The result of the discussion was: Delete; deleted by Peripitus (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 02:01, 7 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Secondary logo of an organization, used together with its primary logo in the same article. Both are so similar the one could easily be described on the basis of the other (it's just the addition of two letters on the right). Thus fails NFCC#8 and #3 Fut.Perf. ☼ 07:00, 29 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The result of the discussion was: Delete; deleted by Peripitus (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 02:01, 7 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Alleged movie poster, but uploader states he created it entirely himself; thus not an official poster but inofficial fan-art (though evidently based on some copyrighted photographs). Should not be used as official poster in infobox. Fut.Perf. ☼ 08:01, 29 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The result of the discussion was: Kept the new version - Peripitus (Talk) 00:21, 7 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Non-free movie poster falsified through some arbitrary modifications made by uploader. Can't be used as alleged official poster in this form. Delete unless overwritten with cleaned-up original version Fut.Perf. ☼ 08:03, 29 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The result of the discussion was: Deleted and replaced with protected Generic image - Peripitus (Talk) 00:28, 7 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and salt (nondescriptive filename). Six completely different images have been uploaded under this filename. We are missing source and licensing information for most of them. The original image is a book cover improperly tagged with ((PD-self)). —Bkell (talk) 12:38, 29 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The result of the discussion was: Delete; deleted by Peripitus (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 02:01, 7 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
orphaned, unidentified subject, overly generic filename, obviously wrong "own work" claim (though likely PD). Absent uploader. Fut.Perf. ☼ 15:35, 29 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The result of the discussion was: Delete; deleted as F5 by Courcelles (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 02:01, 7 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Hardly passes WP:NFCC #8 CTJF83 17:19, 29 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The result of the discussion was: Delete - There is a consensus that it's use in the Cultural-Wikipedia article does not meet the NFC requirements. I did notice that it had a rationale for the Foxtrot article, which lacks an image, but could not quickly see in the history whether it was there or was removed in the past - Peripitus (Talk) 00:37, 7 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Abusive use of non-free comic-strip. The full work is used when a description would be a better fit. Damiens.rf 19:30, 29 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The result of the discussion was: Delete; deleted by Peripitus (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 02:01, 7 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Unnecessary use of a full comic strip. Damiens.rf 19:41, 29 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The result of the discussion was: Delete; deleted by Peripitus (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 02:01, 7 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Unnecessary non-free image showing a man at work is not really useful to understand his work. Damiens.rf 21:22, 29 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]