< January 31 | February 2 > |
---|
The result of the debate was: Delete; deleted by
Diannaa (
talk ·
contribs ·
blocks ·
protections ·
deletions ·
page moves ·
rights ·
RfA)
AnomieBOT
⚡ 22:14, 21 February 2013 (UTC)
reply
The result of the debate was: Delete; deleted by
Diannaa (
talk ·
contribs ·
blocks ·
protections ·
deletions ·
page moves ·
rights ·
RfA)
AnomieBOT
⚡ 22:14, 21 February 2013 (UTC)
reply
The result of the debate was: Delete; deleted by
Diannaa (
talk ·
contribs ·
blocks ·
protections ·
deletions ·
page moves ·
rights ·
RfA)
AnomieBOT
⚡ 22:14, 21 February 2013 (UTC)
reply
The result of the discussion was: keep per the research by Fut.Perf. below. Also, if you look at the front page of http://travelzunlimited.blogspot.in/, the blogger has a photo of himself and it's the same photo that Ace uses of himself at http://marathachronicles.blogspot.com/. They're the same person. We have a clear statement of authorship and license. -- B ( talk) 16:58, 6 April 2013 (UTC) reply
The result of the discussion was: Delete. This image is still copyrighted – either by the artist who drew it or by the publisher Bibliographisches Institut, which still exists in today's Germany. De728631 ( talk) 22:01, 8 March 2013 (UTC) reply
The result of the discussion was: Delete. This image is still copyrighted – either by the artist who drew it or by the publisher Bibliographisches Institut, which still exists in today's Germany. De728631 ( talk) 22:05, 8 March 2013 (UTC) reply
The result of the discussion was: keep as per Zscout370 below. -- B ( talk) 16:39, 27 March 2013 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was: Delete; deleted by
Diannaa (
talk ·
contribs ·
blocks ·
protections ·
deletions ·
page moves ·
rights ·
RfA)
AnomieBOT
⚡ 22:14, 21 February 2013 (UTC)
reply
The result of the debate was: Delete; deleted by
DeltaQuad (
talk ·
contribs ·
blocks ·
protections ·
deletions ·
page moves ·
rights ·
RfA)
AnomieBOT
⚡ 21:16, 9 March 2013 (UTC)
reply
The result of the debate was: Delete; deleted as
F1 by
Diannaa (
talk ·
contribs ·
blocks ·
protections ·
deletions ·
page moves ·
rights ·
RfA)
AnomieBOT
⚡ 22:14, 21 February 2013 (UTC)
reply
The result of the debate was: Delete; deleted by
Diannaa (
talk ·
contribs ·
blocks ·
protections ·
deletions ·
page moves ·
rights ·
RfA)
AnomieBOT
⚡ 22:14, 21 February 2013 (UTC)
reply
The result of the discussion was: Keep. Most yearbooks didn't follow formalities at all in this time period, let alone renew them. I would be very surprised to find this was renewed. Anyone with contrary evidence may of course present it in a new discussion. Magog the Ogre ( t • c) 23:49, 7 April 2013 (UTC) reply
It's however very unlikely the copyright in a Yearbook was ever formally renewed as such. Sfan00 IMG ( talk) 23:37, 1 February 2013 (UTC) reply
The result of the discussion was: deleted. It could possibly be considered fair use, but there's no actual source given so no way of even knowing that it's authentic. If someone wants to take the effort of documenting the actual source and can make a reasonable case for it being fair use, it can be restored and the issue of fair use debated at IFD. -- B ( talk) 16:53, 6 April 2013 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was: Delete; deleted by
Diannaa (
talk ·
contribs ·
blocks ·
protections ·
deletions ·
page moves ·
rights ·
RfA)
AnomieBOT
⚡ 22:14, 21 February 2013 (UTC)
reply
The result of the debate was: Delete; deleted by
Diannaa (
talk ·
contribs ·
blocks ·
protections ·
deletions ·
page moves ·
rights ·
RfA)
AnomieBOT
⚡ 22:14, 21 February 2013 (UTC)
reply