Commons:Deletion requests/File:Corvo.png

From Wikimedia Commons, the free media repository
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.

There is no source. Tm deleted the nomination twice, but did not add a source. Castillo blanco (talk) 07:30, 11 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  •  Keep special:permalink/3360255: Ritad av sv:Användare:Chrizz. GFDL.--Roy17 (talk) 13:32, 11 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Keep per COM:GOF. -- (talk) 17:55, 11 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Keep There is no source??? Please read properly, as stated in file. The source is clearly marked "Originally from sv.wikipedia; description page is (was) here * 25 september 2005 kl. 09.42 Chrizz 304×478 (11 561 bytes) (Karta över ön sv:Corvo i sv:Azorerna. Ritad av sv:Användare:Chrizz. {{GFDL}})". Source from sv.wikipedia, uploaded in 25 September 2005, by Chrizz. "Ritad av" i.e. drawn by Chrizz, as stated in the file description. What are the allegation that you Castillo blanco or Jcb have to say that this file has no source? Please provide evidence, if you have any evidence. Tm (talk) 22:09, 11 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • What makes you believe that the uploader drew this entirely from scratch? No, they may have modified it, but the map must have been copied from somewhere else. Castillo blanco (talk) 06:13, 12 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
      • Very few files that come up for deletion review are old enough to fall under GOF. The expression used in GOF is "real doubt", and a sensible way of interpreting that, and the background of GOF, is that though COM:PRP applies, we expect a rationale for deletion to be more than hypotheticals. Effectively the burden of proof is on your shoulders, if you wish to pursue this deletion, then rather than speculating that Chrizz might have copied the file and mistakenly made a claim of own work, you should ask the uploader as GOF recommends, or failing that, do some analysis to see if you can find a map that this image could have been derived from. Having examined Chrizz's account, though they stopped using that account, it is connected to another account which appears to be their real name (which I will not quote here as they might now wish to stay anonymous and retired). If they are still around the Wikiverse, possibly using a different pseudonymous account, they may help out with a reply. My own research stops here, as I do not believe this is a good use of volunteer time. -- (talk) 10:09, 12 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Another Chrizz’s work
        •  Comment Castillo blanco i asked for hard evidence as it was you that opened this DR. Instead you make only assumptions. He have a statement of "Ritad av sv:Användare:Chrizz" that says that he drew this map and we don’t have any reason i.e. evidence to doubt. AKA Commons:AGF. You merely have phrases like "they may have modified it" or "the map must have been copied". Again, what evdences have you to support your assumption that the uploader didn't drew this entirely from scratch? Find a genuine original source (and i doubt) or until then your assumptions are only that, assumptions. Find hard evidence and then this DR might have a different outcome. Tm (talk) 21:17, 12 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Keep – no legitimate pretext. Misjudged action by Castillo blanco—can’t realize that the Commons uploader merely transferred the file from Wikipedia—and procedural quibbles by Jcb possibly motivated of antipathy towards Tm. The reasoning by the latter had to be endorsed by the Commons administration, not overturned. Incnis Mrsi (talk) 09:31, 12 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Delete - this is neither own work nor GOF. Please see COM:DW. In this case the source of the map is not given, so that we don't know anything about it's copyright situation. GOF is not an excuse to ignore all copyright issues of anything uploaded before 2007. Jcb (talk) 15:46, 12 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Uploaded "25 september 2005", so GOF applies. If this is a derived work, where is the evidence it was derived from a copyrighted work? -- (talk) 15:51, 12 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Actually I do not. How does GOF not apply to this file? -- (talk) 15:55, 12 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
"Prior to 8 January 2006, it was only required that the file be properly licensed and attributed" - attribution is missing - Jcb (talk) 16:22, 12 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The attribution is perfectly clear. "Ritad av sv:Användare:Chrizz" means that Chrizz was the artist. Under GOF, we need some evidence to overturn that attribution, not hypothetical doubt. -- (talk) 16:53, 12 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Jcb: attribution for what, the geographical position of the shoreline and roads? They are hopefully PD, and the map design matches another Chrizz’s drawing shown by me. As for the airplane pictogram… who does seriously deem that this item is worth any negative action on the whole image? First of all, try to show who may be rights holder for the airplane, if it is not in public domain. Incnis Mrsi (talk) 16:56, 12 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Jcb, why is it not possible to draw this map? All simple curves, monochrome fills, no gradients. Only the airport logo is a bit more complex. Everything could be drawn with mspaint and a mouse.--Roy17 (talk) 16:24, 12 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Try starting from any map found in Category:SVG maps and tracing its origin, you will end up with some "own work". Are you gonna DR them for DW too?--Roy17 (talk) 16:36, 12 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
You would be surprised how many maps do have a valid free source (e.g. CIA maps). Not everything what the Wikimedians did back in 2005/2006 was bad. Jcb (talk) 16:44, 12 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Nope. I am more surprised by your underestimate of users' mapping skills. Have you tried as I proposed tracing some SVG's? I tried a handful and all ended up at own work. I still have my tabs open and might as well list some here.
--Roy17 (talk) 16:53, 12 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Kept: per discussion. Not a single shred of evidence of a derivative work. --xplicit 05:02, 24 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]