Commons:Deletion requests/File:The Birds o f Aristophanes Robinson Planche. 1846.jpg

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:The Birds o f Aristophanes Robinson Planche. 1846.jpg

The stated source provided by the uploader is bogus; the image does not appear there. EncycloPetey (talk) 22:33, 27 July 2020 (UTC)

• I think it's time you refresh your memory of the stalking rule - Wikipedia:Harassment. --NoFrost (talk) 22:42, 27 July 2020 (UTC)

  Can you provide correct information for the "Source=" field? The links you provided do not contain this image despite your claim that it does. Images uploaded to Commons must identify their source. --EncycloPetey (talk) 22:45, 27 July 2020 (UTC)

• page 80 --NoFrost (talk) 22:47, 27 July 2020 (UTC)

  Of the Dropbox website? Are you claiming that the PDF originated on Dropbox? --EncycloPetey (talk) 22:51, 27 July 2020 (UTC)

• You've probably completely "lost your edges." Did you go to the library and check to make sure that there is no image on this page? That's funny. --NoFrost (talk) 22:59, 27 July 2020 (UTC)

  Insulting other contributors is considered a personal attack. The question is: Are you claiming that the image originated on Dropbox? The source field should indicate the source of the file. If you extracted the image from the PDF, then you can use {{Extracted from}}, but we still need to know where the scan originated. The scan most certainly did not originate from Dropbox. --EncycloPetey (talk) 23:20, 27 July 2020 (UTC)

• I use an electronic translator. What I write there in my original language - Russian - was not offensive (Insulting). As far as the source is concerned. What it looks like is... - Hall E., Wrigley А. Aristophanes in Performance 421 BC—AD 2007: Peace, Birds and Frogs (en.) page 80 / Archive of Performances of Greek and Roman Drama (University of Oxford). Go to the library. Forget the dropbox. Success. --NoFrost (talk) 23:24, 27 July 2020 (UTC)

  So, you do not know where the PDF came from? That is why I marked the File as "no image since", but you reverted that edit. Either you know where the PDF came from (please provide that information) or you do not (and it should be "no source since"). Which is correct? --EncycloPetey (talk) 23:36, 27 July 2020 (UTC)

• I know where this PDF came from. And I will always defend my position. Wikipedia rules do not require me to explain anything about the PDF to anyone I meet (who accuses me of falsification without foundation). The source is listed. Well, that's enough. --NoFrost (talk) 23:39, 27 July 2020 (UTC)

  Again, this is not Wikipedia. Wikipedia rules do not apply on Commons. You say you know where the PDF came from, but you refuse to provide that information. Without that information, Commons does not know the source of the scan. It is missing information about the source of the scan. Refusing to provide the information is not helpful. --EncycloPetey (talk) 05:13, 28 July 2020 (UTC)

• "In the U.S., reproductions of two-dimensional public domain artwork do not generate a new copyright"; --NoFrost (talk) 10:36, 28 July 2020 (UTC)

•  Keep Bickering aside, NoFrost is correct that the exact source of a scan need not be identified as long as the image is verifiably from 1846, which the Dropbox PDF confirms on page 80. Wrap the PD tags in a {{PD-scan}}. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 15:12, 28 July 2020 (UTC)

  If the source of the scan is not identified, then is it legitimate to mark the scan as not having the source identified. I think that is the secondary question here. --EncycloPetey (talk) 19:30, 28 July 2020 (UTC)

  Regardless of whether a source of this particular scan is identified, if the underlying work is clearly public domain and the reproduction is completely uncreative, then there is no valid reason for deletion. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 20:02, 28 July 2020 (UTC)

  That response did not address my question. --EncycloPetey (talk) 22:45, 28 July 2020 (UTC)

  Are you referring to {{No source since}}? That is a deletion template, and I have already explained why deletion is not appropriate here. Having a direct source is not actually a requirement; it is merely the common type of evidence used to prove that a file is freely licensed, but if we can prove that it is public domain through other means, then we don't need a source. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 22:51, 28 July 2020 (UTC)

•  Keep I completely concur with User:King of Hearts. I assume an honest mistake, and that this nomination was made in good faith, but the lack of proper sourcing for something that is obviously in the public domain is not a reason for deletion, and please remember that in the future rather than annoy uploaders of good content and wasting others' time. - Jmabel ! talk 00:41, 4 August 2020 (UTC)
•  Keep per King of Hearts --DannyS712 (talk) 04:35, 4 August 2020 (UTC)
•  Keep This is from The Illustrated London News, 18 April 1846. I have put in a link confirming that. Broichmore (talk) 20:49, 24 February 2021 (UTC)

---

Kept: no valid reason for deletion. --rubin16 (talk) 16:04, 10 June 2021 (UTC)