The result of the debate was: Delete; deleted by
Stifle (
talk ·
contribs ·
blocks ·
protections ·
deletions ·
page moves ·
rights ·
RfA)
AnomieBOT
⚡
02:12, 25 February 2012 (UTC)
reply
License is very unlikely. Orphaned, no source. – Drilnoth ( T • C • L) 00:06, 21 May 2009 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was: Delete; deleted by
Stifle (
talk ·
contribs ·
blocks ·
protections ·
deletions ·
page moves ·
rights ·
RfA)
AnomieBOT
⚡
02:12, 25 February 2012 (UTC)
reply
Confused licensing; tagged both {{ Non-free standard test image}} (which is almost certainly inappropriate, as I doubt this image is "ubiquitous in the published image-processing literature"—it is certainly not used in that way here) and {{ CopyrightedFreeUse-Link}}. The source is given as Sikhdharma.org, which says at the bottom, "Copyright © 2009 Sikh Dharma International. All Rights Reserved." No evidence is given that the copyright holder has released all rights to this image. If this image is not free, it must be deleted, since it is easily replaceable by a freely licensed image and thus would be a violation of the non-free content policy (see NFCC #1). — Bkell ( talk) 04:29, 21 May 2009 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was: Delete; deleted by
Drilnoth (
talk ·
contribs ·
blocks ·
protections ·
deletions ·
page moves ·
rights ·
RfA)
AnomieBOT
⚡
03:17, 6 June 2009 (UTC)
reply
Non-free file not used by any article pages. Copyright states "Template:(c) 2006 Vista Software. All rights reserved." Kiore ( talk) 06:51, 21 May 2009 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was: Delete; deleted as
F4 by
Melesse (
talk ·
contribs ·
blocks ·
protections ·
deletions ·
page moves ·
rights ·
RfA)
AnomieBOT
⚡
02:12, 25 February 2012 (UTC)
reply
License does not allow derivatives. Rettetast ( talk) 12:51, 21 May 2009 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was: Delete; deleted by
Peripitus (
talk ·
contribs ·
blocks ·
protections ·
deletions ·
page moves ·
rights ·
RfA)
AnomieBOT
⚡
13:30, 23 May 2009 (UTC)
reply
Image's metadata indicates Photoshop rather than camera info, and it looks like a press photo. I doubt this is the uploader's own work. ( ESkog)( Talk) 14:50, 21 May 2009 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was: Delete; deleted by
Stifle (
talk ·
contribs ·
blocks ·
protections ·
deletions ·
page moves ·
rights ·
RfA)
AnomieBOT
⚡
02:12, 25 February 2012 (UTC)
reply
"Public domain" is not a source. – Drilnoth ( T • C • L) 16:34, 21 May 2009 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was: Delete; deleted by
Peripitus (
talk ·
contribs ·
blocks ·
protections ·
deletions ·
page moves ·
rights ·
RfA)
AnomieBOT
⚡
13:30, 23 May 2009 (UTC)
reply
Marked as "attribution only" but the copyright statement on the linked website states "Users of this website may also make use of these materials posted on our website but only for non-commercial research and study." which is not the same thing. Peripitus (Talk) 21:40, 21 May 2009 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was: Delete; deleted by
Drilnoth (
talk ·
contribs ·
blocks ·
protections ·
deletions ·
page moves ·
rights ·
RfA)
AnomieBOT
⚡
03:17, 6 June 2009 (UTC)
reply
Not a work of the federal government, as claimed. Municipal government website is cited as source, but no other indication of copyright. Mosmof ( talk) 23:40, 21 May 2009 (UTC) reply