Commons:Deletion requests/File:Leon Danaila.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:Leon Danaila.jpg

This file was initially tagged by Patrick Rogel as Copyvio (copyvio) and the most recent rationale was: https://www.goodreads.com/author/show/3044016.Leon_D_n_il_ However, since goodreads is also a user-generated website and the text is copied from Wikipedia, it seems unlikely that we copied it from there. Rather, the opposite is true. Strainu (talk) 13:12, 12 July 2019 (UTC)

 Keep Per nomination + tineye and google image do not show this image elsewhere.--Strainu (talk) 13:14, 12 July 2019 (UTC)

@Strainu: First, it's untrue. Second, I'm sure the uploader will be able to provide a full resolution image with all the metadata. --Patrick Rogel (talk) 13:47, 12 July 2019 (UTC)

6 results, 3 on Wikimedia, 2 on Goodreads, 1 on a fake website that redirects to porn. I stand by my point.--Strainu (talk) 14:15, 12 July 2019 (UTC)

• Comment: goodreads.com, and similar websites that copy images from the internet without crediting sources and authors, are completely worthless and useless for a speedy deletion rationale. Commons original photographers are aware that goodreads.com and other such websites copy thousands of images from Commons without attribution. (I, for one, know that they copied several of my original photographs from Commons, without mentioning attribution, license, or source). I'm not blaming their website as such. They basically have the same problem we have on Commons with users uploading copyvios. Although they don't seems to actively care about it. Anyway, the result is that a link to an unsourced image on this website is useless as a rationale for a request. Strainu is right that the goodreads.com image was probably copied from Commons. The speedy request was rightly denied as not having a credible rationale. It is unfortunate that the speedy nominator still doesn't make better researched and better documented deletion requests. Aiming for a huge quantity of deletion requests over their quality is not a good thing. However, an ordinary deletion discussion may be proper if there's a doubt about the image for some good reason, which should be specified. In this case, a quick and superficial internet search shows that the image looks like it might have been one in a series of photos from the same session, where the subject wears the same clothes in various poses in the same office. It is indeed possible that the Commons image was copied from some external source. I'm not sure if that would be enough for a PRP deletion. So, I'm not suggesting a keep nor a delete. Someone who would be motivated to make a deletion request about this image could do a deeper research and might arrive at a conclusion. -- Asclepias (talk) 18:45, 12 July 2019 (UTC)

 Delete photo of photo, DW no source.--Roy17 (talk) 17:21, 24 July 2019 (UTC)

 Keep Per nomination.Ionutzmovie (talk) 02:54, 28 September 2019 (UTC)

---

Deleted: per Roy17. The original speedy deletion rationale is invalid. This Goodreads mostly took the image from Commons. But it's clearly a scan or photo of a photo. Given the contributions of the uploader, a copyright violation is fairly likely, at least per the COM:PCP. --Sebari – aka Srittau (talk) 12:58, 24 November 2019 (UTC)