Commons:Deletion requests/Files uploaded by Idelvix
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.
No or different EXIF, low-res, can be found elsewhere, unlikely to be own work.
- File:Beautiful-Physalis.jpg
- File:Rambutan Pollinisation.png
- File:Tomato health benefits.jpg
- File:Tomatoes(1).jpg
- File:Tomato-health-benefits(1).jpg
Thibaut120094 (talk) 21:13, 6 September 2016 (UTC)
- Comment: Not own work indeed:
- File:Beautiful-Physalis.jpg was published there in 2014 by cocoparisienne under CC0. If that publication was valid, and inasmuch as the uploader to Commons is claiming authorship, it's a plagiarism, but at least it has the correct status tag CC0.
- File:Rambutan Pollinisation.png looks like a montage making use of a photograph published there in February, 2016 by domeckopol under CC0. If that publication was valid, and inasmuch as the uploader to Commons is claiming authorship, it's a plagiarism, but at least it has the correct status tag CC0 for this part of the montage. As a montage without being identified as such, it's a forgery.
- File:Tomato health benefits.jpg actually has some data. It was published there last month by condesign under CC0. The status of the other part of the montage is unknown. If that publication was valid, and inasmuch as the uploader to Commons is claiming authorship, it's a plagiarism, but at least it has the correct status tag CC0.
- File:Tomatoes(1).jpg was published there last month by JaStra under CC0. If that publication was valid, and inasmuch as the uploader to Commons is claiming authorship, it's a plagiarism, but at least it has the correct status tag CC0.
- File:Tomato-health-benefits(1).jpg actually has some data. It was published there last month by Lucky2013 under CC0. If that publication was valid, and inasmuch as the uploader to Commons is claiming authorship, it's a plagiarism, but at least it has the correct status tag CC0.
Deleted: source site is based on user contributions. It's doubtful whether we can trust the CC0 there. --Jcb (talk) 16:08, 13 September 2016 (UTC)