Commons:Deletion requests/File:Secret order of libertines.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.
This is part of a hoax that was inserted into Wikipedia. See this magazine report. — Scott • talk 21:36, 24 October 2013 (UTC)
Delete, clearly out of COM:SCOPE. --Túrelio (talk) 08:46, 25 October 2013 (UTC)- Delete, has no legitimate purpose being on Wikimedia now that the hoax is exposed. DreamGuy (talk) 16:36, 27 October 2013 (UTC)
Keep, has a legitimate purpose in an article about the hoax itself, should one be written either on-Wiki or off-Wiki. If no such article is known to exist within a month or two, I will gladly change to "delete." Davidwr (talk) 18:10, 28 October 2013 (UTC)Since this off-Wiki article already uses its own copy of the image in an educational way, the image itself presumably is within scope. Furthermore, it is important to keep public record that this image is freely-licensed.Do update the image's description. Davidwr (talk) 18:30, 28 October 2013 (UTC)I have updated the file description page and added relevant information to the talk page. Davidwr (talk) 19:11, 28 October 2013 (UTC)- Well, as the uploader obviously lied about the symbol and its source, how can we assume that he could have legitimately licensed the image? It is likely not old and thereby still copyrightable. --Túrelio (talk) 20:02, 28 October 2013 (UTC)
- Given the lengths this hoax went to, I think it's reasonable to assume the image was designed as part of the hoax and we can believe it is his work. However, if you want to slap a "permissions" tag on it, that will almost certainly result in deletion unless he goes through OTRS. Davidwr (talk) 21:32, 28 October 2013 (UTC)
- Re "Since this off-Wiki article already uses its own copy of the image in an educational way, the image itself presumably is within scope" - if you keep the image on that basis, you are basically issuing a license for future hoaxers to have their images hosted on Commons forever. Don't set that precedent. — Scott • talk 22:35, 28 October 2013 (UTC)
- Given the lengths this hoax went to, I think it's reasonable to assume the image was designed as part of the hoax and we can believe it is his work. However, if you want to slap a "permissions" tag on it, that will almost certainly result in deletion unless he goes through OTRS. Davidwr (talk) 21:32, 28 October 2013 (UTC)
- Well, as the uploader obviously lied about the symbol and its source, how can we assume that he could have legitimately licensed the image? It is likely not old and thereby still copyrightable. --Túrelio (talk) 20:02, 28 October 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: Not within the scope of Commons, also copyright status is not clear. Kaldari (talk) 06:33, 1 November 2013 (UTC)
