From Wikitravel Shared

This page contains lists of articles and images which are recommended for deletion. Any Wikitraveller can recommend an article or image for deletion, and any Wikitraveller can comment on the deletion nomination. Articles and images are presumed guilty until proven innocent. After fourteen (14) days of discussion, if a consensus is reached to retain an article, it won't be deleted. Otherwise it will be deleted by an administrator. Please read the Nominating and Commenting sections prior to nominating articles/images or commenting on nominations.

Please archive according to the date deleted, not the date nominated:

• Archive June-Dec 2006
• Archive Jan-June 2007
• Archive July-Dec 2007
• Archive Jan-June 2008
• Archive July-Dec 2008
• Archive Jan-June 2009
• Archive July-Dec 2009

[edit] Nominating

The basic format for a deletion nomination is the following:

===[[Chicken]]===
* Delete.  Not a valid travel article topic. ~~~~

Please follow these steps when nominating an article or image for deletion:

1. First read the deletion policy and verify that the article or image really is a candidate for deletion.
2. For the article or image being proposed for deletion, add a {{vfd}} tag to the top of the article so that people viewing the article will know that it is proposed for deletion.
3. Add a link to the article or image at the end of the list below, along with the reason why it is being listed for deletion. Sign your vote using four tildes ("~~~~"). List one article or image per entry.

[edit] Commenting

All Wikitravellers are asked to state their opinion about articles and images listed for deletion. The format for comments is:

===[[Chicken]]===
* '''Delete'''.  Not a valid travel article topic. TravelNut 25:25, 31 Feb 2525 (EDT)
* '''Keep'''.  There is a town in [[Alaska]] called Chicken. ~~~~

When leaving comments:

1. First read the deletion policy and verify that the article or image really is a candidate for deletion.
2. You may vote to delete, keep, or redirect the article. If your opinion is that the article should be kept or redirected, please state why you feel that way. Sign your vote using four tildes ("~~~~").

[edit] Deleting, or not

After fourteen (14) days of discussion, there will probably be consensus one way or the other. If the consensus is to keep, redirect or merge, then any Wikitraveller can do it. If you are redirecting, please remember to check for broken redirects or double redirects as a result of your move. Remove any VFD notices from that page and copy the deletion discussion to the talk page of the article being kept or redirected.

If the result is delete, then only an administrator can delete. Check if any article links to the image or article in question. After removing those links, delete the image or article.

After you keep/redirect/merge/delete the article, copy the deletion discussion to the appropriate archive.

[edit] July 2009

[edit] Image:NC regions.gif

• Delete. Really nice map, but the uploader provides no indication that he created it himself. Some of the user's other uploads have already been deleted as copyvios, so I think we have to presume this one is too. User has also not edited either :en or shared since his first day on the site, back in April, not even to respond to concerns raised by Peter. LtPowers 11:23, 30 July 2009 (EDT)

[edit] Image:Outer Banks- Ocracoke Beach.JPG

• Delete. The uploader provides no indication that he took this photo himself. Some of the user's other uploads have already been deleted as copyvios, so I think we have to presume this one is too. User has also not edited either :en or shared since his first day on the site, back in April, not even to respond to concerns raised by Peter. LtPowers 11:23, 30 July 2009 (EDT)

[edit] September 2009

[edit] Four images from User:Angelaptero3

• Image:Ballgame.jpg
• Image:Xcaret 022.jpg
• Image:Swimwithdolphins.jpg
• Image:Xcaretinlet.jpg
  • These are nice photos but there is evidence that at least two of them are copyright violations. The dolphins photo is very similar to this image, and TinEye turns up five matches for the "inlet" scene: [1], although they're all much smaller than the one Angelaptero3 uploaded. Regardless, though, even if the first three aren't copyvios they still violate our image policy since they contain recognizable depictions of individuals. The fourth does not, but it has the possible copyright issues. LtPowers 13:28, 3 September 2009 (EDT)
• Delete sertmann 22:26, 23 October 2009 (EDT)

[edit] Image:U-Bahn in Wien.png

License violation. This map is licensed under cc-by-nc-nd-1.0.[2]

• Delete. -- Tatata 12:42, 9 September 2009 (EDT)
• Delete. Too bad, too; it'd be quite useful for us. LtPowers 21:32, 9 September 2009 (EDT)
  • Fortunately [3] this can substitute. Jpatokal 23:53, 9 September 2009 (EDT)

[edit] Image:Macedonia regions map1.png

Uploader was apparently confused; this map should have been uploaded over Image:Macedonia regions map.png. The SVG source was not updated, and attribution information was not maintained as required by the license. The addition of the city to the list of cities on en:Macedonia was also not discussed beforehand. LtPowers 16:37, 23 September 2009 (EDT)

[edit] October 2009

[edit] Image:Kilkenny Castle Fountain.jpg

Recognizable people, which goes against our image policy if we want to be strict about it. Sadly, this is the image used on the English front page for Kilkenny's OtBP feature. LtPowers 09:19, 15 October 2009 (EDT)

• Keep The girl is looking away (and the visible 1/3rd of her face, is washed out by image compression, even in full size). The the Mom is not recognisable at all. sertmann 13:24, 15 October 2009 (EDT)

• • From Image policy: "A photo of the Taj Mahal is useful for travellers; a photo of your girlfriend in a funny hat standing in front of the Taj Mahal is not." While there are no funny hats involved here, I think the same principle applies. The question is whether or not the people in this photo are incidental to the photo. I don't believe that to be the case here; the photo looks to me to be of the people with the castle merely the setting. LtPowers 20:28, 15 October 2009 (EDT)

[edit] Image:Isonokamitsuyuko.JPG

Out of scope. LtPowers 14:23, 22 October 2009 (EDT)

Tatata, could you comment, is this used in anywhere relevant (infobox or something?). sertmann 22:19, 23 October 2009 (EDT)

According to the Wikitraveler who uploaded this image, this woman is a famous poet who worked mostly in Meiji to Showa era in Japan (about 100 to 50 years ago), and her birthplace is designated as one of the municipal heritage. See the column at ja:富田林市#観る.

For your information, I am quite neutral about this VFD (just tell you the information abut this image and usage).--Shoestring 09:09, 25 October 2009 (EDT)

Looks like it's used in an infobox, which generally contain encyclopedic content tangential to travel. That would seem to make the image relevant, if decorative, but our image policy doesn't cover such uses. LtPowers 13:35, 25 October 2009 (EDT)

Keep. If the lady warrants a mention in an infobox, I think the picture is also worthwhile. There's precedent for interesting historical pictures here, see eg. Image:Riyadh_NationalMuseum_IbnSaud.JPG. Jpatokal 05:58, 27 October 2009 (EDT)

[edit] Image:Yamatotakeru001.jpg and Image:Gyouki001.jpg

(rolling these two images together)

Japanese law allows derivative works of public art to be made, but only for non-commercial uses. See commons:COM:FOP#Japan. LtPowers 14:28, 22 October 2009 (EDT)

• Keep. The letter of the law states (in translation) that "reproduction of an artistic work exclusively for the purpose of selling its copies and sale of such copies" (my emphasis) is prohibited. Wikitravel does not sell such copies, ergo, this is no problem. Whether somebody else downloads a picture off Shared and attempts to hawk copies is not our problem. Jpatokal 02:46, 23 October 2009 (EDT)
• Keep In any case, build in 1880, copyright expired. (50 years). sertmann 22:15, 23 October 2009 (EDT)
  • Can I ask how you know both statues were erected in 1880? LtPowers 22:20, 23 October 2009 (EDT)

I don't, the categories got merged after I researched the Yamato Takeru statue. sertmann 13:58, 25 October 2009 (EDT)

[edit] Image:IpswichTown.jpg

Identifiable person. I'm not sure whether the fact that he's famous makes it more or less important that we delete the image. LtPowers 14:30, 22 October 2009 (EDT)

[edit] Image:Singers Lianhuashan2.jpg

Recognizable people. LtPowers 13:45, 25 October 2009 (EDT)

[edit] Image:Madurodam.jpg

License violation. This image is licensed under cc-by-nd-2.0.[4]

• Delete. -- Tatata 05:14, 26 October 2009 (EDT)

[edit] Image:Animal Kingdom Tree of Life.jpg

It makes me sad, especially since it means we can never have a picture of this Animal Kingdom icon on Wikitravel, but the image is a derivative work of the tree-sculpture. The original source of this image on Commons was just deleted (see commons:Commons:Deletion requests/Tree of Life (Disney)) for that very reason. LtPowers 16:03, 27 October 2009 (EDT)

[edit] Image:Fuchu20091114001.jpg

Photo is a derivative work of the depicted poster, which is itself derivative of its included photos. LtPowers 11:35, 28 October 2009 (EDT)

[edit] Image:Fuchu20091103001.jpg

Photo is a derivative work of the depicted poster, which is itself derivative of its included photo. LtPowers 11:35, 28 October 2009 (EDT)

[edit] Image:2196335324 3645f85468 b.jpg

Incompatible license, no derivs. sertmann 14:30, 28 October 2009 (EDT)

[edit] Some uploads by User:Visitestonia

The images below are licensed under a Non Commercial Creative Commons license, and hence cannot be used on wikitravel. sertmann 13:57, 29 October 2009 (EDT)

• Image:Hiiumaa.jpg
• Image:Hiiumaa-kopu-lighthouse.jpg
• Image:Haapsalu-station.jpg

[edit] November 2009

[edit] Upacara12.jpg

This has been the lead image in the Wikitravel Bali article for ages and I guess it should not have been given the multitude of identifiable people. I have removed it from the article. It also seems to be uploaded directly to Wikitravel en namespace (??) and not to shared (??), hence my web linking it in the title above. And it has no licensing information. --Burmesedays 01:15, 2 November 2009 (EST)

English Wikitravel has its own VfD process - please use that instead of this. LtPowers 10:14, 2 November 2009 (EST)

And the image should be kept anyway. Performers in a public festival have no expectation of privacy and the half-hidden performers are totally incidental to the focus of the image, namely the crazy fruit hats! Jpatokal 11:54, 2 November 2009 (EST)

I wasn't sure if they were performers or just going to market with a lot of fruit. LtPowers 19:24, 2 November 2009 (EST)

Point taken. I guess the identity of the people is peripheral to the subject of the image. Out of interest, how do you upload an image to en Wikitravel and not to shared? And where is the licence information for this image? --Burmesedays 21:05, 2 November 2009 (EST)

I believe we didn't have a central repository once upon a time, so uploading to :en was standard. Today, though, the practice is strongly discouraged, since we want all files easily accessible to people working on all language versions. Hence, we removed all links to the :en upload form. --Peter 21:31, 2 November 2009 (EST)

Also, by default everything on en: is CC by-sa 1.0. Jpatokal 11:32, 3 November 2009 (EST)

[edit] Image:First Light Veistospuistossa.jpg

No freedom of panorama for sculptures in Finland. LtPowers 10:36, 2 November 2009 (EST)

[edit] Image:P8135225.JPG

Unfortunately, pictures taken of the Tiffany Windows are not allowed to be used for commercial purposes, so this must be deleted. ChubbyWimbus 21:47, 3 November 2009 (EST)

I investigated the copyright status of this image when I saw it on the front page. http://www.franklin-pa.org/html/stjohns.htm states that the triptychs "date from 1907-1917". According to http://copyright.cornell.edu/resources/publicdomain.cfm, any work published (which in the case of artworks means displayed in public) before 1923 is in the public domain in the U.S. LtPowers 09:29, 4 November 2009 (EST)

So this means that the image may remain? I really hope that it does, because I think it completes the Franklin page, which I also nominated as a OtBP, but I definitely want to make sure that it's okay. Just to be certain, it was the church staff themselves that stated this, not the Tiffany Corporation. ChubbyWimbus

The church owns the windows themselves (you can't legally remove them from the church), but the copyright on the design has expired, regardless of who originally possessed it (so you legally can do whatever you want with a copy of the windows). It's possible the church could impose photography restrictions on those whom they grant permission to enter the building, since it is private property, but that has no impact on copyright (unless you entered into a legally binding contract in which you promised not to sell your photographs or something). LtPowers 13:25, 5 November 2009 (EST)

• Keep. Yep, we actually have a licensing template for such cases: Template:PD-old. It looks like your shot has enough of a personal touch, though, where you hold copyright to the photo, and can thus choose a CC license, as you have done. --Peter ^Talk 01:46, 5 November 2009 (EST)

Was the photo taken from a public space? Often there is a condition of entry imposed on the use of photos that you may take. In which case copyright and public domain don't really enter in to the equation. --Inas 21:31, 5 November 2009 (EST)

I'm not sure what you mean. Such conditions of entry shouldn't affect copyright, even if the photos were taken without permission... unless the photographer agreed to assign his rights to the church or something. LtPowers 11:20, 6 November 2009 (EST)

It isn't unusual for institutions to impose a condition of entry that photographs may either not be taken, or more usually to say that they may not be used commercially. I am assuming that this is the case here, and all I've go to go on is that the church staff said it wasn't okay to use the photos commercially. Private property owners have the authority in the U.S. and elsewhere to impose conditions in advance for photographs taken on their property.

So, in this case, the owner of the photograph may have had no right to licence the photo CC-BY-SA.

If this is what happened here, I think we shoudl delete the image. Unless someone thinks a principled stand against either the church or the photographer is in order. --Inas 21:16, 8 November 2009 (EST)

Sorry, LtPowers is correct here. The church can impose any condition it wants on people entering, and can sue the photographer for trespass, contract violation or whatever... but this has zero relevance to the copyright status of any photographs taken by the photographer, which depict public domain objects that the church does not hold a copyright in. So, no, there is absolutely no reason for us to delete this photo. Jpatokal 01:33, 9 November 2009 (EST)

I'm sorry I continue to be unclear. I know it has no impact on the copyright status of the photo. That is what I meant by saying copyright and public domain don't really enter in to the equation. We do delete photos for reason other than copyright.

There is another issue to consider here. My understanding is that a user has realised that they have uploaded a photo when they were not authorised to do so. If that user asks us to delete it, then I think we should do so. Why would we want one of our users who has made an honest mistake and who wants to rectify that mistake, to not be able to do so?

If that is the case here, that the user who took the photo, and now realises they have done something illegal and wants it to be deleted, I would certainly support deleting it.

If they are happy to breach their contract, and want the photo to remain, then that is their call. --Inas 19:08, 9 November 2009 (EST)

[edit] Image:IMG 4460.JPG

Also Image:Freedom Monument Riga Rasta.jpg (identical copy)

• There is no freedom of panorama in Latvia, and the copyright on this sculpture doesn't expire until 2012, the 70th anniversary of the designer's death. LtPowers 13:29, 7 November 2009 (EST)

• Sorry about that, I was not aware. If so, then I don't really have any objection (although I will note that I saw other pictures of it on Shared). (And please regardless feel free to delete the identical copy--that was me in my struggles to get the picture into the article). Rastapopulous 16:43, 8 November 2009 (EST)

Just out of interest, how do you figure 2012? Because if the copyright expires in 2012, that means it would have already been out of copyright under the 50 year rule which was in effect up until 2000, so copyright would not have been re-applied. --Inas 22:31, 9 November 2009 (EST)

Based on a discussion on Commons. I'm not familiar with the 50-year rule. LtPowers 12:21, 11 November 2009 (EST)

Latvia had a 50 year rule (as did other countries, including Australia) up until 2000. The 70-year-rule was introduced then, and extended copyright only for those works which were still under copyright. It did not re-establish copyright on any works for which copyright had already expired. Accordingly, if you are correct that the copyright expires in 2012 in Latvia under the 70-year rule, then the copyright would have already expired in 1992 under the 50-year rule, and would not have been reasserted in 2000 under the new legislation. --Inas 20:13, 12 November 2009 (EST)

Well, it wouldn't be the first time Commons missed a nuance of copyright law. =) It'd be nice if we didn't have to do this research ourselves and someone could just tell us whether a particular work was in the public domain or not. LtPowers 08:58, 13 November 2009 (EST)

So does this mean it is deleted or kept? rastapopulous 16:56, 15 November 2009 (EST)

[edit] Image:Alverthorpeartcenter.jpg

A sculpture in Pennsylvania. With no idea who created it, we have to assume it's under copyright. LtPowers 16:05, 9 November 2009 (EST)

[edit] Image:Fairmont Vancouver.jpg

Copyrighted image in Flickr [5]. The user (User:Guyfrombronx) uploaded a couple of images from different Flickr accounts (that I've tracked so far), so I'm guessing he/she didn't take the photographs. Shaund 23:51, 10 November 2009 (EST)

[edit] Image:Vancouver art gallery.jpg

Copyrighted image in Flickr [6]. Also uploaded by User:Guyfrombronx. Shaund 23:51, 10 November 2009 (EST)

[edit] Image:Pacific Central1.jpg

Another copyrighted image in Flickr from User:Guyfrombronx [7]. Shaund 00:24, 11 November 2009 (EST)

[edit] Image:Stanley Park Totem2.jpg

Another copyrighted image in Flickr from User:Guyfrombronx [8]. Shaund 00:24, 11 November 2009 (EST)

[edit] Image:Vancitypana.jpg

And one more [9]. Shaund 00:46, 11 November 2009 (EST)

[edit] Image:Anezi.jpg

Tagged as PD, but the photo was copied from copyrighted (All rights reserved.) site.[10]

• Delete. -- Tatata 18:39, 11 November 2009 (EST)

[edit] Image:Sibiutmap.jpg

Also Image:Sibiu.jpg (identical copy).

Although I can't read Romanian, I believe this is a copyright violation from http://bkh.evang.ro/ LtPowers 10:59, 14 November 2009 (EST)

[edit] Image:Lovina Dolphin Statue.jpg

I can't find any information on when this particular statue was sculpted, nor whether Bali has exceptions in its copyright law for publicly displayed works. If anyone has such information that indicates we can keep it, I welcome it; otherwise, we should delete it to be safe. LtPowers 11:05, 14 November 2009 (EST)

I'm not a lawyer, but it strikes me as a bad practice for a travel site to prohibit pictures of landmarks. I say err on the side of inclusion. --Peter ^Talk 12:04, 14 November 2009 (EST)

Well, we could certainly make a fair use argument, but that has to be justified for each use, and it becomes harder for commercial uses. LtPowers 10:44, 15 November 2009 (EST)

This (rather marvellous) statue was commissioned by the local regency government of Buleleng (a Province of Bali) in the early 1980s. It is an iconic local landmark and there is certainly a fair use argument. Indonesian copyright law was last updated in 2002 (Indonesian Copyright Law No.19/2002). It seems from this law that images of items owned or created by the gov't of Indonesia are in effect released into the public domain (rather like in the US). As an example, there are several images uploaded at Wikimedia Commons on that basis. What is less clear is whether this law should or can be applied to Indonesian provincial governments. Also at a purely practical level, please understand that this is a country where government departments use pirated software, huge publicly quoted retailers sell pirated DVDs....... It would be a shame to lose this image but not the end of the world. If it is deleted though, then for consistency there are a large number of other images of public Indonesian government property which will have to go as well(statues, monuments, signs etc). --Burmesedays 01:31, 16 November 2009 (EST)

When necessary (I'm not so sure it is for this one), I think it's fine for us to provide a fair use rationale (as does Commons) for each image in question, and to leave proper re-use to the re-users. Re-users need to check the image page anyway to determine proper licensing & whom to attribute. --Peter ^Talk 22:40, 18 November 2009 (EST)

Commons does not do that. English Wikipedia does. Just to be clear. =) I think allowing fair use would be a significant shift in this project's stated goals and ought to be discussed somewhere much more prominent than VfD. LtPowers 11:45, 19 November 2009 (EST)

[edit] Image:Maps.jpg

Obviously modified from a Google map, which is copyrighted. LtPowers 11:06, 14 November 2009 (EST)

[edit] Image:Bethayres Tavern 1950 2 WEB.jpg

Obviously not taken by the uploader, and without further information on how old the photo is, we have to assume it's copyrighted. LtPowers 11:18, 14 November 2009 (EST)

[edit] Image:Photo-pa1.jpg

Just an ad, probably taken from the restaurant's web site anyway. LtPowers 11:18, 14 November 2009 (EST)

[edit] Image:Untitled-1.jpg

Duplicate of Image:Misadhbfgsdajgdsfh.jpg. LtPowers 12:46, 16 November 2009 (EST)

[edit] Image:Monticello Home9.JPG

No licensing information of any sorts, no response on requests to specify - sertmann 10:14, 17 November 2009 (EST)

• Keep; en:User:Ariel Lickton asserts that the images being uploaded were taken by him/her and his/her classmates. LtPowers 18:10, 19 November 2009 (EST)

[edit] Image:Mainstreet.jpg

No licensing information of any sorts, no response on requests to specify - sertmann 10:14, 17 November 2009 (EST)

• Keep; en:User:Ariel Lickton asserts that the images being uploaded were taken by him/her and his/her classmates. LtPowers 18:10, 19 November 2009 (EST)

[edit] Image:Mainpub.jpg

No licensing information of any sorts, no response on requests to specify - sertmann 10:14, 17 November 2009 (EST)

• Keep; en:User:Ariel Lickton asserts that the images being uploaded were taken by him/her and his/her classmates. LtPowers 18:10, 19 November 2009 (EST)

[edit] Image:吉原殿中.jpg

No licensing information, and this image is found at confectionery's official site.[11]

• Delete -- Tatata 22:48, 18 November 2009 (EST)

[edit] Image:Rikugien-shidarezakura.jpg

This image is provided as free to use at [12]. But, the owner of the site states that "サイズ変更、トリミング・簡単な色修正をしたのみで、２次配布・有料販売することは禁止とします。（具体的に…掲載しているJPGデータを素材サイトやCD-ROM等の素材集として再配布することを禁止しています。）明らかに別物としてでしたら許可します。 "[13], literally means "In case you just only do resizing, cropping or basic color correction, redistribution and sale are prohibited. (concretely speaking, it is prohibited to launch similar web site based on JPG data of this site or to create CD-ROM for redistribution.) Apparent derivative work will be permitted". Unfortunately, their terms of use do not meet our copyleft, even if we will not do such things.

• Delete. -- Tatata 05:57, 19 November 2009 (EST)

[edit] Image:Welcome Sign.jpg

Incorporates copyrighted logos. LtPowers 18:10, 19 November 2009 (EST)