Commons:Deletion requests/File:BgPZc-zCMAEQ43A.jpg

No valid license (unspecified CC-BY license in permission).

Previously indicated {{cc-zero}} by uploader and later license reviewed by User:INeverCry (banned) as such, but I don't trust this to ever have been under cc-zero on Twitter without an OTRS ticket as tweets cannot be edited to my awareness. 84.250.17.211 10:56, 28 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

for now  Keep: INeverCry done maybe someting wrong but here he witnessed a fact and that's enough. The only reason for me right now to delete would be if the uploader and the reviewer are socks.--Sanandros (talk) 20:06, 30 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• "cc-by" is unfortunately insufficient. However, given who the author is, I think it's reasonably likely that they would specify an actual license if asked. Does anybody have a twitter account? Storkk (talk) 09:49, 10 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • CC-BY is always 1.0. See also File:M27 Infantry Automatic Rifle.jpg.--Sanandros (talk) 21:01, 10 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • @Sanandros: can you give some kind of citation for that assertion? The ticket on the other file, rather than backing up your assertion, merely looks insufficiently well handled to me. Storkk (talk) 22:30, 10 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • I've sent an email asking for permission. 84.250.17.211 17:27, 15 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    • Permission received:

      Clarification: this photo is licensed CC-BY-4.0.

      — https://twitter.com/kurtopsahl/status/1018550236434726912

Is this sufficient? 84.250.17.211 17:41, 15 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• • • • Also  Keep in light of this, but not withdrawing my nomination. 84.250.17.211 17:56, 15 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Kept: no valid reason for deletion. --Jon Kolbert (talk) 13:33, 20 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]