Commons:Deletion requests/File:Sagrado Corazon.jpg

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.

File:Sagrado_Corazon.jpg

[edit]

No Source (The website where it comes from does not say where they took it from : no museum or church name, no painter's name). See also Commons:Deletion requests/File:JesusRaptor.jpg and File:Cor-jesus.jpeg deleted because "no source".

This file must be deleted not although it is used, but because it is used : using a painting without the painter's name or the museum/church name is highly unencylopedic. We have no evidence that this painting is notable enough to be kept. Notable paintings of the Sacred Heart do exist : File:HerzJesuVelburg.jpg or File:Wüger Steiner Herz-Jesu-Bild.jpg Teofilo (talk) 09:55, 25 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]


I removed the file and replaced it with File:HerzJesuVelburg.jpg on :

Teofilo (talk) 10:52, 25 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I can not agree with the notability argument. That specific image is so widely used by Catholic I can not begin to tell you. The more artistic image is NOT representative of the devotion at all. I see no good out of that action and a loss of relevance in the real devotion. Catholics do not always pray to the highest fluting art form, but to popular images. History2007 (talk) 22:29, 25 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
"Unencyclopedic" is no reason whatsoever to delete an image. There are no "notablity" guidelines on Commons either. User-made (and licensed) artwork of this sort is also quite welcome and can certainly be used to illustrate articles too, or be used in a number of other Wikimedia projects (please remember that Commons supports more than the encyclopedias). If we know the painting is old enough to be PD-Old, then the lack of an artist's name is not reason to delete either. Obviously if it can be found out, then it should be added. So, most of the reasoning by the nominator is not correct... there are no COM:SCOPE issues at all. It is quite usable, and in fact is widely used. That said... there really is no source, so there is no indication of what country it is from and how old it is. I'm not convinced this is old artwork. So yes, it is scattered in a number of places on the web (probably helped by being on Wikipedia), but that really isn't relevant. I'm pretty sure I saw bigger versions of it, so I'm not sure the labeled source is really the original one. The source website says (and did in 2005 too) that Reproduction of material from any Catholic.net pages without written permission is strictly prohibited. So... unless a source can be found, or if this is a painting and someone can say where it came from, probably  Delete. Carl Lindberg (talk) 02:15, 26 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, I will look for a source or similar image ina few days. History2007 (talk) 09:03, 26 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep The image is a popular printed prayer card or print, not a painting from a museum. These images have been produced in their millions & been an important part of Catholic devotion for the last 200 years, and are thus highly encyclopedic. The "painter" will be a commercial hack whose name will not be recorded - the copyright will have belonged to the publisher ("work for hire"), but it looks 19th century & will now be PD in the US at least, though similar images continue to be printed. As a published printed image it will I think be PD in the US unless first printed after 1958 (50 years ago) - is that right? The substituted image is (partly) of the same subject, but a totally different type of image in every other respect - it also shows the subject very badly. Since when did images have to pass a notability test? The nomination shows a complete misunderstanding of what the object is, although the "raptor" nom shows he is aware that the iconography is one of thousands of versions derived from works like the 1740 painting by Pompeo Batoni in the northern side chapel of Il Gésu in Rome, and similar works. Johnbod (talk) 12:06, 1 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted, per Pieter Kuiper. Kameraad Pjotr 19:26, 8 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Commons:Deletion_requests/File:Sagrado_Corazon.jpg&oldid=37416408"