Commons:Deletion requests/File:Dates on date palm.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.
Dubious own-work: small size Rohalamin (talk) 11:58, 14 June 2021 (UTC)
- You are doubtful of the "I, the copyright holder of this work" part of my upload? Really??? Anyway, the size of the photo was a combination of available camera pixels (they were not so big as today), cropping, and Wikipedia's limited resizing options at the time (once upon a time, one had to upload different sizes if you wanted thumbnails, etc). Stan Shebs (talk) 12:53, 14 June 2021 (UTC)
- Stan Shebs cropping with 600 pixels in width! OMG! You're a Katana, Stan! Rohalamin (talk) 15:53, 30 June 2021 (UTC)
Keep. Size by itself is irrelevant. --MarcoSwart (talk) 08:11, 30 June 2021 (UTC)- Keep. Come on, really? A claim that a file uploaded in 2005 is suspiciously small? -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 08:22, 30 June 2021 (UTC)
- Ikan Kekek, Agree but this camera supports pixel resolutions of 640x480, 1024x768, 1280x960 and 1600x1200 as written here and I was really curious that if s/he is the owner why didn't s/he upload the orginal version? Rohalamin (talk) 15:53, 30 June 2021 (UTC)
- Keep I don't understand the reason for this action. What is basis for the claim that uploader ownership is dubious? And, there are many smaller images on Commons. -- Jim Evans (talk) 12:56, 30 June 2021 (UTC)
- Ikan Kekek Thank you for your comment. Some details added but I think it could be better to upload the original version.Rohalamin (talk) 15:53, 30 June 2021 (UTC)
- Photos aren't supposed to be downsized on this site, but that's not a copyright issue nor is it a reason for deletion, right? Is there some obscure, unenforced policy of deleting photos smaller than the capacity of cameras that you can point to? -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 18:17, 30 June 2021 (UTC)
- Ikan Kekek Woops! I refered to you instead of Jim Evans in this line, wrongly. pardon me. Obscure policy? yeah yeah, a couple weaks ago I nominated this image but a moderator kept it based on the "User is in good standing" rule. Poor photographer, probably "The Mammoth" isn't avialabe in Kermanshah. such rules don't work over here in Iran. We need some changes in rules. That's what I think. Rohalamin (talk) 07:04, 1 July 2021 (UTC)
- Deletion is a severe sanction, and I don't think mere relatively small size, especially for a 16-year-old photo, is a sufficient reason. No cause for an apology, though, as your remark addressed my opinion as much as Jim's. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 07:09, 1 July 2021 (UTC)
- The work you pointed to, though, is really tiny and was uploaded 5 years after this one. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 07:11, 1 July 2021 (UTC)
- Agree that nature of deletion is a bit nasty to people but bear in mind that they are free to take photo themselves. Aren't they? They can take thier photos and upload their original works here and definitely there is no problem. They can even upload the works of other people BUT permision should be provided, clearly. That's what I'm saying. Undoubtedly we are here to protect of people's rights. Rohalamin (talk) 07:47, 1 July 2021 (UTC)
- If there were a reasonable basis for claiming that this is not original work, we'd be having an entirely different discussion. You haven't established a reasonable basis so far. Do you have any basis other than it being perhaps downsized? -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 23:46, 1 July 2021 (UTC)
- Aaammm... No. Rohalamin (talk) 10:33, 2 July 2021 (UTC)
- So please stop. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 03:25, 6 July 2021 (UTC)
- Aaammm... No. Rohalamin (talk) 10:33, 2 July 2021 (UTC)
- If there were a reasonable basis for claiming that this is not original work, we'd be having an entirely different discussion. You haven't established a reasonable basis so far. Do you have any basis other than it being perhaps downsized? -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 23:46, 1 July 2021 (UTC)
- Agree that nature of deletion is a bit nasty to people but bear in mind that they are free to take photo themselves. Aren't they? They can take thier photos and upload their original works here and definitely there is no problem. They can even upload the works of other people BUT permision should be provided, clearly. That's what I'm saying. Undoubtedly we are here to protect of people's rights. Rohalamin (talk) 07:47, 1 July 2021 (UTC)
- The work you pointed to, though, is really tiny and was uploaded 5 years after this one. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 07:11, 1 July 2021 (UTC)
- Deletion is a severe sanction, and I don't think mere relatively small size, especially for a 16-year-old photo, is a sufficient reason. No cause for an apology, though, as your remark addressed my opinion as much as Jim's. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 07:09, 1 July 2021 (UTC)
- Ikan Kekek Woops! I refered to you instead of Jim Evans in this line, wrongly. pardon me. Obscure policy? yeah yeah, a couple weaks ago I nominated this image but a moderator kept it based on the "User is in good standing" rule. Poor photographer, probably "The Mammoth" isn't avialabe in Kermanshah. such rules don't work over here in Iran. We need some changes in rules. That's what I think. Rohalamin (talk) 07:04, 1 July 2021 (UTC)
- Photos aren't supposed to be downsized on this site, but that's not a copyright issue nor is it a reason for deletion, right? Is there some obscure, unenforced policy of deleting photos smaller than the capacity of cameras that you can point to? -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 18:17, 30 June 2021 (UTC)
- Ikan Kekek Thank you for your comment. Some details added but I think it could be better to upload the original version.Rohalamin (talk) 15:53, 30 June 2021 (UTC)
- Keep. We don't apply photo size assumptions of today to photographs shot 15 years ago. The owner of a photo can upload itin any size s/he wishes. If the camera used shoots at sizes different from the size uploaded, that doesn't preclude the owner --for whatever reason-- to manipulate the photo and upload it at a different size than the original. Such manipulation isn't grounds for a delete based on a presumption of copyvio. Mercy11 (talk) 03:35, 11 July 2021 (UTC)
Kept: no valid reason for deletion. --4nn1l2 (talk) 09:17, 25 July 2021 (UTC)
