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 B (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 20:15, 6 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

File:Politics UK logo.png (delete | talk | history | logs).

• The image is marked as failing the threshold of originality, but it looks pretty complex to me. It is likely subject to copyright. Dianna (talk) 00:20, 4 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• No way that this is too simple for copyright. There's no reasonable chance that such an image could be created independently. Nyttend (talk) 15:14, 4 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete There is no chance that this is below the threshold of originality. Unused, so fair use is no option. --Stefan2 (talk) 11:39, 5 February 2013 (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⚡ 02:02, 8 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

File:Veselin Duranovic left.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs).

• This photo is not a low, not official material, not official translate, and not an act of judgement. Given licence may not be applicable. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 09:10, 4 February 2013 (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 Diannaa (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 23:01, 21 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

File:Gintonicaballoonglass.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs).

• Copyright photo from http://summerfruitcup.wordpress.com/2012/06/08/gintonica/ Elisardojm (talk) 14:00, 4 February 2013 (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 Future Perfect at Sunrise (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) A file with this name on Commons is now visible. AnomieBOT⚡ 11:08, 27 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

File:Stalin.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs).

• File has 4 versions.

1. Sources are given for 1st and 3rd versions only, and WP uses 4th version (2007).
2. Source is not just link to file; source must also be verifiable and provide information about license status (so that others can verify the copyright status): for our case date of first publication or creation for all four version (and author for 3rd version) - such date is very important for works of respective period of history. 2nd and 4th versions have not any source links. Alex Spade (talk) 15:00, 4 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Question What do you think about the first version? Are you basically asking that we revert to the original and delete everything else? Nyttend (talk) 15:12, 4 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • 1st version source is dead (totally dead - WayBackMachine resurrection attempt was failed). It is just a link; it is not a proof of PD-status. When was work created? When was work published? Who was author or was work published anonymously? It is just another example of incorrectly retagged ((PD-USSR))-files. Alex Spade (talk) 16:21, 4 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • We don't delete things just because their source links die. Nyttend (talk) 19:31, 4 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      1. We delete things with unknown copyright status.
      2. Moreover, this is not FDD, this is PUF. ((USSR))-status of this work was possible in 2004. But for both ((PD-Russia))-retagging after 2006 (PD-USSR deprecation in En-Wiki/Commons and old RU-CR-law with 1942-1946 borders) and ((PD-Russia))-retagging (new version) after 2008 (new RU-Civil-Code with 1941-1943 borders), you or smb must answer to question about date of first publication (or creation at least) of this work, which is principal for free or non-free status of this work. Alex Spade (talk) 08:54, 5 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete all files under this file name:

1. The source is given as a URL, but the URL does not work, so there is no way to tell whether the image is freely licensed or not. Furthermore, the licence on the file information page is invalid.
2. No source and no licence.
3. Source given as the same URL, but this might just have been the result of a lazy uploader who didn't replace the old source with a new source. Unverifiable licence.
4. Source given as the same URL, but this might just have been the result of a lazy uploader who didn't replace the old source with a new source. Unverifiable licence. --Stefan2 (talk) 11:47, 5 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Upd for (3). The new "permission" is not valid. This site is not copyright holder and the origins of files are unknown. Alex Spade (talk) 09:51, 6 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

(3) website has the disclaimer To the best of our knowledge these free images are from the public domain so there's a copyright statement about the image. -- 65.92.180.137 (talk) 16:11, 6 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This disclaimer is nothing. I can also make site, upload many no my works and write, that they are free/PD. Repeat, this site is not copyright holder and the origins of files are unknown. Some words of someone can not make work free. Only dates of creation, publication or author's death (for 3-case author can be potentially found in Soviet art history literature), or direct author/copyrightholder wish, or some other elements (triviality, works of the Federal Government in USA, official docs or symbols in Russia, ane etc.) can make work free. Alex Spade (talk) 18:11, 6 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Upd for (3). Author of this portrait is Alexander Gerasimov (1881-1963) [1]. Alex Spade (talk) 16:28, 7 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

In that case, (3) is a clear delete: it was still protected by copyright in Russia on the URAA date, so it is protected by copyright in the United States for 95 years since publication. --Stefan2 (talk) 23:07, 7 February 2013 (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 Diannaa (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 23:01, 21 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

File:SurfinWithTheAstronauts.JPG (delete | talk | history | logs).

• Clearly album cover-art Sfan00 IMG (talk) 21:01, 4 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yes, a low resolution scan of my old album from the 60s, a partial, not the full album cover. This low-resolution scan is no different than other low res scans of albums, music, singers, entertainers, authors, labels, photos, etc etc... LanceBarber (talk) 05:51, 7 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Album covers are only permitted for the article about that album, not about the band. There's no article about the album, so the file has to be deleted; it doesn't meet our non-free content criteria. -- Dianna (talk) 21:56, 21 February 2013 (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.