The following discussion is an archived inquiry of the possible unfree image below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the media's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was: Delete; deleted by Drilnoth (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 03:37, 15 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This image contains a google copyright notice. Similar image is likely available from U.S. government released into the public domain. That image should replace it. Shadowjams (talk) 06:09, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the images's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived inquiry of the possible unfree image below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the media's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was: Delete; deleted by Drilnoth (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 03:37, 15 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No reason to believe uploader is copyright holder of this work presumably by Anthony Judanath. Jfire (talk) 06:19, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the images's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived inquiry of the possible unfree image below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the media's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was: Delete; deleted by JPG-GR (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 07:20, 13 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Listed as PD-us-govt but is linked to a local council website in the USA. Nothing I can see says that this image was created by a federal employee and so is public domain Peripitus (Talk) 13:01, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the images's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived inquiry of the possible unfree image below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the media's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was: Delete; deleted by Drilnoth (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 03:37, 15 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Advertising photo - No indication of permission for GFDL release as far as I can tell. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 13:14, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. No apparent evidence that the image is used by permission. — Σxplicit 23:11, 13 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the images's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived inquiry of the possible unfree image below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the media's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was: Delete; deleted by Drilnoth (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 03:37, 15 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This image is licensed as being released under Public Domain from the copyright holder. It is not at all clear that this is what the author meant, or if in fact the author is even the copyright holder based on this comment and the fact that other infringing material has been introduced to Wikipedia by this editor. Whpq (talk) 13:40, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note that this image is not used in any article. -- Whpq (talk) 13:41, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the images's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived inquiry of the possible unfree image below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the media's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was: Delete; deleted by Drilnoth (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 03:37, 15 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This image is licensed as being released under Public Domain from the copyright holder. It is not at all clear that this is what the author meant, or if in fact the author is even the copyright holder based on this comment and the fact that other infringing material has been introduced to Wikipedia by this editor. Note this image is not used in any article. Whpq (talk) 13:42, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the images's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived inquiry of the possible unfree image below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the media's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was: Delete; deleted by Drilnoth (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 03:37, 15 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This image is licensed as being released under Public Domain from the copyright holder. It is not at all clear that this is what the author meant, or if in fact the author is even the copyright holder based on this comment and the fact that other infringing material has been introduced to Wikipedia by this editor. Note this image is being used in the article for Rai Rajeshwar Bali of Daryabad. Whpq (talk) 13:45, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the images's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived inquiry of the possible unfree image below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the media's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was: Delete; deleted by Drilnoth (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 03:37, 15 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Professional-looking photo, doesn't seem likely that the uploader is the creator. Stifle (talk) 16:47, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the images's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived inquiry of the possible unfree image below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the media's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was: Delete; deleted by Drilnoth (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 03:37, 15 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Image is watermarked "karlo torres photography". I tagged as no permission, but the tag was removed because the uploader claims to be the creator. (ESkog)^(Talk) 17:10, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the images's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived inquiry of the possible unfree image below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the media's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was: Delete; deleted by Drilnoth (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 03:37, 15 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This image is licensed under the GFDL by the uploader with a claim to holding the copyright. This claim does not appear to be credible. The same image can be found on this wiki with an upload date 2 years earlier by what is likely a different person. Also, the pose would indicate that the photo was professionally shot, and as the copyright holder, I would have expected that a larger image than something sized for the web would be available. Furthermore, this image shows the subject in the same outfit, and is published here, and is likely fromt he same photo shoot. Whpq (talk) 17:32, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the images's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived inquiry of the possible unfree image below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the media's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was: Delete; deleted by Drilnoth (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 03:37, 15 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Seems unlikely that the uploader is the copyright holder. Stifle (talk) 17:45, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the images's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived inquiry of the possible unfree image below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the media's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was: Delete; deleted by Drilnoth (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 03:37, 15 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This editor has uploaded many images for which copyright is claimed and release to the GFDL as copyright holder which are demonstrably copyright violations. There is no good reason to believe that this one is any different. Whpq (talk) 20:55, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the images's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived inquiry of the possible unfree image below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the media's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was: Delete; deleted by Drilnoth (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 03:37, 15 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This editor has uploaded many images for which copyright is claimed and release to the GFDL as copyright holder which are demonstrably copyright violations. There is no good reason to believe that this one is any different. Whpq (talk) 20:56, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the images's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived inquiry of the possible unfree image below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the media's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was: Delete; deleted by Drilnoth (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 17:23, 13 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Appears to be promotional image, user's other contribs are questionable. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Many otters • One bat • One hammer)} 22:37, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the images's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.