Commons:Deletion requests/File:Centre - may 01.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.
Orphaned, Low Quality, used in a now deleted advert on en.wikipedia, likely copyrighted, no foreseeable use. FASTILY (TALK) 17:59, 12 July 2010 (UTC)
- With a little more information on location and purpose of the building and after a rename to a meaningful filename - and under the agf assumption that it is indeed "own work" - this image worth keeping. Without that information not. --Martin H. (talk) 18:50, 12 July 2010 (UTC)
It's the Peace Centre in Warrington: see uploader's contributions and File:Peace Centre, Warrington - geograph.org.uk - 21493.jpg. And I don't see why it should be a copyvio. Trycatch (talk) 22:57, 12 July 2010 (UTC)Keep
- Thanks for that information, I will add it. I wrote that it is an AFG assumption by the fact that maybe not a person by the (nick)name of Hadianm is the author and copyright holder but an organization and so an attribution with "(C) Hadianm" wouldnt be satisfying for the real copyright holder and does not meat the true source and author. See here (same image, compare the branches of the tree in front). If marketing people try to add stuff to Wikipedia they often make wrong that they simply claim something "own work" and attribute the authorship to their (nick)name instead of the correct copyright holder - e.g. the company they are working for. --Martin H. (talk) 00:14, 13 July 2010 (UTC)
- Most blatant adverts on en.wikipedia tend to contain copyvios. AGF all you like, but I'm just pointing out a trend. -FASTILY (TALK) 19:06, 13 July 2010 (UTC)
- Great find by Martin H. Certainly it requires an OTRS. Trycatch (talk) 08:18, 19 July 2010 (UTC)
- Most blatant adverts on en.wikipedia tend to contain copyvios. AGF all you like, but I'm just pointing out a trend. -FASTILY (TALK) 19:06, 13 July 2010 (UTC)
- Thanks for that information, I will add it. I wrote that it is an AFG assumption by the fact that maybe not a person by the (nick)name of Hadianm is the author and copyright holder but an organization and so an attribution with "(C) Hadianm" wouldnt be satisfying for the real copyright holder and does not meat the true source and author. See here (same image, compare the branches of the tree in front). If marketing people try to add stuff to Wikipedia they often make wrong that they simply claim something "own work" and attribute the authorship to their (nick)name instead of the correct copyright holder - e.g. the company they are working for. --Martin H. (talk) 00:14, 13 July 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Mbdortmund (talk) 12:25, 19 July 2010 (UTC)