Commons:Deletion requests/File:SuShi-Portrait.jpg: Difference between revisions

From Wikimedia Commons, the free media repository
Jump to navigation Jump to search
Content deleted Content added
No edit summary
No edit summary
Line 34: Line 34:
:::::::::Secondly, your reply is nothing more than an assumption that it looks old '''without any proof''', which violates official policy [[COM:PRP]]. --[[User:Cold Season|Cold Season]] ([[User talk:Cold Season|<span class="signature-talk">{{int:Talkpagelinktext}}</span>]]) 16:40, 4 September 2024 (UTC)
:::::::::Secondly, your reply is nothing more than an assumption that it looks old '''without any proof''', which violates official policy [[COM:PRP]]. --[[User:Cold Season|Cold Season]] ([[User talk:Cold Season|<span class="signature-talk">{{int:Talkpagelinktext}}</span>]]) 16:40, 4 September 2024 (UTC)
::::::::::We can't delete every photo of an old print because you feel like casting doubt on it. -- [[User:Ikan Kekek|Ikan Kekek]] ([[User talk:Ikan Kekek|<span class="signature-talk">{{int:Talkpagelinktext}}</span>]]) 18:51, 4 September 2024 (UTC)
::::::::::We can't delete every photo of an old print because you feel like casting doubt on it. -- [[User:Ikan Kekek|Ikan Kekek]] ([[User talk:Ikan Kekek|<span class="signature-talk">{{int:Talkpagelinktext}}</span>]]) 18:51, 4 September 2024 (UTC)
:::::::::::"{{green|In all cases, the burden of proof lies on the uploader or other person arguing for the file to be retained [...]}}" (See official policy: [[COM:PS#Evidence]]). Your reply is not a valid argument, nor does it addresses the two policies cited in my comment before it. --[[User:Cold Season|Cold Season]] ([[User talk:Cold Season|<span class="signature-talk">{{int:Talkpagelinktext}}</span>]]) 16:23, 5 September 2024 (UTC)
:::::::::::"{{green|In all cases, the burden of proof lies on the uploader or other person arguing for the file to be retained [...]}}" (See official policy: [[COM:PS#Evidence]]). Your reply is not a valid argument, nor does it addresses the two policies cited in my comment before it. What I feel is irrelevant (though it seems more about you), what a strange comment... --[[User:Cold Season|Cold Season]] ([[User talk:Cold Season|<span class="signature-talk">{{int:Talkpagelinktext}}</span>]]) 16:23, 5 September 2024 (UTC)

Revision as of 16:40, 5 September 2024

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.

The image has no source. Its provenance is not established and descriptive information is not verifiable (e.g., what it claimed to depict previously was probably wrong to begin with). Included with this deletion request is the duplicate:

Its source also provides no helpful information. It seems like one of those image plucked from the internet of which not much helpful is known. --Cold Season (talk) 17:05, 1 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]


Kept: No reason for deletion of these images. According to the Deletion policy a supposedly incorrect, original researched or not-neutral image is not a reason for deletion. This aspect should be addressed on the projects. At least one of the files is currently in use on the projects, so it has to be maintained. @Cold Season: you could consider to add {{Fact disputed}} to the file pages, or one of the other more applicable warning templates listed on the template description. --Ellywa (talk) 08:27, 19 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Ellywa: There is NO SOURCE that verifies the images as a public domain image. The fact that we do not know what this image is, means that this falls under the PRECAUTIONARY PRINCIPLE and is definitly not a {{fact disputed}} case. The fact that you closed this without participation in discussion, while waiting for the close statement to provide unilateral counter-arguments is highly inappropriate. --Cold Season (talk) 09:22, 21 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This is an artwork that remains unidentified. There is no provenance or source that tells us what it is or its public domain status. In conclusion, it should be deleted per COM:PRP. Included with this deletion request is the duplicate File:Xiang Yu.png.

To @Ellywa: in the previous deletion request, {{fact disputed}} does not override this. Cold Season (talk) 09:41, 21 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Cold Season, this image is used 15 times on various Wikipedia articles, in several languages. The other version is used 3 times. Based on this, we cannot delete the image from Commons, based on our policy, as users on Wikipedia are considering the image valuable. The precautionary principle is used only in case a copyright violation might exist. Please ask additional questions on the village pump. I note you have re-nominated the image. In that case another admin will reconsider my decision. Ellywa (talk) 09:56, 21 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I am not familiar with a policy or guideline that dictates that image usage should be a consideration. Furthermore, yes, not knowing anything of the artwork is the rationale that a copyright violation might exist. Point 4 and 5 in the COM:PRP policy is illustrative here. --Cold Season (talk) 10:06, 21 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I understand you are not aware of all policies on Commons. I will try to explain more clearly. Commons:Deletion policy summarizes reasons for deletion, incorrectness of a file is not a reason. Educational not useful can be a reason for deletion, per COM:EDUSE, but as soon an image is in use, the image is considered in scope of this project, as stated in section COM:INUSE of that page. Regards, Ellywa (talk) 20:10, 21 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
In addition, it is easy to find out this image is a variant of File:Portraits of Famous Men - Xiang Wang.jpg with other colors. It might be another scan of the same print, or another book with different colors, regarding the age. It was uploaded with a PD tag by Dr. Meierhofer~commonswiki in 2006. The PD tag seems correct. Ellywa (talk) 20:17, 21 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
(1) The deletion request is based on COM:PRP, because there is no information that identifies anything of this artwork and, as such, its public domain status is not established. I am not stating that the incorrectness in file description is the reason for deletion (which you keep using as a straw man argument), but I am explaining why it fails COM:PRP ("to explain more clearly" to you... again, as I shouldn't have assumed that everyone reads between the lines).
(2) Your mention of COM:EDUSE is irrelevant, as no argument with that as basis was raised here.
(3) COM:INUSE does not state that image usage is a reason to not delete or to maintain an image. Your argument has no merit. In fact, I hope you understand this instead, me saying that I'm not familiar with such a policy was just an indirect way to say that your claim is wrong (as no policy supports it).
(4) Your suggestion that the artwork is a "variant of File:Portraits of Famous Men - Xiang Wang.jpg" is incorrect, as it is simply not a scan of the same print. Feel free to overlay them in photoshop and look again, if you can't spot the differences. These are two distinct artworks with their own copyright status and, as such, it does not diminish the onus to establish this image's copyright status.
In conclusion, I see no credible argument that overrides COM:PRP. --Cold Season (talk) 07:00, 22 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Are you suggesting that this is not a Qing Dynasty image? What makes you believe there is a chance it's not in the public domain? -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 21:45, 1 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
What evidence do you have that it is? "In all cases, the burden of proof lies on the uploader or other person arguing for the file to be retained [...]" (See official policy: COM:PS#Evidence). --Cold Season (talk) 18:28, 2 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The style does not look contemporary and looks old. Otherwise, I refer to Ellywa's remarks above. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 08:22, 4 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
In other words, you neglect to provide any appropriate evidence of the copyright status (just like her), which violates official policy COM:PS#Evidence.
Secondly, your reply is nothing more than an assumption that it looks old without any proof, which violates official policy COM:PRP. --Cold Season (talk) 16:40, 4 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
We can't delete every photo of an old print because you feel like casting doubt on it. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 18:51, 4 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
"In all cases, the burden of proof lies on the uploader or other person arguing for the file to be retained [...]" (See official policy: COM:PS#Evidence). Your reply is not a valid argument, nor does it addresses the two policies cited in my comment before it. What I feel is irrelevant (though it seems more about you), what a strange comment... --Cold Season (talk) 16:23, 5 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]