The result of the discussion was: Delete; deleted by Future Perfect at Sunrise (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 08:04, 6 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
This image appears to fail some of the criteria laid out at Wikipedia:Non-free content criteria:
In conclusion, I think that there might be a case for deletion. Thoughts? Chris the Paleontologist (talk • contribs) 00:20, 30 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The result of the discussion was: Delete; deleted by Explicit (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 02:01, 7 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Doesn't seem to meet fair use criteria. Used only in articles that are at AFD. Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 01:10, 30 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The result of the discussion was: Delete; deleted by Future Perfect at Sunrise (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 08:04, 6 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Indian stamps are copyright for 60 years per commons:Commons:Stamps/Public domain templates and non-free stamps are not permitted in Gallery. Also there is no critical commentary about this 2006 stamp, so fails WP:NFC#Images #3, WP:NFG and WP:NFCC#8. There is also no evidence the image used is freely licenced. ww2censor (talk) 03:07, 30 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The result of the discussion was: Delete; deleted by Future Perfect at Sunrise (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 08:04, 6 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: This 2008 stamps is copyright for 50 years per commons:Commons:Stamps/Public domain templates {former UK colony}. The image fails WP:NFC#Images #3 and WP:NFCC#8. There is no commentary of any kind but is used as decoration in Caliphate. The 2nd use has no WP:FURG. ww2censor (talk) 03:14, 30 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The result of the discussion was: Delete; deleted by Explicit (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 02:01, 7 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Non-free images are not allowed in galleries per WP:NFG and the image is completely missing any critical commentary, so cannot pass WP:NFCC#8. Perhaps it can be integrated into the prose with suitably sourced prose with a suitable "purpose of use" justifying its inclusion. ww2censor (talk) 03:23, 30 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The result of the discussion was: Delete; deleted by Explicit (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 02:01, 7 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Non-free images are not allowed in galleries per WP:NFG and the image is completely missing any critical commentary, so cannot pass WP:NFCC#8. Perhaps it can be integrated into the prose with suitably sourced prose with a suitable "purpose of use" justifying its inclusion. ww2censor (talk) 03:28, 30 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The result of the discussion was: Delete; deleted by Future Perfect at Sunrise (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 08:04, 6 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: This 2010 Swiss stamp is normally copyright for 70 years per commons:Commons:L#Switzerland. The image fails WP:NFC#Images #3 and WP:NFCC#8. There is no commentary of any kind and is used as decoration in the biography of Heinrich Sutermeister that already shows a image of the subject. ww2censor (talk) 03:39, 30 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The result of the discussion was: Delete; deleted by Explicit (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 02:01, 7 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: This 1999 Indian stamp is copyright for 60 years per commons:Commons:Stamps/Public domain templates. The image fails WP:NFC#Images #3 and WP:NFCC#8. The fact that a stamp was issued to memorialise the subject is already well explained in the prose, so it is used as decoration in Veerapandiya Kattabomman that already shows an image of the subject. ww2censor (talk) 03:49, 30 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The result of the discussion was: Delete; deleted by Explicit (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 02:01, 7 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: This 1980 Indian stamp is copyright for 60 years per commons:Commons:Stamps/Public domain templates. The image fails WP:NFC#Images #3 WP:NFCC#1 as well as WP:NFCC#8. The fact that a stamp was issued to memorialise the subject could be well explained in the prose, but is used as decoration the infobox of Madras Engineer Group when there are freely licenced images in the arfticle that could be used in the infobox instead. There is no need for this non-free image. ww2censor (talk) 03:57, 30 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The result of the discussion was: Delete; deleted by Explicit (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 02:01, 7 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Non-free photograph showing two politicians together. Obvious NFCC#8 failure (we don't need to see a photo of this scene to understand that the two appeared together on some event, and the event isn't even mentioned in the article otherwise.) False tag and boilerplate FUR claiming that the image is a "screenshot used for critical commentary on the video" in question, which is patently false (it's a screenshot, but not being used for such a purpose). This means it also falls under CSD F7 for immediate speedy ("clearly invalid tag"). Was correctly marked as such, but tag was inexplicably removed by two admins. Fut.Perf. ☼ 08:08, 30 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The result of the discussion was: Delete; deleted by Explicit (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 02:01, 7 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Photograph of a deceased politician. While the use of some non-free image may be justified here (depending on whether free alternatives exist, which isn't too unlikely though), the use of this particular item is problematic on NFCC#2 grounds. This is a high-profile piece of photographic portrait art, by a prominent professional journalist, and kept as such in the National Galleries of Scotland [1]. There must be alternatives where less potential commercial interest is at stake than here. Note that it was also uploaded with only a random website given as a source, without due investigation of authorship and copyright. Fut.Perf. ☼ 13:33, 30 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The result of the discussion was: Delete; deleted by Explicit (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 02:01, 7 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Orphaned, Unencyclopedic Calliopejen1 (talk) 14:33, 30 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The result of the discussion was: Delete; deleted by Explicit (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) A file with this name on Commons is now visible. AnomieBOT⚡ 02:01, 7 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Orphaned, Unencyclopedic Calliopejen1 (talk) 14:33, 30 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The result of the discussion was: Delete; deleted by Explicit (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) A file with this name on Commons is now visible. AnomieBOT⚡ 02:01, 7 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Orphaned, Unencyclopedic Calliopejen1 (talk) 14:34, 30 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The result of the discussion was: Delete; deleted by Explicit (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 02:01, 7 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Orphaned, Low quality (cut off), unclear encyclopedic value Calliopejen1 (talk) 14:34, 30 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The result of the discussion was: Delete; deleted by Explicit (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 02:01, 7 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Orphaned, Unencyclopedic Calliopejen1 (talk) 14:35, 30 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The result of the discussion was: Delete; deleted by Explicit (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 02:01, 7 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Orphaned, Unencyclopedic Calliopejen1 (talk) 14:35, 30 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The result of the discussion was: Delete; deleted by Explicit (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 02:01, 7 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Orphaned, Low quality Calliopejen1 (talk) 14:35, 30 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The result of the discussion was: Delete; deleted by Explicit (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 02:01, 7 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Orphaned, Unencyclopedic Calliopejen1 (talk) 14:39, 30 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The result of the discussion was: Delete; deleted by Explicit (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 02:01, 7 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Orphaned, Unencyclopedic Calliopejen1 (talk) 15:31, 30 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The result of the discussion was: Delete; deleted by Explicit (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 02:01, 7 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Orphaned, Unencyclopedic Calliopejen1 (talk) 15:31, 30 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The result of the discussion was: Delete; deleted by Explicit (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 02:01, 7 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Orphaned, dubious own work Calliopejen1 (talk) 15:33, 30 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The result of the discussion was: Delete; deleted by Explicit (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 02:01, 7 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Orphaned, Unencyclopedic Calliopejen1 (talk) 15:33, 30 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The result of the discussion was: Delete; deleted by Explicit (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 02:01, 7 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Orphaned, Unencyclopedic (both versions), possible copyvio (current version) Calliopejen1 (talk) 15:33, 30 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The result of the discussion was: Delete; deleted by Explicit (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 02:01, 7 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Orphaned, Unencyclopedic Calliopejen1 (talk) 15:34, 30 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The result of the discussion was: Delete; deleted by Explicit (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 02:01, 7 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Orphaned, no stated source, web-resolution, no metadata, dubious own work given uploader's other uploads Calliopejen1 (talk) 15:35, 30 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The result of the discussion was: Wrong forum. The file is on Commons. Please nominate it for deletion there if you still feel it should be deleted. AnomieBOT⚡ 18:10, 30 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Created to illustrate (now deleted)hoax page TheLongTone (talk) 18:09, 30 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]