The result of the debate was: Delete; deleted by Drilnoth (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 04:47, 2 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
templated license and "permission" sections are inconsistent - permission states "all rights reserved" Skier Dude (talk) 00:48, 18 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result of the debate was: Delete; deleted by Drilnoth (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 04:47, 2 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
templated license and "permission" sections are inconsistent - permission states "all rights reserved" Skier Dude (talk) 00:48, 18 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Deleted. The only suggestion that this image might be free is because it was released under the Freedom of Information Act, but that refers to freedom of access rather than freedom to reuse. Stifle (talk) 12:57, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
If this image was made by the uploader, I'd expect the original file, rather than a photo of it. IMHO, it's probably a photo of an official chart. h2g2bob (talk) 00:48, 18 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The same image was published on WikiLeaks: http://wikileaks.org/wiki/London_Territorial_Support_Group_Organizational_Chart%2C_2009 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.24.251.236 (talk) 12:52, 16 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result of the debate was: Delete; deleted by Drilnoth (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 04:47, 2 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
orphaned, appears to be publicity shot Skier Dude (talk) 03:42, 18 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result of the debate was: Delete; deleted by Drilnoth (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 04:47, 2 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
orphaned, appears to be screenshot Skier Dude (talk) 03:44, 18 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result of the debate was: Delete; deleted by Drilnoth (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 04:47, 2 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
summary "Source = Jon Erpenbach, photographed by WI State Senate photographer for hire" is not consistent with license Skier Dude (talk) 03:46, 18 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result of the debate was: Delete; deleted by Drilnoth (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 04:47, 2 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
orphaned, no source, appears to be publicity shot Skier Dude (talk) 03:47, 18 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result of the debate was: Delete; deleted by Drilnoth (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 04:47, 2 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
orphaned, no source, given the angle, appears to be professional shot Skier Dude (talk) 03:53, 18 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result of the debate was: Delete; deleted by Drilnoth (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 04:47, 2 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
orphaned, no source, appears to be professional shot Skier Dude (talk) 03:56, 18 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result of the debate was: Delete; deleted by Drilnoth (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 04:47, 2 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
pretty clear this is a screenshot Skier Dude (talk) 04:08, 18 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result of the debate was: Delete; deleted by Drilnoth (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 04:47, 2 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
orphaned, given crosshatching 'tis likely a screenshot Skier Dude (talk) 04:09, 18 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result of the debate was: Delete; deleted by Drilnoth (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 04:47, 2 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
no source, no metadata, absent uploader, given image quality appears to be professional shot Skier Dude (talk) 04:19, 18 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result of the debate was: Delete; deleted by Drilnoth (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 04:47, 2 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
orphaned, appears to be a picture of a picture (upper R corner), no source for original Skier Dude (talk) 04:21, 18 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result of the debate was: Delete; deleted by Drilnoth (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 04:47, 2 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
high quality image, appears to be professional shot, unlikely uploader is (c) holder Skier Dude (talk) 04:22, 18 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result of the debate was: Delete; deleted by Drilnoth (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 04:47, 2 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
appears to be scan of yearbook or other such source - source not provided Skier Dude (talk) 04:23, 18 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result of the debate was: Delete; deleted by Drilnoth (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 04:47, 2 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
orphaned, appear to be professional shot Skier Dude (talk) 04:23, 18 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result of the debate was: Delete; deleted by Drilnoth (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 04:47, 2 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
absent uploader, appears to be publicity shot, unlikely uploader is (c) holder Skier Dude (talk) 04:25, 18 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result of the debate was: Delete; deleted by Drilnoth (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 04:47, 2 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
appears to be publicity headshot, no source Skier Dude (talk) 04:31, 18 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result of the debate was: Delete; deleted by Drilnoth (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 04:47, 2 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
given background & image quality most likely a professional headshot Skier Dude (talk) 04:33, 18 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result of the debate was: Delete; deleted by Drilnoth (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 04:47, 2 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
no source, given image title & summary ("official headshot") it's unlikely uploader is (c) holder Skier Dude (talk) 04:34, 18 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result of the debate was: Delete; deleted by Drilnoth (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 04:47, 2 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I think this is a screenshot from the video on this page. The camera angle is the same, the image size is about identical, and there's some aliasing that would be indicative of a web video instead of a photo taken at a press conference. fuzzy510 (talk) 06:18, 18 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result of the debate was: Delete; deleted by Drilnoth (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 04:47, 2 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
not sure of the French (c) laws, but I'm pretty sure the uploader isn't the (c) holder Skier Dude (talk) 06:18, 18 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result of the debate was: Delete; deleted by Drilnoth (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 04:47, 2 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Very unlikely that the uploader is the (c) holder of the wine label Skier Dude (talk) 06:18, 18 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result of the debate was: Delete; deleted by Drilnoth (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 04:47, 2 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Very unlikely that the uploader is the (c) holder of the wine label Skier Dude (talk) 06:19, 18 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result of the debate was: Delete; deleted by Drilnoth (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 04:47, 2 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Very unlikely that the uploader is the (c) holder of the wine label Skier Dude (talk) 06:19, 18 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result of the debate was: Delete; deleted by Drilnoth (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 04:47, 2 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
explicit copyright in image, missing ORTS tag Toddst1 (talk) 15:15, 18 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result of the debate was: Delete; deleted by Drilnoth (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 04:47, 2 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Uploader claims GFDL, but image appears to be scan from copyrighted instruction manual. Daram.G (talk) 15:18, 18 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result of the debate was: Delete; deleted by Drilnoth (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 04:47, 2 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
No source, appears to be logo of SnapDragon Games, but uploader is likely not to be (c) holder. See also File:SDGamesLogo.gif. — Ken g6 (talk) 19:01, 18 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result of the debate was: Delete; deleted by Drilnoth (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 04:47, 2 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Near duplicate of deleted File:Lego Phil Boswell.JPG, which was already deleted per PUI. — neuro(talk) 21:16, 18 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]