The result of the debate was: Delete; deleted by Rettetast (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 13:09, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
No indication from the source website that this image is PD, CA tag says works of CA government are not PD. B (talk) 02:03, 5 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result of the debate was: Delete; deleted by Rettetast (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 13:09, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
no metadata, resolution and pixelation of image make this appear to be a screenshot Skier Dude (talk) 02:05, 5 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result of the debate was: Delete; deleted by Rettetast (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 13:09, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
From striation appears to be a scan - no source for base picture Skier Dude (talk) 02:05, 5 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result of the debate was: Delete; deleted by Rettetast (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 13:09, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
no metadata, bad cropping, slight pixelation makes me think this is a screencapture, no source provided (n. b. this uploader's images all appear to be from different sources/cameras/scans) Skier Dude (talk) 02:07, 5 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result of the debate was: Delete; deleted by Rettetast (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 13:09, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
no metadata, appears to be a publicity shot, no source provided (n. b. this uploader's images all appear to be from different sources/cameras/scans) Skier Dude (talk) 02:07, 5 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result of the debate was: Delete; deleted by Rettetast (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 13:09, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
no metadata, appears to be a profesional "runway" shot, no source provided (n. b. this uploader's images all appear to be from different sources/cameras/scans) Skier Dude (talk) 02:08, 5 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result of the debate was: Delete; deleted by Rettetast (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 13:09, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Unlikely this is a user-authored image B (talk) 02:18, 5 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result of the debate was: Delete; deleted by Rettetast (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 13:09, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Purports to be a logo for a fraternity Alpha Theta Sigma. If it is, it's unlikely to be a user-authored image B (talk) 02:20, 5 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result of the debate was: Delete; deleted by Rettetast (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 13:09, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Purports to be a fraternity logo. Unlikely a user-authored image B (talk) 02:21, 5 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result of the debate was: Delete; deleted by Rettetast (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 13:09, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Purports to be a fraternity logo. If so, it's unlikely the user is the copyright holder. B (talk) 02:22, 5 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result of the debate was: Delete; deleted by Rettetast (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 13:09, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Purports to be a fraternity logo. If so, it's unlikely the user owns the copyright. B (talk) 02:28, 5 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result of the debate was: Delete; deleted by Rettetast (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 13:09, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Purports to be a fraternity logo. If so, it's unlikely the user owns the copyright. B (talk) 02:28, 5 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result of the debate was: Delete; deleted by Rettetast (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 13:09, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Purports to be a fraternity logo. If so, it's unlikely the user owns the copyright. B (talk) 02:29, 5 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result of the debate was: Delete; deleted by Rettetast (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 13:09, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Purports to be a fraternity logo. If so, it's unlikely the user owns the copyright. B (talk) 02:30, 5 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result of the debate was: Delete; deleted by Rettetast (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 13:09, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Purports to be a fraternity logo. If so, it's unlikely the user owns the copyright. B (talk) 02:30, 5 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result of the debate was: Delete; deleted by Rettetast (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 13:09, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Purports to be a fraternity logo. If so, it's unlikely the user owns the copyright. B (talk) 02:30, 5 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result of the debate was: Delete; deleted by Rettetast (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 13:09, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Purports to be a fraternity logo. If so, it's unlikely the user owns the copyright. B (talk) 02:30, 5 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result of the debate was: Delete; deleted by Rettetast (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 13:09, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Purports to be a fraternity logo. If so, it's unlikely the user owns the copyright. B (talk) 02:31, 5 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result of the debate was: Delete; deleted by Rettetast (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 13:09, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Purports to be a fraternity logo. If so, it's unlikely the user owns the copyright. B (talk) 02:31, 5 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result of the debate was: Delete; deleted by Rettetast (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 13:09, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Purports to be a fraternity logo. If so, it's unlikely the user owns the copyright. B (talk) 02:31, 5 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result of the discussion was: Kept per IronGargoyle. Stifle (talk) 11:48, 15 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Purports to be a fraternity logo. If so, it's unlikely the user owns the copyright. B (talk) 02:32, 5 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result of the debate was: Delete; deleted by Rettetast (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 13:09, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Purports to be a fraternity logo. If so, it's unlikely the user owns the copyright. B (talk) 02:33, 5 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result of the debate was: Delete; deleted by Rettetast (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 13:09, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Purports to be a fraternity logo. If so, it's unlikely the user owns the copyright. B (talk) 02:33, 5 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result of the debate was: Delete; deleted by Rettetast (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 13:09, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Purports to be a fraternity logo. If so, it's unlikely the user owns the copyright. B (talk) 02:33, 5 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result of the debate was: Delete; deleted by Rettetast (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 13:09, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Obviously a derivative work of the Disney film The Little Mermaid. Even if the user drew it, we can't use it. B (talk) 02:47, 5 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result of the debate was: Delete; deleted by Rettetast (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 13:09, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Obviously a derivative of the Simpsons. Even if the user drew it, we can't use it. B (talk) 02:48, 5 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result of the debate was: Delete; deleted by Rettetast (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 13:09, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
This looks like a photoshop of a Google maps image. If so, it is copyrighted. B (talk) 02:59, 5 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result of the debate was: Delete; deleted by Rettetast (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 13:09, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Uploader says "The photo is from promotional materials and is being used in conjunction with demonstrating what a Malibu Rehab looks like." That implies that this is not a user-authored image. B (talk) 05:34, 5 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result of the debate was: Delete; deleted by Rettetast (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 13:09, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Description says image is public domain, does not give a basis. I have no idea what the term of copyright is in Guinea, but the description says this photo was taken in 1962, so it's highly questionable. B (talk) 05:44, 5 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result of the debate was: Delete; deleted by B (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 12:34, 19 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The image is video game box art and displays trademarked logos and imagery owned and distributed by the game's developer and publisher. The uploader, however, claims the image is self-made. It is possible that the image was obtained from another source and is just improperly licensed. -- Commdor {Talk} 08:16, 5 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result of the discussion was: Delete, insufficient evidence it's really PD.
Terms listed are a dead link, Thus no indication of PD relase which given it's MSDN seems unlikely Sfan00 IMG (talk) 10:37, 5 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result of the debate was: Delete; deleted by Rettetast (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 13:09, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
A JPEG version of a Pakistani law text from 1984. Uploader tagged it as GFDL wich I'm fairly confident is not true. I know a lot of countries do not claim copyright on things like law texts, but I have no idea what the status of such texts in Pakistan is, hence listing here. Sherool (talk) 15:14, 5 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Sherool, It is copy free available on internet. There is no Pakistani law which prohibits its use. Imranahsanmirza —Preceding unsigned comment added by Imranahsanmirza (talk • contribs) 10:42, 6 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result of the debate was: Delete; deleted by Skier Dude (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 05:26, 12 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Tagged as No Permission, background is unsourced and tineye gives 5-6 matches :( Sfan00 IMG (talk) 16:10, 5 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result of the discussion was: Deleted as no proper source. Stifle (talk) 11:50, 15 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
NFR but PD tag - Sort it out people :) Sfan00 IMG (talk) 16:55, 5 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result of the debate was: Delete; deleted by Rettetast (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 13:09, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
NFR but PD tag ? Sfan00 IMG (talk) 16:56, 5 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result of the discussion was: Wrong forum there is no dispute about the non-free nature of the image. Anyway it has a rationale now. If you still feel that it does not satisfy the non-free policy tag it with ((subst:dfu|your reason here)) or list it on Wikipedia:Non-free content review instead. --Sherool (talk) 00:16, 6 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
delet template removede by uploader. fair use rational incomplete. Alankc (talk) 17:03, 5 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
This logo does not consist of "typefaces, individual words, slogans, or simple geometric shapes" ViperSnake151 Talk 20:37, 5 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]