The following discussion is an archived inquiry of the possible unfree file 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 Explicit (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 06:33, 7 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

File:TomTerryFrances2004.png (delete | talk | history | logs).

• Studio style photo of a notable individual. Likely copyrighted. No reason given to suggest that uploader is copyright holder. FASTILY_sock^(TALK) 00:53, 24 March 2010 (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 file 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 Explicit (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 06:33, 7 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

File:Ambassador-martin-hatfull.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs).

• Not sure who created it--author claims he created it, as well as the embassy.  fetchcomms☛ 03:18, 24 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Not released under any license, even if he took it himself. — BQZip01 — ^talk 03:44, 27 March 2010 (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 file 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 Explicit (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 06:33, 7 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

File:Mattstephens.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs).

• No real indication author has the rights to release this image to public domain Polargeo (talk) 11:20, 24 March 2010 (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 file 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 discussion was: keep. Licensed under fair use. — ξ^xplicit 04:57, 7 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

File:Acclogogif.gif (delete | talk | history | logs).

• Delete: fails WP:NFCC#10c, a non free logo missing a fair-use rationale from which the uplaoder has twice removed the "missing fair-use rationale" notice without adding the ratioanle. ww2censor (talk) 19:18, 24 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Appropriate rationale has been added since nom. — BQZip01 — ^talk 03:46, 27 March 2010 (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.