, 18 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

That's why it's not in the Wikipedia Commons and there is a disclaimer at the the picture's page. --Երևանցի ^talk 21:52, 18 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Violates WP:NFCC#7. --Stefan2 (talk) 09:18, 20 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep as FoP-usage. See discussion at Commons:Commons_talk:Freedom_of_panorama#FoP_in_Armenia. Apparently FoP in Armenia will be established in a matter of days (or it is even already active, 10 days after "official announcement"?). GermanJoe (talk) 11:06, 29 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm guessing that it's either 10 days after 13 April or 10 days after 18 April. I'm guessing that the law is in force by now. Yes, that law change should be enough. However, it would be better to undelete File:Vazgen kev24.jpg or even Commons:File:Vazgen kev24.jpg so that we keep the original history of the file. --Stefan2 (talk) 12:08, 29 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.