Commons:Deletion requests/File:Mehugeons.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.
unencyclopedic image, other, superior images available from this time period. Uploader is subject of photo - false claim of own work. Jon Kolbert (talk) 16:36, 22 October 2018 (UTC)
{{Vk}}why delete a pic with w:Vanessa Hudgens in it? Also, it's actually COM:INUSE. - Alexis Jazz ping plz 17:22, 22 October 2018 (UTC)- (after update from nominator)
{{Vd}}(striking per Carl Lindberg) okay, "not own work" is actually most probably correct and since Commons:Own work/Bystander selfie isn't policy that's a valid deletion rationale. But I still strongly disagree with the "other, superior images available" rationale. - Alexis Jazz ping plz 19:21, 22 October 2018 (UTC)
- Keep disruptive nonsense rationale, Slowking4 § Sander.v.Ginkel's revenge 23:52, 22 October 2018 (UTC)
- Delete not the uploader's own work → unclear copyright status. --El Grafo (talk) 07:53, 23 October 2018 (UTC)
- Keep It's the source of a more useful crop. "Superior" is a subjective decision based on a particular use -- it is not a deletion reason. Even if it's better for a Wikipedia article, it may not be better for a Wikibook or other educational use. We keep as many free images as we can, and let others choose which is "superior" for their use. And since it is in use, that decides the scope argument anyways -- it's automatically in scope. As for the bystander selfie stuff, I think that can legitimately qualify as "own work" as the person may at least be a co-author. The bystander can't claim ownership either because they have absolutely no proof they took it -- the result of which (by the delete rationale) is an image which can not be legally used by anyone, which is not a result ever intended by copyright law. It's a bit silly to get overly officious about them -- they are not any more risky then actual own work uploads, really. Carl Lindberg (talk) 02:33, 24 October 2018 (UTC)
Kept: no valid reason for deletion. Also file is curently in use. --Jarekt (talk) 01:46, 25 October 2018 (UTC)