Commons:Deletion requests/File:Historical people of Gelon.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.
no source given Hoyanova (talk) 07:35, 13 April 2022 (UTC)
- @Hoyanova There is no source here, these are people from the urban-type settlement "Gelon", the photo was taken by me personally from the archives of our photographs, like the 2 man in the pictures in the article about the Village of Gelon Ukraina12 (talk) 07:57, 13 April 2022 (UTC)
Kept: Looks like authors own work. --Sanandros (talk) 19:07, 19 May 2022 (UTC)
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.
Previous DR closed wrong. It is clearly a photo of an existing photo, per comments of uploader above ("photo was taken by me personally from the archives of our photographs"). Needs original author, source, date, and permission. Also included the uncropped version:
P 1 9 9 ✉ 15:57, 2 June 2022 (UTC)
- The question is whether it predates 1972 to be PD in Uzbekistan. --RAN (talk) 17:08, 2 June 2022 (UTC)
-2022-06-02T17:08:00.000Z-P199-2022-06-02T15:57:00.000Z){kind=link}
- If the required essential info is added, then that would be answered by itself.
- BTW, I see you frequently changing essential info and licenses without any basis for doing so, just based on assumptions or your personal opinion. That is plain wrong and must stop. If you think a license is incorrect, you can discuss it at the DR but don't change licenses in the middle of a DR. That is deceptive and manipulative for the DR discussion! --P 1 9 9 ✉ 19:05, 2 June 2022 (UTC)
Keep Either keep, or explain why an image of this age isn't PD, or some plausible claim that this isn't an old image, as claimed. But it's ludicrous to base this on the licensing of a 2022 scan / mechanical reproduction of an old photo, and even worse to claim that this photo just happens to have been photographed originally in the last few months. Andy Dingley (talk) 20:24, 2 June 2022 (UTC)- @Ukraina12: Can you help us out here and expand anything on the description of the original photo? Date, location, photographer? Anything would be helpful, thanks. If this is your original photo (not the digital scan of the film) would you consider also licensing it as something like {{CC-by-sa-4.0}}? That might just be simpler. Andy Dingley (talk) 20:29, 2 June 2022 (UTC)
- The claim that this image is "circa 1960" was added User:RAN, an unrelated editor who knows nothing more about this image than you or me. IMO, it is equal to vandalism to just put an arbitrary date out of thin air! Yes, I know that the 2022 is clearly wrong, that is why this DR was started in the first place. --P 1 9 9 ✉ 23:38, 2 June 2022 (UTC)
- You know that "2022 is clearly wrong" and yet you're edit-warring over two different editors to keep re-adding such a falsehood. This isn't about accuracy, it's just about your ego. Andy Dingley (talk) 09:05, 3 June 2022 (UTC)
- My ego??? Where did that come from??? No need to make it personal. And replacing one wrong date with another wrong date is not helpful, and actually misleading, because other participants in this DR may not check the file history and then just assume that PD-Uzbekistan is right. That is why the original info should remain until the original uploader can provide the facts. --P 1 9 9 ✉ 13:12, 3 June 2022 (UTC)
-2022-06-02T17:08:00.000Z){kind=link}
- Keep This seems to be an analog photograph. So pre-1972 is quite probable. Of course, more information would be better. Yann (talk) 15:35, 4 June 2022 (UTC)
- It is unbecoming of an admin to make such an assumption out of thin air! Without the essential info, there is just no way to know if PD-Uzbekistan is even correct. Was it even taken in Uzbekistan? Was the photographer really anonymous? Is it actually old or just faded? One fact is clear: the uploader took it from an archive. So (s)he should go back and get those essential facts. That is a Commons policy requirement. I am more than willing to keep this image if someone can provide that. --P 1 9 9 ✉ 03:07, 5 June 2022 (UTC)
- Get off from your high horse, and find a way to keep this, instead of finding a pretext to delete it. Thanks, Yann (talk) 08:48, 7 June 2022 (UTC)
- Why the personal stuff? Hekerui (talk) 21:30, 7 June 2022 (UTC)
- Keep --Ooligan (talk) 22:03, 6 June 2022 (UTC)
- I would suggest getting information from the uploader about the original picture, because the copyright of that picture is in question, not the license of the scan. However, the user is globally locked for spam. Yes, there is no source beyond the uploader that this is Uzbekistan but I don't have a good reason to doubt it. If it were in the public domain in the US and the source country then Template:cc-by-sa-4.0 is fine. But as it is ww have only a claim about the scan, no information on the original picture and no basis for speculating it's old (although it might be), so delete per COM:PRP. Hekerui (talk) 21:30, 7 June 2022 (UTC)
Deleted. Look, we do not know anything about the photo. How can you be sure, that the photo is made before 1972? We have no author, no publication data, no anything. Uploader is globally locked as spam-only account. Taivo (talk) 10:56, 26 June 2022 (UTC)
