The result of the discussion was: Delete; deleted by Pppery ( talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 02:02, 15 October 2023 (UTC)
Image was tagged for deletion has having not source. The naming and information does provide an approximate date of 1870. I propose this be relicensed as {{ PD-old-assumed}}. Whpq ( talk) 02:12, 29 September 2023 (UTC)
:I always thought that PD-old-assumed was only for works not first published in the US, and I would simply have opted a {{
PD-US-expired}} tag.
Felix QW (
talk) 15:14, 30 September 2023 (UTC)
The result of the discussion was: delete. Whpq ( talk) 16:16, 7 October 2023 (UTC)
A historical figure who lived 1,500 years ago is illustrated with a proprietary image from the film. It could just as easily be a photo of any other lightly made-up Asian man or a drawing ( WP:NFCC#1). — Ирука 13 11:39, 29 September 2023 (UTC)
The result of the discussion was: Delete; deleted by Explicit ( talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) A file with this name on Commons is now visible. AnomieBOT ⚡ 02:01, 7 October 2023 (UTC)
The website with copyright info provided ( [1]) states: All material provided on this website is provided under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International licence, except– any images or branding, including the Victorian Coat of Arms and the Victorian Government logo content supplied by third parties. ––– GMH MELBOURNE TALK 13:07, 29 September 2023 (UTC)
The result of the discussion was: Delete; deleted by Explicit ( talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) A file with this name on Commons is now visible. AnomieBOT ⚡ 02:01, 7 October 2023 (UTC)
There is no way that this is fair use. I get that this is an album cover but the image literally only consists of a purple square with literally nothing else on it, which to me is obviously not original. Do you guys agree with this? DaCrashy ( talk) 22:18, 29 September 2023 (UTC)
The result of the discussion was: Delete; deleted by Pppery ( talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 02:02, 15 October 2023 (UTC)
Image was tagged for deletion has having not source. The naming and information does provide an approximate date of 1870. I propose this be relicensed as {{ PD-old-assumed}}. Whpq ( talk) 02:12, 29 September 2023 (UTC)
:I always thought that PD-old-assumed was only for works not first published in the US, and I would simply have opted a {{
PD-US-expired}} tag.
Felix QW (
talk) 15:14, 30 September 2023 (UTC)
The result of the discussion was: delete. Whpq ( talk) 16:16, 7 October 2023 (UTC)
A historical figure who lived 1,500 years ago is illustrated with a proprietary image from the film. It could just as easily be a photo of any other lightly made-up Asian man or a drawing ( WP:NFCC#1). — Ирука 13 11:39, 29 September 2023 (UTC)
The result of the discussion was: Delete; deleted by Explicit ( talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) A file with this name on Commons is now visible. AnomieBOT ⚡ 02:01, 7 October 2023 (UTC)
The website with copyright info provided ( [1]) states: All material provided on this website is provided under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International licence, except– any images or branding, including the Victorian Coat of Arms and the Victorian Government logo content supplied by third parties. ––– GMH MELBOURNE TALK 13:07, 29 September 2023 (UTC)
The result of the discussion was: Delete; deleted by Explicit ( talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) A file with this name on Commons is now visible. AnomieBOT ⚡ 02:01, 7 October 2023 (UTC)
There is no way that this is fair use. I get that this is an album cover but the image literally only consists of a purple square with literally nothing else on it, which to me is obviously not original. Do you guys agree with this? DaCrashy ( talk) 22:18, 29 September 2023 (UTC)