(Go: >> BACK << -|- >> HOME <<)
Wikimedia Commons

Commons:Deletion requests/File:1990 Vauxhall Astra LX 1.4 Front.jpg

< Commons:Deletion requests
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:1990 Vauxhall Astra LX 1.4 Front.jpg

edit

In Ticket:2021122110006777, the owner of the vehicle has requested for the images to be removed; Ankry responded by blurring the license plates. There was disagreement at Special:PermaLink/616056696#Redacting of number plate and deleting the other versions over whether this request should be granted, so I am opening this DR to determine whether the previous versions of the images should be revision-deleted. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 20:38, 23 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

 Neutral Davey wanted me to comment. On the one side, license plate is not private or sensitive information, because it is obligatory to show license plate in traffic. License plate cannot violate anybody's privacy. On the other side, license plate is not so important for the photos and if the car owner bothered to send VRT request to remove it, then I'm OK with courtesy deleting it. Taivo (talk) 20:51, 23 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Un-revdel - I can agree to a certain extent that the licence plate isn't important however IMHO there's not really any valid reason to hide neither - The photograph wasn't taken on a driveway or outside their house and no personal information is included within the image so IMHO it should be included.
At the very least half of the registration (H868) should be included to sort of show how it looks but at the same time still respecting the owners request.
IMHO the whole thing should remain but I can settle with half. –Davey2010Talk 21:43, 23 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I don't want it deleted! I just want it restore just so I can blank the number plate myself! It was in a public place, where any cars at, I refuse for this to be deleted, even if the owner of the car insisted, it does not break any UK privacy laws whatsoever. Edit: Sorry I panicked and thought the whole image was proposed to be deleted. It would be great if it was un-revdel and restore the original picture. If we can't come to that conclusion then please restore it so I can do the edit myself.--Vauxford (talk) 22:04, 23 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed, I mean without sounding nasty if you don't want your rare vehicle photographed then don't take it out and certainly don't take it to car events. –Davey2010Talk 23:05, 23 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Comment Can we be sure that it was the car owner and not a troll? I have had so called owners try to do the same in the past (cars located in public spaces, not private locations [e.g. homes]) but only to find out it was trolls. Even then as Taivo states, number/license plates are not private. I think it should be un-rev del and it should be left to the uploader if they wish to block the plate. Bidgee (talk) 22:45, 23 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • You can only rely for VRT users experience in this matter. In my opinion, this request is from the actual car owner and I see no reason why we should reject revision deletion per courtesy. The image does not seem to be used in a context where the license number matters (well it does not seem to be used at all) nor the license number seems to me the main or meaningfull subject of the image. The fact that the car was presented on a public show is for courtesy deletion irrelevant. My opinion is still  Delete. Ankry (talk) 19:10, 25 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Delete: The car owner has asked for deletion of something which we know is not of importance. If it is not a big deal, then why should the owner's request be rejected? Is there any valid reason for this? Keeping the files only because and they don't violate anybody's privacy does not seem fair enough to my eyes. --Mhhossein talk 17:10, 26 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]


  •  Comment Mhhossein Ankry I'm a bit confused. Are you voting for the entire image to be deleted or the revision? If you voting for the former, I'm 100% against that, that car was photographed in a public space at a car show! Just because the apparent owner personally requested it to be removed, doesn't mean it should be fulfilled. If he that concerned he shouldn't of took the car to the show in the first place! --Vauxford (talk) 15:42, 27 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I was actually suggesting to remove the revisions containing the plate number. --Mhhossein talk 15:47, 27 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Vauxford: --Mhhossein talk 15:59, 27 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Mhhossein Sorry if I came across as defensive, just making sure. Now that the revisions are unhidden, I can make properly blank the plates out myself. So it's fine if the original revision ended up deleted. Thank you Davey2010 for your revision of the image. Vauxford (talk) 16:07, 27 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Revdel all versions showing any of the number plate. It is irresponsible to make it easy for criminals to escape justice in this way. Any publication of a UK car with its valid number plate legible could lead to serious problems for the owner of the car. In the UK criminals use cloned number plates when committing crimes to avoid being traced via ANPR, and the legitimate owner of the plate may be arrested, fined or otherwise seriously inconvenienced until they can prove they were not involved in the crime. They will then have the inconvenience and expense of re-registering their car to get another plate. See here & here for a recent example of criminals using cloned plates. -- DeFacto (talk). 21:20, 27 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    @DeFacto, I disagree that it's irresponsible, Any criminal can clone any vehicle without Commons' help - At the end of the day we're a media repository site and so what people chose to do with the images here is up to them - I would indeed hope there's nothing illegally done with these but we will never know. So IMHO whilst a valid concern it's not entirely relevant here as such. –Davey2010Talk 21:30, 27 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    @DeFacto If that the case, then 25% of my photos should be revdel as well. It stupid, most of my uploads showing the plates are classic cars that been taken to show after show for years and will end up on many websites and social media such as Facebook, Instagram, Flickr etc. Like I said, if the owner is that bothered of their car being on the Internet then they shouldn't take it to public shows in the first place. Vauxford (talk) 22:39, 27 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    @Vauxford, each publication of a car with it's number plate showing adds to the probability of something bad being done with that information. Why keep the photos with the legible plates when you've already uploaded photos with the plates disguised? We only need to delete the revisions with the legible plates. -- DeFacto (talk). 00:02, 28 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Is there a Commons policy that states license/number plates must be blanked? Bidgee (talk) 00:57, 28 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    @Davey2010, would you upload photos of people's credit cards? There is no need to keep the photos with the number plate showing when the same photos are available with it blurred or blanked or disguised in some other way. -- DeFacto (talk). 23:57, 27 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Credit cards are not the same as license/number plates. Bidgee (talk) 00:57, 28 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    @DeFacto That is a terrible comparison! If you got someone credit card/debit card, yes you can buy stuff online using it. A number plate, unless you're the police you cannot get any form of personal info from it. I demonstrated this in a previous DR. The average joe wouldn't have the machine or resources to clone plates so the chances of that ever happening is next to nothing. Vauxford (talk) 14:11, 28 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    @Vauxford, you don't need a machine to get a number plate made, just the will. As a last resort you can get them in 24 hours from the net. And with someone else's number plate you can park anywhere you want, use toll roads and bridges free of charge, break the speed limit anywhere and by as much as you want, jump red lights with impunity, rob people, rob banks, run people over, ... And the owner of the plate will be the one that gets all the hassle.
    On the other hand, if the images with plates showing are revdel'd that will keep everyone happy. What's the problem with that? -- DeFacto (talk). 15:33, 28 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    @DeFacto I have no problem with the DR now because I blanked the number plate properly. It just I find your views of number plate irrational. Yes, the stuff you say could happen but the chances of actually happening is extremely low. Even if it does happen, the Commons holds no responsibility. Vauxford (talk) 15:59, 28 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

✓ Done Blanked then numberplate on both images which I'm satisfied with and hopefully should satisfied the involved users and the car owner. --Vauxford (talk) 16:38, 27 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Vauxford: But the older versions are still showing the plate number. --Mhhossein talk 04:24, 29 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Mhhossein I know, I'm just waiting until an admin close the DR. --Vauxford (talk) 04:45, 29 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Revdel nonblanked number plates which contain the complete original plate number. I don't see any educational value in keeping the plate, so no reason to deny the owner's request. -M.nelson (talk) 22:22, 5 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@M.nelson: On the contrary. Between 1963 and 1999 British number plates have had a alpha-character to denote the year of registration of the vehicle. Since 2000, two numeric characters have been used. The car in question is an "H-Reg" car, so it was registerd between August 1990 and July 1991. (See en:Vehicle_registration_plates_of_the_United_Kingdom). I would therefore advocate mixing the characters on the registraion plate up or replacing some of the characters with other characters, keeping the "H" and thereby creating an annonymous, but valid "H" registration. A note should be left to this effect. where it is and leaving a note to this effect in the vehicle description. The UK Government website allows anybody to check the status of anby car that is currently regsitered, so the editor can check whether or not the "new" number-plate is genuinely fictitious. Martinvl (talk) 16:22, 8 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I see, thank you. I don't oppose trimming the number or mixing portions of the plate number up, so have updated my comment to specifically recommend revdel'ing the "complete" plate number (within reason - I don't think erasing or changing a single character would be sufficient). -M.nelson (talk) 17:21, 8 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Martinvl, you say "The car in question is an "H-Reg" car, so it was registerd between August 1990 and July 1991", that's not necessarily true. A car can be given any available registration that doesn't suggest it's newer than it really is. So an available "H" plate can be used on any car first registered on or after 1 August 1990 (see here under 'Eligability'). -- DeFacto (talk). 00:04, 9 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@DeFacto: Technically you are correct, so to clarify my position, if a numberplate is "annonymised", the year letter or year numbers should be retained if they are the default year-characters for the depicted vehicle. Martinvl (talk) 15:47, 9 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
It is true, you can look it up on both the DVLA here, and the exact date here. As you can see, the car was registered on 13th August 1990. Vauxford (talk) 22:29, 13 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Kept: the files, hid all versions which show the license plate number. --Rosenzweig τ 13:17, 11 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Commons:Deletion_requests/File:1990_Vauxhall_Astra_LX_1.4_Front.jpg&oldid=704988985"