Commons:Deletion requests/File:Karl-Christoph Kuhn.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:Karl-Christoph Kuhn.jpg

out of project scope – irrelevant person, non-descriptive file name axp_de^Hello! 00:41, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

• Keep and rename file is in use at de:Karl-Christoph Kuhn, which tends to suggest that the file is not outside project scope and that the person is not "irrelevant". Bencherlite (talk) 12:58, 9 March 2011 (UTC)
  • The de-wp article is not relevant according to de:WP:RK, so this article is very likely to be deleted soon! axp_de^Hello! 17:31, 10 March 2011 (UTC)
    • Striking my original views as the file has been renamed, and the original invalid argument in favour of deletion (out of scope) has been overtaken by the "no permission" argument, upon which I have no particular view. Bencherlite (talk) 16:34, 15 March 2011 (UTC)
•  Delete I don't think this image is out of scope, but I think it's a copyvio. I don't believe that this image was uploaded by the author. I think it was a person claiming to be the author. Additionally the image is probably copyrighted by the publisher.--ARTEST4ECHO ^talk 15:38, 9 March 2011 (UTC)
•  Keep. The person depicted is also the photographer, so the license tag is valid. And the deletion discussion on de.wp seems to be in favor of keeping. -- Prince Kassad (talk) 22:40, 10 March 2011 (UTC)
• File renamed,  Keep at caused above. Alkab (talk) 12:18, 12 March 2011 (UTC)
• Update. I have found both the images (File:Paß.jpg and File:Karl-Christoph Kuhn.jpg) that User:Karl-Christoph Kuhn uploaded at his blog (File:Paß.jpg here and File:Karl-Christoph Kuhn.jpg here. I find it highly peculiar that User:Karl-Christoph Kuhn came along, registered uploaded two images from the same website and didn't make a single other contributions. This is a case of " It looks like a duck to me". I this is a ”Single Purpose account" created only to upload copyrighted image so both images should be deleted. Since the deletion tag “{{No permission since}} reads "This also applies if you are the author yourself.", and the source is claiming to be the "author", an Commons:OTRS ticket is required. Therefore I have tagged it as "No Permission. --ARTEST4ECHO ^talk 17:27, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

  Note: Incoming, as of now incomplete permission (but that might change during the day). --Guandalug 08:20, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

---

Deleted: It is necessary to err on the side of caution with such files. There is no evidence the uploader is in fact the subject of the photo, and as permission has not been ascertained without a shred of doubt, it is necessary to delete this file as a potential copyright violation. I make this decision without prejudice if suitable permission and verification can be ascertained in the future without any doubt. russavia (talk) 12:51, 23 March 2011 (UTC)