Commons:Deletion requests/File:Suddenly shirtless (5893312732).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:Suddenly shirtless (5893312732).jpg

User:russavia just added another coyrighted image. He/She is known for doing that. (Source : https://www.flickr.com/photos/quinnanya/5893312732/ ) Nucleos (talk) 10:09, 26 May 2015 (UTC)

 Keep This is CC-by-sa licensed on Flickr today. It was presumably licensed as such in 2012, when Flickrbot checked it. So why should this be deleted as copyvio, other than as sheer persecution of Russavia? Andy Dingley (talk) 10:30, 26 May 2015 (UTC)

•  Keep Anyone using the DR process for defamation and hostile disruption should be blocked. Trolling at its worst. --Fæ (talk) 10:33, 26 May 2015 (UTC)
•  Comment I don't see any copyright issues here. The file was reviewed by the upload bot when the file was uploaded as cc-by-sa-2.0, and the upload bot was as far as I know programmed so that it never would upload files with bogus copyright information. The file is also listed as cc-by-sa-2.0 today. No valid reason for deletion given. --Stefan4 (talk) 15:03, 26 May 2015 (UTC)
•  Keep Quite nonsensical DR. License, revision and Flickr page are clear, and I can't see anything in EXIF data that could cast a doubt.--Pere prlpz (talk) 17:46, 26 May 2015 (UTC)
•  Keep Hi there, I'm the photographer (I saw this paged linked from my Flickr stats page today), and I wanted to confirm that the stated license is accurate as it appears here and on the Flickr page. --Quinnanya (talk) 04:00, 27 May 2015 (UTC)
• I do not care much about russavia, and have been wrong to declare this image was not well licensed, I apologize. Still, the case is not that clear: I do not see any indication that the torso here belongs to a body who accepts to be on Wikipedia. (Quinnanya should give at least his oral testimony that it is the case.) AND why one more torso here? We have [1] already full of them? (But I see there is no rule on Commons for such a debate -- so let us forget this debate -- and focus on the en:Model_release.) Nucleos (talk) 14:58, 27 May 2015 (UTC)

"I do not care much about russavia," Please, don't take us for fools. You have a handful of edits at Commons, yet you pop up with a deletion rationale of, "User:russavia just added another coyrighted image. He/She is known for doing that."

As to the subject here, then it's a shot of some stage show in Las Vegas. If the chap involved is such a blushing violet he doesn't wish to be photographed, perhaps he ought to consider a less showbiz career? Andy Dingley (talk) 15:25, 27 May 2015 (UTC)

It seems I have been on Wikipedia projects longer than you, but I am indeed less active than you are. I repeat: I do not care about russalvia, I discovered his/her name when I stumbled on the image. THEN, I got to know this user had an erratic behaviour on Wikimedia. And I am rather certain I won't inquire much more into what he/she has uploaded to Wikimedia, since it seems a crime to get interested into that... plus i really do not care.

As to the subject here, I was deeply shocked to see that in the US this seems to be legal, as mentionned in this article [2]. In France, this is just impossible to shoot someone in the street without any consent and post it on Wikipedia. It seems in the US, you can just do that. No wonder the looks are so important over there. Thus, this alleviates the case here and my concerns, as no legal pursuit can be made against Wikimedia, and I withdraw myself from this DR, with my renewed apologies. Nucleos (talk) 15:49, 27 May 2015 (UTC)

---

Kept: INeverCry 00:37, 2 June 2015 (UTC)