Commons:Deletion requests/File:Nude woman in shower.jpg

From Wikimedia Commons, the free media repository
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.

Low res and lack of metadata make me suspect a copyvio. -mattbuck (Talk) 22:14, 22 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Or because it was taken with a cell phone and copied into different files in my personal archives multiple times? --Brow276 (talk) 23:15, 22 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm, cell phones from 2010 would very likely write EXIF data and by digital copying EXIF data don't get simply lost. --Túrelio (talk) 08:38, 23 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Not used now doesn't mean it won't be used in the future. This isn't pornography. --Brow276 (talk) 07:43, 23 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

hi yikrazuul; i see we're back to the same old arguement:
claimed copyvio has not been proven in ANY of these 3 cases; suspicion is not proof, & it is bad form to use unfounded allegations in stating your position, especially when it involves accusing the motives of another user. you should review the basic wikimedia principle of "assume good faith", before writing such things; on every "porn-deletion" you chose to become involved with.
Lx 121 (talk) 18:10, 23 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
 Keep; request more info/details from uploader. "suspicion is not proof"; if we applied "suspected copyvio", therefore delete, based on the criteria cited, then there are a few hundred-thousand OTHER files on commons, that have to be removed
also, disagree; image fits scope @ commons. nominator went "on a spree" deleting every file uploader has provided, with same basic rationale "suspect copyvio, file has no value" Lx 121 (talk) 18:10, 23 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: Highly likely not the own work of the uploader: per COM:PRP High Contrast (talk) 09:36, 29 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]