Commons:Deletion requests/Files uploaded by Roferbia

From Wikimedia Commons, the free media repository
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.

Files uploaded by Roferbia (talk · contribs)

[edit]

Out of COM:SCOPE.

Patrick Rogel (talk) 19:53, 30 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Patrick Rogel: Why are the photos out of Commons' scope? They were taken at the FILSA 2018 (Chile's biggest book conference). The photos depict famous writers. Some of them have already been added to articles.Freddy eduardo (talk) 20:20, 30 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I don't understand why are qualified as out of scope; these are photos of writers taken in a book fair, and I think that its educational value is clear.--Roferbia (talk) 20:37, 30 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Roferbia: In which articles are they COM:INUSE, please? --Patrick Rogel (talk) 21:05, 30 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
 Comment @Freddy eduardo: @Roferbia: You're right for Mónica Ojeda and Daniel Alarcón (wikidata), Claudia Apablaza, Ricardo Wiesse Rebagliati, Fernando Ampuero, Edoardo Albinati and Alejandro Zambra (Wikipedia). David Aniñir, Eduardo Andrade, Cecilia Almarza and José Carlos Agüero seem COM:OOS. --Patrick Rogel (talk) 10:43, 31 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Even the ones that don't have Wikipedia articles yet, are known writers. A google search shows that they are relevant and that have published many books, many newspapers from different countries have stories on them.--Freddy eduardo (talk) 20:44, 31 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Freddy eduardo: Have you read COM:SCOPE? --Patrick Rogel (talk) 21:31, 31 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Patrick Rogel: I did, and the files are indeed realistically useful for an educational purpose. The writers they depict will eventually have articles in Wikipedia, as I said, a simple google search shows they are relevant. Freddy eduardo (talk) 14:06, 1 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I read again COM:SCOPE, and the conditions enumerated are: Must be a media file; must be of an allowable free file format; must be freely licensed or public domain; must be realistically useful for an educational purpose; must not contain only excluded educational content. And about the condition that could be unclear (educational purpose), the scope page explains that «The expression "educational" is to be understood according to its broad meaning of "providing knowledge; instructional or informative".» I think that the photos meet this requirements; and the fact that they are not in use at the moment doesn't mean that you have to deleted them; what the page says is that any photo in use in other wikiproyect cannot be deleted (because «Commons does not exist to editorialise on other projects»), but it doesn't state that the ones that are not used in other wikiprojects should be eliminated. Books fairs are important cultural events, and as such they do have educational value and potentially the photos can also be used outside wikimedia projects.--Roferbia (talk) 13:13, 4 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Kept: per Roferbia and Freddy eduardo. --Strakhov (talk) 20:23, 11 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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.

Files uploaded by Roferbia (talk · contribs) 2

[edit]

This collection is rather obviously the work of many people. The uploader claims that they're all his/her own work. This is unbelievable. (Incidentally, there may be many more such files, but after glancing at 250 or so thumbnails I was too exhausted to continue.)

Hoary (talk) 09:07, 5 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

That was poorly written; I'll try again. Just to take two examples, the photographs File:Dominguez, Pablo - El paseo de los pinguinos -mosaico en EPL124 -fRF03.jpg and File:Stfi! (Estefanía Leighton) - El jardín de Gabriela -Barrio Lastarria -20181103 fRF08.jpg are both attributed to Rodrigo Fernández but the former depicts something attributed to Pablo Domínguez and the latter something attributed to Estefanía Leighton. Presumably Domínguez and Leighton are two different people; Rodrigo Fernández can't be both. I'd guess that Roferbia is (honestly) saying that Fernández is the photographer, and that the photograph is what's his own work; but I believe that when we're dealing with a photograph of a two-dimensional work such as a painting the copyright of that work is what matters (and that when we're dealing with a photograph of a three-dimensional work such as a sculpture the copyright of that work matters too). -- Hoary (talk) 00:31, 6 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
{{Own}} here refers to their photos.
what their photos captured is considered with COM:FOP Chile in mind.
 Keep unless real copyvio is identified. RZuo (talk) 06:14, 6 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
 Keep I took some random pictures and checked the EXIF data - all of them were taken by the same camera. (Canon writes the camera serial number into EXIF headers.) So we can assume these images were all taken by the same photographer. All cases seem to be covered by FOP in Chile. So what's the problem? Taking a picture of a street scene including a mural or public art etc. is considered an "own work" of the photographer. That's good practice here since the very beginning. It is not considered a mere reproduction of 2D artwork (like a scan of a photograph or a repro photo of a painting) – that would not be an own work. -- Herbert Ortner (talk) 19:38, 6 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Kept: no valid reason for deletion. --Materialscientist (talk) 05:52, 12 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Commons:Deletion_requests/Files_uploaded_by_Roferbia&oldid=820922228"