The result of the discussion was: Delete; deleted by INeverCry (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 19:10, 7 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Orphan image with no purpose or encyclopedic value. Sourced to www.openrecord.co.za as well as uploader -- ТимофейЛееСуда. 00:02, 26 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The result of the discussion was: Delete; deleted by INeverCry (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 19:10, 7 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Entirely decorative; fails WP:NFCC #8. RJaguar3 | u | t 02:52, 26 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The result of the discussion was: Delete; deleted by INeverCry (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 19:10, 7 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Unused, image lacking description or context. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 10:29, 26 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The result of the discussion was: Delete; deleted by INeverCry (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 19:10, 7 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Image is not required to support the commentary against which it appears in the linked article. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 11:54, 26 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The result of the discussion was: Delete; deleted by INeverCry (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 19:10, 7 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Screenshot of software that does not link to an article, No indication of free software license. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 12:00, 26 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The result of the discussion was: Delete; deleted by INeverCry (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 19:10, 7 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Doesn't seem to be a "unique historic photo" as claimed. Also, things like this have two copyrights: the copyright of the art on the skirt and the copyright of the photo. For the last part, we require a free licence. Stefan2 (talk) 14:50, 26 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The result of the discussion was: Delete; deleted by INeverCry (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 19:10, 7 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Doesn't seem to be a "unique historic photo" as claimed. Also, things like this have two copyrights: the copyright of the art on the skirt and the copyright of the photo. For the last part, we require a free licence. Also, no evidence that WP:NFCC#4 is satisfied. Stefan2 (talk) 14:50, 26 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The result of the discussion was: Original file will be kept; new upload deleted. Dianna (talk) 03:58, 3 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
This was overwritten by a completely different image. The first image has a too vague source, so I think that that image violates WP:NFCC#10a. The second image has no source at all, so that image clearly violates WP:NFCC#10a. Stefan2 (talk) 14:54, 26 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The result of the discussion was: Delete; deleted by INeverCry (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 19:10, 7 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
No evidence that this is a government work as currently claimed.
I can't tell whether the underlying 3D artwork is free or not, but we want a free licence from the photographer in any case. Stefan2 (talk) 15:00, 26 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The result of the discussion was: Delete. I agree that in general we don't need to always go down the rabbit hole of affirmatively ruling out all commercial uses to satisfy NFCC 2. However, in this case, a quick Google Image search reveals that the image exists in a few other places at a higher resolution, so this is certainly not the original source of the image and we cannot identify the rightsholder. (ESkog)(Talk) 16:55, 5 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Seems to violate WP:NFC#UUI §10: non-historic photo of unknown origin. Stefan2 (talk) 15:05, 26 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The result of the discussion was: Delete; deleted by INeverCry (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 19:10, 7 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
No evidence that this is a government work as currently claimed.
I can't tell whether the underlying 3D artwork is free or not, but we want a free licence from the photographer in any case. Stefan2 (talk) 15:08, 26 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The result of the discussion was: Delete; deleted by INeverCry (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 19:10, 7 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Redundant extra cover. See WP:NFCC#3a. Stefan2 (talk) 15:12, 26 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The result of the discussion was: Delete; deleted by INeverCry (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 19:10, 7 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Redundant extra cover. See WP:NFCC#3a. Stefan2 (talk) 15:13, 26 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The result of the discussion was: Delete; deleted by INeverCry (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 19:10, 7 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Claim of own work is clearly false: no source for original images. Sven Manguard Wha? 16:10, 26 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The result of the discussion was: Delete; deleted by INeverCry (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 19:10, 7 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Lo quality, Organisational logo so skeptical about it being self as claimed. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 23:06, 26 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The result of the discussion was: Delete; deleted by INeverCry (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 19:10, 7 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Unused image, Lo res. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 23:21, 26 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]