Wikipedia:Possibly unfree files/2010 November 5
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
| < November 4 | November 6 > |
|---|
November 5
[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 by Explicit (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 01:27, 12 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- File:Kassian.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs).
- Unfree image Dolovis (talk) 01:17, 5 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Speedy delete, copyvio of http://wild.nhl.com/club/player.htm?id=8471719&view=news. Hairhorn (talk) 03:44, 7 November 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⚡ 02:04, 19 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- File:TGG press photo1.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs).
- Unfree – see band's webpage • Ling.Nut (talk) 07:58, 5 November 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⚡ 02:04, 19 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- File:Pietro.Annigoni.stamp.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs).
- Postage stamp - So I fail to see how this can be CC-BY-SA ? Sfan00 IMG (talk) 11:10, 5 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete: Italian stamps are copyright for 70 years pma per commons:Commons:Stamps/Public domain#Italy and portrait appears to be File:PietroAnnigoni.jpg and is dated 1946. ww2censor (talk) 03:53, 6 November 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: marked non-free. Users may free to dispute fair usage via {{subst:dfu}}. Magog the Ogre (talk) 19:42, 21 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- File:AU Paulino.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs).
- Per original claim that this came from a flickr account - permission has not been confirmed. VernoWhitney (talk) 14:23, 5 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete This editor has had a number of problematic uploads, and has had a number of images deleted due to the images actually being sourced to locations on the Internet, with no evidence of permission. This one isn't really any different in that context, except that the original source is apparently located at a private location on the web, and can not be viewed. --Hammersoft (talk) 15:31, 5 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This image is currently tagged as non-free. If there is a dispute with the rationale, please tag the image with {{dfu}} or list it at WP:Non-free content review. Otherwise, unless there is another reason for listing here, the listing will be closed by an administrator and the image kept. AnomieBOT⚡ 02:04, 19 November 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⚡ 01:39, 13 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- File:PGC logo.JPG (delete | talk | history | logs).
- Organisational logo - So I don't see how this can be CC-BY-SA or GFDL as claimed? Sfan00 IMG (talk) 15:37, 5 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Non-free blatant case. Re-tag as {{non-free logo}}, tag with {{nrd}} and {{orfud}}, as it's missing a rationale and it's not used in mainspace. Note existence of File:Punjab Group.jpg. --Hammersoft (talk) 15:42, 5 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This image is currently tagged as non-free. If there is a dispute with the rationale, please tag the image with {{dfu}} or list it at WP:Non-free content review. Otherwise, unless there is another reason for listing here, the listing will be closed by an administrator and the image kept. AnomieBOT⚡ 01:27, 12 November 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: delete. — ξxplicit 03:44, 28 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- File:Mivida.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs).
- This is a photographic shot of a gallery, but not further information is provided to enable me to determine if FoP is applicable :( Sfan00 IMG (talk) 15:50, 5 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Hmm. I don't think FoP issues apply here. The image really isn't focused on any one work of art in this image, and all of the works are de minimis to the entire image. Contrast File:Myths.jpg, which I think should be marked as non-free 3d art. --Hammersoft (talk) 18:43, 5 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm leaning towards delete as it seems to meet the threshold of originality. Magog the Ogre (talk) 19:49, 21 November 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⚡ 02:04, 19 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- File:Carmona.JPG (delete | talk | history | logs).
- Delete: there is no evidence this montage of 16 images were all created by the uploader and can validly be freely licenced by him. The source page is useless to determine the copyright status. ww2censor (talk) 16:17, 5 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete the source address resolves to Facebook, and there's no way to ascertain the copyright status of the work from the source, nor any way to confirm the source is the work of the uploader. --Hammersoft (talk) 18:11, 5 November 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 Magog the Ogre (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 01:24, 20 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- File:Halil photopedia.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs).
- File:2009 Badging Invistiture.jpg (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
- File:Private 145.jpg (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
All these images contain the File:Medina School Seal.jpg and as such violates the NFC/copyright for that page. :| TelCoNaSpVe :| 19:59, 5 November 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⚡ 02:04, 19 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- File:DDPP.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs).
- Orphaned image under fair use claim (see Summary under Permissions). :| TelCoNaSpVe :| 19:59, 5 November 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⚡ 02:04, 19 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- File:YPGKBD.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs).
- Album cover? Sfan00 IMG (talk) 21:37, 5 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Album cover for Young Person's Guide to Kyle Bobby Dunn. Used by permission from artist and label. No copyright problem. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Henchren (talk • contribs) 23:24, 5 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Please add the relevant OTRS ticket number to the image , and this PUI thread can be closed . Sfan00 IMG (talk) 10:49, 6 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Concur with SFan00 IMG. Permission of the author is irrelevant, unless we can confirm it. Further, permission to use here on Wikipedia is meaningless. We either use it under terms of fair use, or the author releases it under a free license. Permission to use is a middle ground that doesn't exist on Wikipedia. --Hammersoft (talk) 14:15, 8 November 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⚡ 02:04, 19 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- File:Waverley Act 2006.JPG (delete | talk | history | logs).
- UK legislation is crown copyright? Sfan00 IMG (talk) 21:41, 5 November 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 Courcelles (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 06:57, 21 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- File:Waverley Act.JPG (delete | talk | history | logs).
- UK Legislation is crown copyright? Sfan00 IMG (talk) 22:01, 5 November 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 Courcelles (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 06:57, 21 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- File:Erskine Act.JPG (delete | talk | history | logs).
- UK legislation is crown copyright Sfan00 IMG (talk) 22:03, 5 November 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 Magog the Ogre (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 01:24, 20 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- File:Dexter-promo.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs).
- promotional image for a Tv series - Not sure this is CC-BY-SA and I am concerned it might be Flikr washing... Sfan00 IMG (talk) 22:17, 5 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Greets. This is the uploader. Yeah, this isn't f-washing... it was uploaded in [2007] on Flickr. I'm not too familiar with uploading images and the rights that go with them, but I was pretty certain that (due to my acknowledgement of the creator) and it's release under a Share Alike license that it could be considered acceptable. User:Thecheesykid
- Certainly appears not to be the work of theflikr uploader, Christian Weber appears to be a professional photographer and it would seem unlikely that it would be released at CC-BY-SA, a google image search using the image name Dexter_Q116-12 finds other flikr and picasa users who have also uploaded the same image with a wide variety of licences. MilborneOne (talk) 14:22, 6 November 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.