Commons:Deletion requests/File:Apotheosis-of-saint-louis.jpg
My {{Dw no source since}} was deleted without assessing the concerns. I wronte that the image claims to be a derivative work of en:File:Saint-louis-art-museum-horse.jpg which was deleted as "no source", but User:Slowking4 deleted the statement that the English Wikipedia original was deleted as having no source. As an extra source, he added a link to Flickr, but the Flickr upload was half a year after upload to a different filename on English Wikipedia upload, so Flickr can impossibly be the source. As far as I can see, this is still a derivative work of an unsourced photo. Stefan4 (talk) 22:05, 1 May 2012 (UTC)
- Metadata on the flickr file shows that it was taken in June 2004 with a Kodak DX4530 Zoom, other images in flickr steam were also taken with a Kodak DX4530 Zoom. Images in the flickr stream taken in 2008 used a Kodak Z1285 Zoom. Other images in stream taken in 2007 used a Kodak EasyShare C613 Zoom. John lilburne (talk) 12:15, 3 May 2012 (UTC)
- keep the flickr photo is identical, and photographer is identical. therefore the source is confirmed. what proof of source would you accept? why are you wasting time on this? Slowking4 (talk) 12:17, 4 May 2012 (UTC)
- Flickr is not the source, so its presence on Flickr doesn't prove anything. For what it is worth, Flickr might have copied the file from Wikipedia. I can't find the name of the first Wikipedia uploader in the logs ([1] only tells that the file was deleted, not that it was uploaded). Colin.faulkingham, who uploaded it to en:File:Apotheosis-of-saint-louis.jpg, is not necessarily the same person who uploaded it to en:File:Saint-louis-art-museum-horse.jpg. On the other hand, John lilburne's EXIF check above might indicate that Colin.faulkingham is the correct copyright holder. --Stefan4 (talk) 13:01, 4 May 2012 (UTC)
- "Flickr might have copied the file from Wikipedia". oh really. isn't much more likely the the same person uploaded the photo first to wikipedia, then to flickr? aren't we driving good faith uploaders to flickr by this kind of reasoning? i just had a discussion with a source talking about how they might want to upload their material to flickr or own website, rather than trust to the commons toxic environment. why you waste energy on calls close to the line rather than the ocean of no-brainers is beyond me. Slowking4⇔ †@1₭ 16:32, 4 May 2012 (UTC)
- Flickr is not the source, so its presence on Flickr doesn't prove anything. For what it is worth, Flickr might have copied the file from Wikipedia. I can't find the name of the first Wikipedia uploader in the logs ([1] only tells that the file was deleted, not that it was uploaded). Colin.faulkingham, who uploaded it to en:File:Apotheosis-of-saint-louis.jpg, is not necessarily the same person who uploaded it to en:File:Saint-louis-art-museum-horse.jpg. On the other hand, John lilburne's EXIF check above might indicate that Colin.faulkingham is the correct copyright holder. --Stefan4 (talk) 13:01, 4 May 2012 (UTC)
![[1]](https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special%3ALog&type=&user=&page=File%3ASaint-louis-art-museum-horse.jpg&year=&month=-1&tagfilter=&hide_patrol_log=1&hide_review_log=1){kind=link}
- Keep per slowking Sarah (talk) 23:03, 6 May 2012 (UTC)
Keep Flickr image was taken on June 20, 2004. en:File:Saint-louis-art-museum-horse.jpg was uploaded by w:en:User:Colin.faulkingham on June 22, 2004. ←fetchcomms 01:10, 12 July 2012 (UTC)
- What matters is Flickr date of upload, not Flickr date of photography. The date of photography should be the same everywhere since it comes from the EXIF in the photo. The image was uploaded to Flickr in 2005 which is later than 22 June 2004. --Stefan4 (talk) 18:46, 12 July 2012 (UTC)
Keep Never mind the Flickr dates, the uploader at Wikipedia uploaded several photos at en.wp with the same camera in the EXIF. I'm not understanding the suspicion in this case. Wknight94 talk 00:54, 23 July 2012 (UTC)
