The result of the debate was: Delete; deleted by Peripitus (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 10:34, 2 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
There is no description or source, and it is watermarked with a copyright symbol. ZooFari 01:01, 2 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result of the discussion was: Delete –Drilnoth (T • C • L) 02:28, 12 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Contains watermark dated prior to upload date, orphaned, possibly in violation of image policy. ZooFari 01:40, 2 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result of the discussion was: Delete –Drilnoth (T • C • L) 02:28, 12 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Contains watermark dated prior to upload date, orphaned, possibly in violation of image policy. ZooFari 01:43, 2 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result of the debate was: Delete; deleted by Peripitus (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 10:34, 2 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Just a crop of File:Litti at road side.jpg to take out the copyright watermark. –Drilnoth (T • C • L) 01:46, 2 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result of the discussion was: Delete –Drilnoth (T • C • L) 02:28, 12 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
There is no permission in www.serienjunkies.de for using this image under GFDL. OsamaK 04:26, 2 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result of the discussion was: Delete –Drilnoth (T • C • L) 02:28, 12 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
There is no permission on z.hubpages.com for using this image under GFDL. OsamaK 04:26, 2 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result of the debate was: Delete; deleted by Feydey (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 13:36, 2 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Given this user's upload history, unlikely that this image, high quality, low resolution, and framed, is a free image. Mosmof (talk) 05:03, 2 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result of the discussion was: Delete –Drilnoth (T • C • L) 02:28, 12 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
This file, along with File:The Mall Ngamwongwan.jpg and File:City Air Terminal.jpg, was submitted to PUF on 6 March, but was kept due to non-overwhelming evidence of copyright violation, as User:Maxl thought that I seemed to be relying on "a lot of superstition". I was away from editing at that time, however, and had not been able to clarify my position, which is that since all but these three of User:Rootje's uploads have been deleted, mostly due to copyright violations, I believe it wise rather than "superstitious" to cease assuming good faith in such cases. Few users would use a different camera for every shot they upload, and the fact that Rootje has never responded to a talk page inquiry isn't helping his case. Since then, File:The Mall Ngamwongwan.jpg has been confirmed to be a copyright violation and deleted, and I believe the same to be the nature of the other two remaining files. Although this has still yet to be proved beyond all doubt, I believe that given the user's contributions and the inconsistent nature of these uploads, erring on the side of caution would be preferable. Paul_012 (talk) 05:57, 2 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result of the discussion was: Delete –Drilnoth (T • C • L) 02:28, 12 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
This file, along with File:Major Cineplex.JPG and File:The Mall Ngamwongwan.jpg, was submitted to PUF on 6 March, but was kept due to non-overwhelming evidence of copyright violation, as User:Maxl thought that I seemed to be relying on "a lot of superstition". I was away from editing at that time, however, and had not been able to clarify my position, which is that since all but these three of User:Rootje's uploads have been deleted, mostly due to copyright violations, I believe it wise rather than "superstitious" to cease assuming good faith in such cases. Few users would use a different camera for every shot they upload, and the fact that Rootje has never responded to a talk page inquiry isn't helping his case. Since then, File:The Mall Ngamwongwan.jpg has been confirmed to be a copyright violation and deleted, and I believe the same to be the nature of the other two remaining files. Although this has still yet to be proved beyond all doubt, I believe that given the user's contributions and the inconsistent nature of these uploads, erring on the side of caution would be preferable. Paul_012 (talk) 05:58, 2 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result of the discussion was: Delete –Drilnoth (T • C • L) 02:28, 12 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
File originally upl aded to Wikimedia Commons [1] where it has now been deleted as copyvio Garda40 (talk) 06:29, 2 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result of the discussion was: Delete –Drilnoth (T • C • L) 02:28, 12 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The file itself is probably justified under fair use, but the picture cannot possibly be GFDL as it probably belongs to the Chinese government. Prefer fixing up the source/copyright/attribution but I have no idea how to do this for PRC images. RabidDeity (talk) 07:20, 2 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result of the discussion was: Delete –Drilnoth (T • C • L) 02:28, 12 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Image's source text isn't English, but the only indicated date is 1977, which doesn't support the PD-old tag. (ESkog)(Talk) 07:37, 2 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result of the discussion was: Delete –Drilnoth (T • C • L) 02:28, 12 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Looks like a TV screen capture - makes it a derivative work that is not free Peripitus (Talk) 10:25, 2 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result of the discussion was: Delete –Drilnoth (T • C • L) 02:28, 12 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Image appears watermarked which indicates it's taken from a website with one of those (c) notices....not a public domain image Peripitus (Talk) 10:26, 2 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result of the debate was: Delete; deleted by Peripitus (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 13:36, 2 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Web resolution, posed. I suspect this image was taken from elsewhere. J Milburn (talk) 10:44, 2 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result of the debate was: Delete; deleted by Peripitus (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 14:36, 2 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The in-image credits do not seem consistent with a PD claim. J Milburn (talk) 11:48, 2 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result of the debate was: Delete; deleted by Fastily (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 04:35, 11 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
MaenK.A.Talk 15:11, 2 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result of the discussion was: Delete –Drilnoth (T • C • L) 02:28, 12 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Watermarked with date prior to upload date, orphan, other images by this user have been deleted. ZooFari 16:37, 2 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result of the discussion was: Delete –Drilnoth (T • C • L) 02:28, 12 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Contains watermark dated prior to upload date, possibly in violation of image policy ZooFari 16:42, 2 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result of the discussion was: Delete –Drilnoth (T • C • L) 02:28, 12 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Contains watermark dated prior to upload date, orphan, possibly in violation of image policy ZooFari 16:56, 2 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result of the debate was: Wrong forum. The file is on Commons, please nominate it for deletion there if you feel it is non-free. AnomieBOT⚡ 17:38, 2 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
take from http://phacedesigns.web.officelive.com/default.aspx Triwbe (talk) 17:36, 2 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result of the debate was: Delete; deleted by J Milburn (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 11:10, 5 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Uploader claims "own work" with multiple author names, and has changed images uploaded as from another website to "own work" when challenged. This is a low resolution image that looks like a press shot; I doubt the uploader owns the rights to it. J Milburn (talk) 21:57, 2 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result of the debate was: Delete; deleted by J Milburn (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 11:10, 5 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Uploader claims "own work" with multiple author names, and has changed images uploaded as from another website to "own work" when challenged. This is a low resolution image that looks like a press shot; I doubt the uploader owns the rights to it. J Milburn (talk) 21:57, 2 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result of the debate was: Delete; deleted as G4 by IronGargoyle (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 03:55, 4 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Contains logos. Orphaned. Dubious encyclopedic use. RabidDeity (talk) 22:58, 2 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]