Commons:Deletion requests/File:Kingdom of Galicia.png
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.
DW rather than own work. No authorship information, unknown copyright situation. Jcb (talk) 01:13, 29 January 2017 (UTC)
- Keep. Unclear reason for deletion: the nominator did not specify what work is this a derivative (copyvio) of. While it is unfortunate that the author (User talk:Kpalion) did not list source(s) used, I am not aware this is a reason for deletion. PS. I wonder by the nominator did not nominate a derivative work of this, File:ReinoDeGalitzia.svg, for deletion as well? --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 21:50, 29 January 2017 (UTC)
- (EC)It not the nominator, but the uploader who needs to specify what work is this a derivative of. Without such information we cannot determine it's copyright situation. 'Unknown copyright situation' is a demanding reason for deletion. We can only keep files of which we know that they are free. Jcb (talk) 21:58, 29 January 2017 (UTC)
- Please link me to the policy that supports your claim, and if possible, quote here the relevant part. I am not aware of a policy that requires the uploader to prove beyond reasonable doubt their work is not a copyvio. The uploader stated it is their own work, licensed under GFDL. I don't see why you would doubt them. The copyright situation is clear: this is a freely licensed work, and there is no ground to doubt that. PS. Anyway, the best outcome is that the original creator and uploader, Kpalion, will clarify here which sources he used in creation of this map. But for a map to lack sources is no reason to delete it (or if I am wrong, please link and cite a relevant policy). --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 22:31, 29 January 2017 (UTC)
- Maps are not typically own work and the relevant page is COM:PCP. Jcb (talk) 23:22, 29 January 2017 (UTC)
- Once again, please cite a page that states that a map without sources can be deleted. PCP does not apply here, since you are interpreting it so broadly you might as well delete every other work. This is a freely licensed image and you have not made any argument that would cast doubt on the license; the uploader claims it is his own work and this is sufficient. There is no "significant doubt about the freedom of a particular file." Also, since you yourself argued this is a derivative work (of what, you still fail to say), I'll point to Commons:Derivative_works#Maps and note that this map appears simple enough to not meet the originality requirement, and thus the only issue to discuss is whether we should change GFDL to {{PD-ineligible}}. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 00:17, 30 January 2017 (UTC)
- IMHO this map is above TOO, so not PD-ineligible. I admit that COM:TOO is not a sharp line and others may have a different opinion. Jcb (talk) 16:37, 30 January 2017 (UTC)
- Nothing here is helped by the fact that TOO doesn't even mention maps except a single picture caption. Perhaps you could write a section on this there? --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 17:36, 31 January 2017 (UTC)
- IMHO this map is above TOO, so not PD-ineligible. I admit that COM:TOO is not a sharp line and others may have a different opinion. Jcb (talk) 16:37, 30 January 2017 (UTC)
- Once again, please cite a page that states that a map without sources can be deleted. PCP does not apply here, since you are interpreting it so broadly you might as well delete every other work. This is a freely licensed image and you have not made any argument that would cast doubt on the license; the uploader claims it is his own work and this is sufficient. There is no "significant doubt about the freedom of a particular file." Also, since you yourself argued this is a derivative work (of what, you still fail to say), I'll point to Commons:Derivative_works#Maps and note that this map appears simple enough to not meet the originality requirement, and thus the only issue to discuss is whether we should change GFDL to {{PD-ineligible}}. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 00:17, 30 January 2017 (UTC)
- Maps are not typically own work and the relevant page is COM:PCP. Jcb (talk) 23:22, 29 January 2017 (UTC)
- Please link me to the policy that supports your claim, and if possible, quote here the relevant part. I am not aware of a policy that requires the uploader to prove beyond reasonable doubt their work is not a copyvio. The uploader stated it is their own work, licensed under GFDL. I don't see why you would doubt them. The copyright situation is clear: this is a freely licensed work, and there is no ground to doubt that. PS. Anyway, the best outcome is that the original creator and uploader, Kpalion, will clarify here which sources he used in creation of this map. But for a map to lack sources is no reason to delete it (or if I am wrong, please link and cite a relevant policy). --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 22:31, 29 January 2017 (UTC)
- (EC)It not the nominator, but the uploader who needs to specify what work is this a derivative of. Without such information we cannot determine it's copyright situation. 'Unknown copyright situation' is a demanding reason for deletion. We can only keep files of which we know that they are free. Jcb (talk) 21:58, 29 January 2017 (UTC)
- Authorship information is provided, see this revision by the uploader, Kpalion, which clearly states Made by Kpalion. --AFBorchert (talk) 16:26, 5 February 2017 (UTC)
- I doubt this claim to be true, that's why I started the nomination. I have seen many 'own work' claims where in fact the uploader made a DW of an unsourced file. Making a DW does not make one the sole author. Jcb (talk) 17:25, 5 February 2017 (UTC)
Kept: no valid reason for deletion: no evidence provided that the map is a DW. --Ankry (talk) 20:20, 5 February 2017 (UTC)
