Wikipedia:Possibly unfree files/2015 December 5
December 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 discussion was: keep and convert to fair use. — ξxplicit 01:03, 14 December 2015 (UTC)
- File:Radical Party Ukraine.png (delete | talk | history | logs).
- This does not fit cases (a) and (b). Cases (c) to (f) only seem to cover government works, but a political party is an entity which is separated from the government, so those cases do not seem to apply either. This seems to be a {{non-free logo}}. Stefan2 (talk) 00:10, 5 December 2015 (UTC)
- 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 media's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
- 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; deleted by Explicit (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 03:02, 14 December 2015 (UTC)
- Public domain reason given is invalid. However it's from 1950s America so it may be PD for another reason. Thoughts? BethNaught (talk) 12:52, 5 December 2015 (UTC)
- It has a copyright notice, so unless evidence is provided of failure to renew the copyright it should be deleted. January (talk) 10:30, 12 December 2015 (UTC)
- 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 media's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
- 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; deleted by Explicit (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 03:02, 14 December 2015 (UTC)
- Invalid PD reason BethNaught (talk) 12:52, 5 December 2015 (UTC)
- 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 media's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
- 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; deleted by Explicit (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 03:02, 14 December 2015 (UTC)
- Ambiguous license statement at source - the subject merely says "this file is released under a free license and may be used publicly". No mention of what license that is, though it's not public domain as claimed on the image description page. Kelly hi! 14:37, 5 December 2015 (UTC)
- 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 media's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
- 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; deleted by Explicit (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 03:02, 14 December 2015 (UTC)
- File:New old presto.JPG (delete | talk | history | logs).
- Derivative of non-free product packaging - no license given for the packaging itself. Kelly hi! 15:05, 5 December 2015 (UTC)
- 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 media's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
- 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; deleted as F11 by Diannaa (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 20:11, 5 December 2015 (UTC)
- Appears to be a possible case of flickrwashing the license. Image is a profile image of the individual that has been used on her linkedin page. Evidence for release to public domain is weak. Whpq (talk) 15:50, 5 December 2015 (UTC)
- This is the same photo as File:Samantha Katz biography photo 2015.jpg which was deleted as lacking evidence of permission on May 2015. -- Diannaa (talk) 18:47, 5 December 2015 (UTC)
- 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 media's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.