The result of the debate was: Delete; deleted as G3 by IronGargoyle (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 15:32, 8 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Chowa001 claims to own this work. He inserted this image of a child into the Adolf Hitler article. Obviously, he has no credibility. One user has pointed out the photos are from www.dohacollege.com Falastine fee Qalby (talk) 00:08, 8 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result of the debate was: Delete; deleted as G3 by IronGargoyle (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 16:33, 8 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
see above, same reason as for File:Mohamad_El-Zein.JPG Falastine fee Qalby (talk) 00:10, 8 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result of the debate was: Delete; deleted by EVula (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 15:37, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Contains a screenshot from The Simpsons in addition to a photograph; at least the former is non-free –Drilnoth (T • C • L) 02:01, 8 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Sourced to a "Post Card" with a license of "Public Domain"; this doesn't seem consistent. –Drilnoth (T • C • L) 02:26, 8 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result of the debate was: Delete; deleted by Drilnoth (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 03:08, 22 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Mistaken use of the PD-100 tag: underlying artwork is ancient, but a separate copyright attaches to the photographic reproduction of three dimensional art. Obviously the photo is less than 100 years old; no evidence of free license for the photograph. DurovaCharge! 02:37, 8 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result of the debate was: Delete; deleted by Drilnoth (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 03:08, 22 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
False copyleft license claim. Source link states explicitly: "(c) Copyright Fameo Ltd. Use of Fameo jewellery designs for any purpose without obtained permission would be an infringement of UK Patent Law" DurovaCharge! 02:40, 8 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Kept; seems to be all in order. Stifle (talk) 13:07, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Invalid use of GFDL. Image cannot be GFDL as it is a non-free image User A1 (talk) 03:24, 8 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result of the debate was: Delete; deleted by R. Baley (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 23:37, 8 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Claims that "only non-commercial or educational use of the file is allowed." Except it has been taken from a copyright Reuters image... see this US magazine article. Also see the image's duplicate, File:Susan-boyle-b 1.jpg.jpg --Madchester (talk) 05:38, 8 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result of the debate was: Delete; deleted by Feydey (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 14:44, 9 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Was deleted before, user undid the removal of the image and reuploaded, claiming that it is their image, however there's doubt for this, considering the image is all over the internet, many results in google image search Omarcheeseboro (talk) 09:51, 8 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result of the debate was: Delete; deleted by Drilnoth (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 03:08, 22 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Image is labelled as being created by the uploader. There is evidence of the logo being used for the college itself. Neutralle 11:28, 8 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result of the debate was: Delete; deleted by Drilnoth (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 03:08, 22 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Author listed as "unknown" - if it's not uploader's work, we can't verify the PD claim. (ESkog)(Talk) 15:39, 8 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result of the debate was: Delete; deleted by Drilnoth (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 03:08, 22 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Mugshot is unlikely to be uploader's own work; no metadata or source information to confirm licensing claims. (ESkog)(Talk) 15:41, 8 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result of the debate was: Delete; deleted by Drilnoth (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 03:08, 22 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Unlikely uploader's own work; looks like a TV screenshot or publicity photo, and has no metadata. (ESkog)(Talk) 15:42, 8 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result of the debate was: Delete; deleted by Feydey (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 13:43, 9 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Almost every upload by this user has turned out to be copyvios. Nothing to suggest this is not either. Mosmof (talk) 20:50, 8 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]