Commons:Deletion requests/File:Steinbjorn.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.
Without description (for several years now) this image has no use or place here. Queeg (talk) 18:02, 16 September 2011 (UTC)
- Keep I believe that this is an unusual en:Swing (seat) made out of stone rather than wood or metal. I have attempted to contact the uploader before categorizing it this way. It might be usable at en:Playscapes, which is about playgrounds using natural materials. WhatamIdoing (talk) 16:21, 17 September 2011 (UTC)
- It never occurred to me to drill a hole into a rock and use it as a swing; please forgive my lack of imagination.... If you write a description and categorize it, I will certainly vote to keep it. Is there a "withdraw" in this process? -- Queeg (talk) 17:33, 17 September 2011 (UTC)
- It was the unusualness of it that originally caught my attention. I've added the cat and the description, and asked at another place on en.wiki to see whether anyone else knows more than I do. WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:45, 22 September 2011 (UTC)
- It never occurred to me to drill a hole into a rock and use it as a swing; please forgive my lack of imagination.... If you write a description and categorize it, I will certainly vote to keep it. Is there a "withdraw" in this process? -- Queeg (talk) 17:33, 17 September 2011 (UTC)
- Keep or Withdraw -- which is not a recommendation or encouragement (which is probably a more appropriate word) to actually use this as a template to create playground equipment. I think it would hurt small children, perhaps fatally, who might be playing with it or in the area; I think it could also hurt (not fatally, but damaged goods are damaged goods) especially grown men who might be playing with it or in the area (I don't want to make a diagram of forces and height and things that occur at this height -- I have seen far too many diagrams here lately). Then, the question of the reason to go through the trouble to drill a hole into a rock to make a plaything and is this as environmentally thoughtful as the good old fashion tire swing which -- nothing like rubber for being safe for the children and the tall enough males... -- Queeg (talk) 19:45, 22 September 2011 (UTC)
Kept: nominator withdrew request 99of9 (talk) 10:34, 23 September 2011 (UTC)
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.
No authorship information, unknown copyright situation. Jcb (talk) 12:45, 25 August 2017 (UTC)
Keep: {{Own assumed}}and{{Author assumed}}, until proven to be previously published (copyvio). 2001:2003:54FA:2F79:0:0:0:1 22:37, 25 August 2017 (UTC)- No, it works the other way round. There must be some evidence that this is not a copyvio. File has very low resolution and is the only upload of the user. There is no base to assume own work. Jcb (talk) 22:47, 25 August 2017 (UTC)
- My vote to keep stands, the EXIF information is available and matches closely to the upload date. I'm willing to assume good faith, considering the old upload date (when unstructured descriptions were common) and the uploader's claim of
{{PD-self}}. 2001:2003:54FA:2F79:0:0:0:1 23:14, 25 August 2017 (UTC) - If you can show a higher quality, freely licensed picture of the same subject on Commons, I'll consider voting to delete (but not on copyright grounds). 2001:2003:54FA:2F79:0:0:0:1 23:16, 25 August 2017 (UTC)
- Assuming good faith is of course not assuming random things. The uploaders 'claim' is not a claim at all. Those days, the 'PD-self' was inserted automatically if uploader left a checkmark in place. Uploader did not fill in authorship information. Jcb (talk) 23:20, 25 August 2017 (UTC)
- My vote to keep stands, the EXIF information is available and matches closely to the upload date. I'm willing to assume good faith, considering the old upload date (when unstructured descriptions were common) and the uploader's claim of
- No, it works the other way round. There must be some evidence that this is not a copyvio. File has very low resolution and is the only upload of the user. There is no base to assume own work. Jcb (talk) 22:47, 25 August 2017 (UTC)
Kept: per 2001:2003:54FA:2F79:0:0:0:1. File uploaded in 2008, so low resolution is possible. Moreover, I found no proofs of copyvio. Ruthven (msg) 09:54, 17 September 2017 (UTC)
