Wikipedia:Possibly unfree files/2007 July 17
Contents
July 17
[edit]
- 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 as F8 by Fastily (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) A file with this name on Commons is now visible. AnomieBOT⚡ 11:29, 25 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
OR, AU, Probably CV Nv8200p talk 01:16, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Clearly says 1909 in that pic. -N 23:14, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Then it might be PD but not GFDL or CC. It is still an orphan and should be deleted. -Nv8200p talk 22:12, 19 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I think the photograph of this graffiti is modern, and released under the GFDL (as someone could claim this is a photo of a 3-D etching and Bridgeman doesn't apply.) The original graffiti is PD. I don't think there's any indication it's an unfree image, so I'm delisting it from here, but feel free to nominate it at WP:IFD as an unneeded orphan if you like. – Quadell (talk) (random) 14:51, 29 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Then it might be PD but not GFDL or CC. It is still an orphan and should be deleted. -Nv8200p talk 22:12, 19 July 2007 (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 Quadell (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 01:10, 25 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
No evidence uploader has authority to release the image under the GFDL. Nv8200p talk 01:23, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
contact Lara McDonald at lara.mcdonald@brentwood.bc.ca if have any questions
- 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 Quadell (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 01:10, 25 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
No evidence uploader has the authority to release the image under the GFDL. Nv8200p talk 01:24, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
contact Lara McDonald at lara.mcdonald@brentwood.bc.ca if have any questions
Commons image SkierRMH (talk) 07:05, 6 December 2007 (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 as I8 by Fran McCrory (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 01:10, 25 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
no evidence for public domain copyright status Bleh999 01:56, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I dont think fair use requires a public domain copyright status. Why did you nominate this image? --Matt57 (talk•contribs) 03:39, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I don't think you noticed that it is using a PD template not used as fair use and no rationale Bleh999 04:07, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- So this can be fixed if we put in a fair use template? --Matt57 (talk•contribs) 04:31, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I think fair use for a logo would certainly be a possibility - add the correct tag and a rationale. I would also consider uploading a lower resolution image as there is no need for it to be this big - and for fair use the lower usable resolution the better. Madmedea 09:29, 19 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I made a 75% reduction and reuploaded it: Image:RAWA monogram.jpg. Any lower res. and the text inside the logo will be illegible. --Matt57 (talk•contribs) 17:02, 28 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I think fair use for a logo would certainly be a possibility - add the correct tag and a rationale. I would also consider uploading a lower resolution image as there is no need for it to be this big - and for fair use the lower usable resolution the better. Madmedea 09:29, 19 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- So this can be fixed if we put in a fair use template? --Matt57 (talk•contribs) 04:31, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I don't think you noticed that it is using a PD template not used as fair use and no rationale Bleh999 04:07, 17 July 2007 (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 Moondyne (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 01:10, 25 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Was tagged for speedy, now tagged as GFDL, but sure looks like a copyvio image. But|seriously|folks 06:01, 17 July 2007 (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 Quadell (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 01:10, 25 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Source states the image is copyright Capita Symonds and is a publicity photo, unlikely the corporation has released the image under the GFDL. No evidence of permission found at WP:OTRS. Shell babelfish 08:47, 17 July 2007 (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 as I4 by Quadell (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 01:10, 25 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
No indication of this being a free image. Could be fair use, but no such tag is used, and neither is there any rationale for that. Algotr 16:57, 17 July 2007 (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 Quadell (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 01:10, 25 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The image summary says "Image courtesy of X-Play co-host Morgan Webb" but gives no indication that the co-host actually released it under public domain. ++aviper2k7++ 20:55, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Someone should do some more research on this before a decison is reached. Jedibob5 17:38, 25 August 2007 (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.