Commons:Deletion requests/File:Yamnaya people.jpg
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.
Also:
- File:Scythian male.jpg
- File:Scythian male (2).jpg
- File:Yamnaya male (3) (2).jpg
- File:Yamnaya man 1.jpg
- File:Dnieper-Donets male (Volniensky).jpg
- File:Yamnaya male (2) (1).jpg
- File:Yamnaya male (3) (3).jpg
- File:Yamnaya male (2).jpg
- File:Yamnaya male (2) (2).jpg
- File:Yamnaya male (2) (3).jpg
- File:Yamnaya male (3) (1).jpg
- File:Yamnaya male (3).jpg
- File:Yamnaya man 2.jpg
- File:Sarmatian female.jpg
- File:Saka male.jpg
- File:Yamnaya man 3.jpg
This image has no source. Hunan201p (talk) 14:45, 10 March 2020 (UTC)
- Comment added a bunch. Magog the Ogre (talk) (contribs) 01:06, 11 March 2020 (UTC)
- Delete Insufficient source; Google returns 0 results. No explanation of why the photographer is unknown. We need something more to go on. Magog the Ogre (talk) (contribs) 01:06, 11 March 2020 (UTC)
- Delete So far, multiple people have given different possible "sources" for this art, in the form of named sculptors. We really have no idea who made them without a WORK (that is, a publication which clearly describes who created the sculptures and the photographs). Which is, definitely, what a source embodies - Hunan201p (talk) 17:00, 12 March 2020 (UTC)
- Hunan201p is currently under a 3 month long block on Wikipedia for disruptive editing on articles related to these images.[1] Krakkos (talk) 19:31, 25 June 2020 (UTC)
- Delete All those picture are not reliable sources any longer. One should upload to Wikimedia new facial reconstructions of Yamnaya people based on recent genetic research. Azerty82 (talk) 06:59, 11 March 2020 (UTC)
- I don't think that is a deletion reason. It may be a reason not to use them uncritically in certain articles but not a reason to delete the media. -- Sirfurboy (talk) 12:43, 11 March 2020 (UTC)
- Comment These are related to two others where user Urselius has provided some comment[2], [3]. The source is given, it is just that the actual photographer appears to be unknown. Not sure if it is sufficient to keep. -- Sirfurboy (talk) 12:41, 11 March 2020 (UTC)
- I'd have thought Sirfurboy was right here. These were valid scientific reconstructions; if science has moved on, then they should be labelled as "Outdated reconstruction" or something of that sort. After all, we're interested in Ptolemy and Copernicus and Galileo even if we don't agree with them any longer. Chiswick Chap (talk) 14:36, 11 March 2020 (UTC)
- Keep As Urselius has stated,[4][5] these photographs appear to have been initially published by the relatively unknown Soviet photographer Vladislav Bunakov in the 1930s. The photographed reconstructions were made by Mikhail Mikhaylovich Gerasimov, a pioneer in the field of forensic facial reconstruction. These photographs have been reproduced in later works by Gerasimov, and in more recent works by Western scholars such as J. P. Mallory. Krakkos (talk) 10:17, 12 March 2020 (UTC)
- Keep Per Krakkos. Now we know the name of the photographer there is no reason for deletion. -- Sirfurboy (talk) 10:50, 12 March 2020 (UTC)
- The sculptor died in 1970; it won't be free in Russia until 2041. And we still know nothing about the photographer. Magog the Ogre (talk) (contribs) 16:48, 13 March 2020 (UTC)
- Copyright lies with Bunakov, as the photographer. It does not lie with the sculptor. Nevertheless I cannot find when Bunakov died, and I am unclear as to whether copyright law is affected by the soviet communist era. -- Sirfurboy (talk) 16:38, 20 March 2020 (UTC)
- wrong. It lies with both. Magog the Ogre (talk) (contribs) 22:31, 20 March 2020 (UTC)
- Copyright lies with Bunakov, as the photographer. It does not lie with the sculptor. Nevertheless I cannot find when Bunakov died, and I am unclear as to whether copyright law is affected by the soviet communist era. -- Sirfurboy (talk) 16:38, 20 March 2020 (UTC)
- The sculptor died in 1970; it won't be free in Russia until 2041. And we still know nothing about the photographer. Magog the Ogre (talk) (contribs) 16:48, 13 March 2020 (UTC)
- Delete per Magog. The fact that the sculpture itself is not yet free is enough to say that this is a derivative of a non-free work. --pandakekok9 05:06, 21 March 2020 (UTC)
- Keep Per above. Author name is already provided. Störm (talk) 14:47, 29 March 2020 (UTC)
Delete Per Magog. A non-free work with unknown work and unknown author. Original file has been deleted already. No reason to keep. PicturesOfTheWorld (talk) 21:26, 16 June 2020 (UTC)
- PicturesOfTheWorld is a confirmed sockpuppet of Tirgil34. The nominator Hunan201p is currently being investigated on Wikipedia because it is suspected that he is an additional sockpuppet/meatsock of Tirgil34. Krakkos (talk) 19:31, 25 June 2020 (UTC)
- Keep All these images are almost certainly out of copyright. --Hibernian (talk) 20:37, 25 June 2020 (UTC)
- Keep Per above. Puduḫepa (talk) 19:18, 11 September 2020 (UTC)
- Keep PThese images are not only useful and worth keeping for academic and historical reasons, but are also quite proper recons as well. Bathtub Barracuda (talk) 07:22, 13 October 2020 (UTC)
- Comment I'm seeing a lot of arguments not based in policy here. We don't care if an image is useful. A simple vote adds nothing. Stating something is out of copyright when the discussion above shows otherwise adds nothing. Magog the Ogre (talk) (contribs) 22:27, 13 October 2020 (UTC)
Deleted: Per Magog's comments - the copyright rests with both sculptor and photographer. --Pi.1415926535 (talk) 01:37, 21 October 2020 (UTC)
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.
Procedural listing. This file was tagged for deletion with the same rationale, but never included in the nomination above. ƏXPLICIT 00:45, 30 December 2020 (UTC)
- Delete Circular source, misleading sockpuppetry, seems pointless to spend more volunteer time on this. --Fæ (talk) 16:22, 11 January 2021 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Pi.1415926535 (talk) 21:13, 4 February 2021 (UTC)