Commons:Deletion requests/File:Horses, Little Clovers Farm - geograph.org.uk - 1289544.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.
[1] [2]; "RE COMPLAINT, I WISH THIS PHOTO TO BE REMOVED! IT WAS TAKEN WITHOUT PERMISSION! IT ALSO SHOWS EXACTLY WHERE MY HORSES ARE KEPT AND HOW TO POTENTIALLY STEAL OR INJUIRE THEM, ONE HAS ALREADY BEEN PURPOSEFULLY INJURED! REMOVE IMMEDIATELY!" End quote.--Prosfilaes (talk) 10:16, 6 February 2012 (UTC)
Neutral I'm not stunningly impressed by the arguments given by the IP linked and quoted above. There's nothing really private in the photo; it hardly shows exactly where the horses are kept, nor shows anything that can't be seen by a casual passerby, much less someone with malicious intent. On the other hand, it's not in use, nor is it hard to replace.--Prosfilaes (talk) 10:20, 6 February 2012 (UTC)
- Neutral, too, but note that the image is geocoded. It also appears to have been removed at the source (geograph.org.uk). Lupo 10:50, 6 February 2012 (UTC)
- Neutral Per above. We could remove the geolocation info at least, though the IP hasn't really done anything to back up their claim. Ajraddatz (talk) 15:09, 6 February 2012 (UTC)
Keep unless more convincing arguments are put forth. As a matter of principle, we generally don't remove photos simply because some person of unconfirmed identity SHOUTS!!!!!! at us to do so, and doing so would set a bad precedence. Generally, there's no legal requirement to ask for permission to take photos of outdoor scenery including animals. By posting the photo to Geograph, the photographer did give permission to redistribute it, which is really the only permission we need. I also sincerely doubt that the hosting of this photo, with or without geographical coordinates, poses any threat to the horses. The idea that someone would browse Commons for horse photos, enter the coordinates of said photos into their GPS, and then travel to that location just to satisfy some urge to harm innocent animals seems, well, let's say far-fetched. Any low-life that would do that probably can't even spell GPS. —LX (talk, contribs) 20:05, 6 February 2012 (UTC)
- Neutral Resolution is so awful you can barely tell what breed the horses are. Yet some educational use may exist, e.g. for depicting a horse farm in this geographical region, so I am reluctant to call for out-of-scope deletion. While I sympathise with the original poster's plight, I can assure them that whatever injury their horse has sustained was almost certainly not a consequence of the availability of this photo. There are many similar photos of famous horses throughout the world who are doing just fine. Dcoetzee (talk) 22:25, 6 February 2012 (UTC)
- Weak delete. Not a particularly valuable photo, probably might as well remove as a courtesy. However, I'll emphatically state that we have absolutely no legal responsibility to do so. Photos like this - including geocoding - are absolutely routine, and the tone of the request is way out of line. - Jmabel ! talk 01:59, 7 February 2012 (UTC)
- I'd also add that I find the suggestion that someone looked through Wikipedia or the Commons for the geolocation of a horse to go out and deliberately injure the horse rather bizarre. - Jmabel ! talk 02:00, 7 February 2012 (UTC)
- Keep, per LX. Prof. Professorson (talk) 07:08, 15 February 2012 (UTC)
- Weak delete I would say courtesy delete because of very low resolution and because its very easy to replace. Amada44 talk to me 10:50, 15 February 2012 (UTC)
Kept: There is no evidence of any law being broken in the taking of this photo, nor is there any issue with copyright of the photo. Although not currently used, it is somewhat in scope as mentioned above. russavia (talk) 14:04, 15 February 2012 (UTC)
