Commons:Deletion requests/File:HighRezButNeedsWork - Khadr AA Care.jpg

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.

File:HighRezButNeedsWork_-_Khadr_AA_Care.jpg

Valid source is missing: "US Army" is not sufficient High Contrast (talk) 20:31, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

Speedy Keep, possible bad-faith nomination by a user who suddenly nominated every image in a category for deletion saying either it had a crappy source or copyright, despite every single image being taken by a soldier in commission of his duties. It does not demand that the 19th SPECIAL FORCES group list the proper name of its operators, it is taken by a member of the 19th SFG - that is enough. The image was entered as evidence in the Guantanamo hearing by the Department of Defence who listed it as taken by soldiers at the scene.

Note also that a nearly-identical deletion request was made in March 2008 when the photo was first uploaded, Commons:Deletion requests/Image:Omar Khadr getting battlefield first aid.jpg and closed as a "Keep" with consensus being that it was indeed a photograph by a US Soldier in commission of his duties, exactly as claimed on Wiki, and in all sources that have reprinted it. Note also the discussions that followed on User talk:Zscout370/Archive3 where the deleting administrator was chided for deleting the files despite them having valid copyright and source information, and the files were all restored. Sherurcij (talk) 21:39, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

This is no "bad-faith nomination". There are simply obvious image source problems: As Commons:Licensing tells us: If the uploader is the author, this should be stated explicitly. (e.g. "Created by uploader", "Self-made", "Own work", etc.) Otherwise, please include a web link or a citation if possible. --High Contrast (talk) 22:15, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

Here is a source, Williams, Carol J. LOS ANGELES TIMES, "A child soldier or just a child?", December 27, 2008, note that it clearly says "The photographs taken by U.S. soldiers as they stormed the bombed-out compound".

Additionally, w:Layne Morris, the one 19th SFG member to publicly speak about being in the firefight, talks about taking photographs in the article McLeon, Kagan. National Post, "One U.S. soldier was killed and four others injured in a fierce gun battle in a remote village in Afghanistan."

And finally, you can read the After-Action Report filed by the US military at s:OC-1 CITF witness report, where you'll notice the 19th SFG says "During this interview, - drew several sketches to depict the landscape, surroundings, and events. - also provided copies of pictures taken on 27 July 02 at the compound. He believed these photographs were taken by members of the 19th SFG and were given to him in the immediate days following this event."

Now, if your only interest was truly in determining these photographs were taken by members of the 19th SFG and are public domain, you should be satisfied. But since I imagine there may be some other minor reason in the back of your mind you want to see these photographs removed, I'm going to guess you'll keep arguing.

Sherurcij (talk) 22:50, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

 Keep per User:Sherurcij --Simonxag (talk) 21:58, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

 Keep I too am troubled by this nomination. I think it is regretable that the nominator of [1], [2], [3], [4], [5], [6], [7], [8], [9], [10], [11], [12] didn't review OC-1 CITF witness report prior to making these nominations. All of the photos are listed in OC-1 CITF witness report. Geo Swan (talk) 00:43, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

---

Kept. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 00:55, 10 November 2009 (UTC)