< December 22 | December 24 > |
---|
The result of the debate was: Delete; deleted by Nv8200p (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 18:32, 25 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
No evidence of gfdl release Garion96 (talk) 00:13, 23 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result of the discussion was: Deleted-FASTILY (TALK) 22:24, 25 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I doubt the uploader created this image or has any right to release under GFDL or CC Nv8200p talk 00:26, 23 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Upon what are you basing your doubt? This image is copyright Helicon Arts Cooperartive, All Rights Reserved, and it was uploaded from Helicon Arts Cooperative's Wikipedia account. If you doubt its veracity, please email our company directly at info@heliconarts.com and we will verify that we own this image and that we uploaded it to Wikipedia. Helicon Arts Cooperative (talk) —Preceding comment was added at 21:43, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result of the discussion was: withdrawn-FASTILY (TALK) 22:25, 25 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I doubt the upoader created this image or has any right to release the image under a GFDL or CC license. Nv8200p talk 00:28, 23 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result of the discussion was: Keep; for now-FASTILY (TALK) 22:26, 25 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Derivative work Garion96 (talk) 00:28, 23 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Image kept. Image is not tagged as a free image any longer. I tagged image as "no rationale" since their is no fair use rationale supplied for use in the Comp card article. -Nv8200p talk 02:28, 4 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result of the debate was: Delete; deleted by Luk (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 18:32, 25 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The source states "All rights reserved". —Remember the dot (talk) 01:49, 23 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result of the debate was: Delete; deleted as F8 by Closedmouth (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) A file with this name on Commons is now visible. AnomieBOT⚡ 18:32, 25 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
No record of GFDL release. See WP:COPYREQ for how to properly obtain a release. —Remember the dot (talk) 02:09, 23 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result of the discussion was: Deleted-FASTILY (TALK) 22:26, 25 February 2012 (UTC) "Uploader believes this to be a United Nations photograph" does not satisfy WP:NFCC#10a (attribution of copyright holder). —Remember the dot (talk) 02:16, 23 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Both deleted, not least for lack of adequate source information. —Angr If you've written a quality article... 15:40, 4 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result of the discussion was: Deleted-FASTILY (TALK) 22:26, 25 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
This image is probably in the public domain, but there is hardly any source information, so I can't tell. —Remember the dot (talk) 02:19, 23 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Image deleted. No source. -Nv8200p talk 02:49, 4 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result of the discussion was: Keep; for now-FASTILY (TALK) 22:27, 25 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The description says public domain, but the tag says fair use. If it turns out that this image is not in the public domain, fair use should be fine, but the description really needs to be clarified. —Remember the dot (talk) 02:23, 23 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Image kept but the reference to being public domain was removed as there is no evidence that this is true. The image was also tagged as "no rationale" -Nv8200p talk 02:54, 4 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result of the debate was: Delete; deleted by Nv8200p (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 18:32, 25 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
IP changed to PD-self, but I am unsure if it is faithful. Jusjih (talk) 02:45, 23 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result of the debate was: Delete; deleted as I4 by Misza13 (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 18:32, 25 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
No evidence of PD Garion96 (talk) 02:53, 23 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result of the debate was: Delete; deleted by Nv8200p (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 18:32, 25 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
"This photo is derived from a public webpage and edited by the uploadee" indicates to me that this is likely a copyvio and not actually GFDL. SchuminWeb (Talk) 03:14, 23 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result of the discussion was: Keep; file is tagged as non-free.-FASTILY (TALK) 22:27, 25 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Questionable PD-self claim of something presented in Kaleido Star made in early 2000s. Jusjih (talk) 03:26, 23 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result of the debate was: Delete; deleted by Nv8200p (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 18:32, 25 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
No evicence of the claimed permission found at the source site. Jusjih (talk) 03:41, 23 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result of the discussion was: Keep; for now-FASTILY (TALK) 22:28, 25 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
This image was apparently non-free, and recently an entirely different image was uploaded over it. The new image contains a copyright notice in the image itself, but is marked as CC-BY-SA-3.0. The source web site also bears a copyright notice. Confirmation of permission is needed; instructions on how to do this are at WP:COPYREQ. —Remember the dot (talk) 06:33, 23 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Image kept Non-free image deleted. OTRS ticket filed. -Nv8200p talk 03:24, 4 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result of the debate was: Delete; deleted by Nv8200p (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 18:32, 25 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
no evidenc of PD on source site Garion96 (talk) 09:28, 23 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result of the debate was: Delete; deleted by Nv8200p (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) A file with this name on Commons is now visible. AnomieBOT⚡ 18:32, 25 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
No evidence of GFDL on source site Garion96 (talk) 09:49, 23 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result of the debate was: Delete; deleted as I9 by MECU (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 18:32, 25 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
not likely PD image. Garion96 (talk) 12:14, 23 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result of the discussion was: Keep; file is tagged as non-free.-FASTILY (TALK) 22:28, 25 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Fair use not explained by uploader. Snowman (talk) 12:16, 23 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Fair use has now been explained bingo99 (talk) 13:25, 24 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result of the discussion was: Keep; for now-FASTILY (TALK) 22:28, 25 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Screen shot on a page not specifically about the TV program. There is not a dedicated section on the page about the TV program. Snowman (talk) 12:20, 23 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I agree! It shows what the show is like. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.105.97.218 (talk) 11:38, 27 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
There is now bingo99(bingo99) 12:34, 23 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
There is now a dedicated section on Acorn Antiques in the Victoria Wood As Seen On TV page - (bingo99) 00:18, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Could I request that this complaint be removed from the list, now that the criteria has been met. It still appears underneath the image on both pages it appears in. - (bingo99) 00:33, 13 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Image kept. Removed from Victoria Wood As Seen On TV article as there is no fair use rationale for that article. Issues with fair use and if the image meets WP:NFCC for Acorn Antiques should be listed on WP:IFD. -Nv8200p talk 03:36, 4 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result of the debate was: Delete; deleted by Nv8200p (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 18:32, 25 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Screen shot on a page not specifically about the TV program. Snowman (talk) 12:23, 23 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result of the debate was: Delete; deleted as I9 by MECU (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 18:32, 25 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Does "edited by me" means "created by me" or just photoshopped? Garion96 (talk) 15:58, 23 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result of the debate was: Delete; deleted by Nv8200p (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 18:32, 25 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The source listed for this image is a fan blog that uses images that are copyright infringements. Unlikely that the blog owns the image. 71.167.235.18 (talk) 20:13, 23 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result of the discussion was: Deleted-FASTILY (TALK) 22:29, 25 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Marked as fair use, which would not be acceptable because of WP:NFCC#1 (replaceability), but Jpatokal reverted addition of a deletion tag saying "no replacement available and license has been granted". Permission to use on Wikipedia only is not an acceptable license. Please see WP:COPYREQ for information on how to properly obtain a release of copyright. —Remember the dot (talk) 20:41, 23 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result of the discussion was: Deleted-FASTILY (TALK) 22:29, 25 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Evidence of PD licensing? Jusjih (talk) 22:12, 23 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
What kind of evidence do you need? A screenshot of the original negative? I added the year to the License, hope that helps. Engerim (talk) 10:27, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result of the debate was: Delete; deleted by Nv8200p (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 18:32, 25 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
no evidence of GFDL on source Garion96 (talk) 23:09, 23 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result of the debate was: Delete; deleted by Nv8200p (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 18:32, 25 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
no evidence of PD on source site Garion96 (talk) 23:15, 23 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result of the debate was: Delete; deleted by Nv8200p (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 18:32, 25 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
No evidence of GFDL on source Garion96 (talk) 23:53, 23 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]