Commons:Deletion requests/Image:Creation of Light.png

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 image is missing source information. The uploader has reverted nsd, hence this deletion request. -- Siebrand 12:56, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  •  Keep siebrand is trolling. Source is not required for PD-old and PD-ineligible pictures. --Rtc 12:59, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Keep Source is required, in this case it's an image by en:Gustave Doré (1832–1883). Making it PD-old/PD-Art /Lokal_Profil 13:39, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Even though it is PD-art, we do require a source for all images (in this case a photograph of a painting), or it it true that we do not require any source information as long as one can make clear, beyond reasonable doubt, that there is no copyright? In my opinion we should always require a source, as this adds to the credibility of the media provided. Siebrand 13:50, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • We don't tend to require a source for images of PD-paintings since no one can claim any rights on these reproductions. We do however require a source for who painted the painting or (if artist is unavailable) when it was painted. /Lokal_Profil 13:53, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • But how can you verify such things without a source to validate the claims made? I mean, this appears to be a very slippery slope to me. I mean, the upload page states If you do not provide suitable license and source information, your file will be deleted without further notice.... Siebrand 13:58, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
          • Doré and Fragonard are famous artists, everyone knows that these are famous works by them. --Rtc 14:08, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
          • True, it is a tricky situation. In my oppinion source information means the artist since whoever reproduced it doesen't effect the copyright situation. If one has additional source information it should obviously be added. On the other hand if we take an image such as the Mona Lisa can we prove that the artist was Leonardo da Vinci and that the image is PD-old thus making the picture PD-Art? We'd say yes but only because the image is well known. Problem is that well known to someone isn't necessarily well known to someone else [1] /Lokal_Profil 14:12, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    •  Keep author is known to be dead for more than 70 years. Therfore, this picture is PD-old / PD-Art. --Taxman(de) 15:06, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Keep per my comment above. --Iamunknown 19:02, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Kept, no need to continue the discussion. It is a PD-art. Clearly a work by Gustave Doré (†1883). Kjetil r 04:32, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]