The result of the discussion was: Delete; deleted by Rettetast (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 11:07, 6 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result of the discussion was: Delete; deleted by Rettetast (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 11:07, 6 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result of the discussion was: Delete. The statue was erected in 2007 and carries the copyright of its creator, making this image unfree. kmccoy (talk) 13:05, 22 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result of the discussion was: Delete; deleted by Rettetast (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 11:07, 6 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result of the discussion was: Delete. Until permission is received at OTRS. And it would be nice if the image was reuploaded without a watermark. kmccoy (talk) 13:15, 22 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result of the discussion was: Delete. The argument for keeping this one is reasonable, but does not carry enough weight to overcome the restrictions of our policies regarding unfree content. The same argument could be made for hundreds of other photos of celebrities, but it's been made clear that the community and Foundation don't want to host tons of unfree promotional photos just for the purpose of identifying the person in the photo. As Stifle argues, the photo itself should have some commentary for it to be kept, and in this case it does not. kmccoy (talk) 13:32, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result of the discussion was: Delete; deleted by Drilnoth (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 04:01, 7 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result of the discussion was: Delete; deleted by Drilnoth (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 04:01, 7 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]