Commons:Deletion requests/File:Jens Maier.png
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.
Changed my mind:
- Image is in now way neutral (it first was used by the depicted person and therefore could be interpreted as support).
- It is of poor quality compared to File:Jens Maier, ex-MdB.jpg, which could work as a replacement.
Therefore it seems out of scope. Habitator terrae 🌍 19:27, 5 August 2023 (UTC)
- I figured the 90s/MS Paint/Resopal - vibe was intentional? I can assure you that his use of this photo will not be interpreted as support by anyone with taste.
- Bot I guess we can do without so I’d suggest respecting the wish and deleting. Karl Oblique (talk) 19:45, 5 August 2023 (UTC)
Furthermore, in retrospect, the license reviewed permission, seems to me correct, but not gold standard. Habitator terrae 🌍 19:32, 5 August 2023 (UTC)
- Speedy keep COM:INUSE and passed copyright review. I don't see what else there is to discuss. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 02:35, 6 August 2023 (UTC)
- Of course, but "Maier, Bild: Hermine Poschmann / Lizenz: https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0" (translation: "Maier, Picture: Hermine Poschmann / License: https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0") could leave doubts open wether the license only was indented for the (copyleft-)picture of Hermine Poschmann (the boat) in the background. That's what I meant with "not gold standard". Still the copyright review also still seems correct to me, at least with German AGB-law. Habitator terrae 🌍 13:05, 6 August 2023 (UTC)
- OK, but you said it seems out of scope, and a file that's in use is by definition in scope. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 17:47, 6 August 2023 (UTC)
- Yes, to be truthful, I was only checking my old uploads, and wanted it deleted especially because of the "not gold standard"-argument. But as this still isn't a copyvio, I thought the "out of scope"-argument would be better. Habitator terrae 🌍 19:11, 6 August 2023 (UTC)
- OK, but you said it seems out of scope, and a file that's in use is by definition in scope. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 17:47, 6 August 2023 (UTC)
- Of course, but "Maier, Bild: Hermine Poschmann / Lizenz: https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0" (translation: "Maier, Picture: Hermine Poschmann / License: https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0") could leave doubts open wether the license only was indented for the (copyleft-)picture of Hermine Poschmann (the boat) in the background. That's what I meant with "not gold standard". Still the copyright review also still seems correct to me, at least with German AGB-law. Habitator terrae 🌍 13:05, 6 August 2023 (UTC)
Kept: In use, license reviewed. --Yann (talk) 22:52, 12 November 2023 (UTC)