Commons:Deletion requests/File:Antonio Alves PCB.jpg
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.
There is no evidence of a valid license. The relevant website does not specify a particular license under which the image is released; as such, the license release present on the source page is not valid. It is possible that they intend to release this under CC-BY 2.0/3.0/4.0, but as of now there is no evidence that any particular license is valid for this photo. — Red-tailed hawk (nest) 02:14, 15 August 2022 (UTC)
- It's on the website footer. "Licença: Permitida a reprodução, desde que citada a fonte (Creative Commons)." Young Brujah (talk) 02:41, 15 August 2022 (UTC)
- The website footer states the words "Creative Commons" but it doesn't actually include a specific valid license. As I noted in my statement above it is possible that they intend to release this under CC-BY 2.0/3.0/4.0, but as of now there is no evidence that any particular license is valid for this photo, but it doesn't look like they've actually released the work under any particular license. And, if they haven't done that, then there is no valid license. — Red-tailed hawk (nest) 17:31, 15 August 2022 (UTC)
- Keep. Licença: Permitida a reprodução, desde que citada a fonte is CC BY.
- Guarapiranga (talk) 05:15, 19 August 2022 (UTC)
Keep Attribution only license already works in this case. Erick Soares3 (talk) 13:06, 22 August 2022 (UTC)
- Keep I agree with Erick Soares3's statement. Paladinum2 (talk) 16:06, 26 September 2022 (UTC)
- The website footer states the words "Creative Commons" but it doesn't actually include a specific valid license. As I noted in my statement above it is possible that they intend to release this under CC-BY 2.0/3.0/4.0, but as of now there is no evidence that any particular license is valid for this photo, but it doesn't look like they've actually released the work under any particular license. And, if they haven't done that, then there is no valid license. — Red-tailed hawk (nest) 17:31, 15 August 2022 (UTC)
Delete per nom -Pete Forsyth (talk) 21:46, 17 August 2022 (UTC)
Kept: it is more than obvious that the intent is for a free license. Agree with Erick Soares. --P 1 9 9 ✉ 01:43, 4 October 2022 (UTC)
