The center for all Wikitravel images!

Difference between revisions of "Votes for deletion"

From Wikitravel Shared
Jump to: navigation, search
Line 379: Line 379:
* '''Delete'''.  We don't keep images of hotels, unless they are required to illustrate a class of accommodation in an article.  --[[User:Inas|Inas]] 07:39, 18 May 2010 (EDT)
* '''Delete'''.  We don't keep images of hotels, unless they are required to illustrate a class of accommodation in an article.  --[[User:Inas|Inas]] 07:39, 18 May 2010 (EDT)
* '''Keep'''.  The Seligman photo is a cute Route 66-y photo of a motel ''sign'', but this one actually shows the building and layout. [[User:Jpatokal|Jpatokal]] 08:29, 24 May 2010 (EDT)

Revision as of 12:33, 24 May 2010

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.



There are archives available for this page. Please do not edit the archives - instead, start a new thread.


The basic format for a deletion nomination is the following:

* 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.


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

* '''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 ("~~~~").

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.

November 2009

Image:First Light Veistospuistossa.jpg

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

Huh? That's a strange motivation. Please clarify. Riggwelter 12:55, 19 February 2010 (EST)
What's strange about it? When the sculpture was created, it was automatically covered under a copyright belonging to the sculptor (or, possibly, to the organization or individual who commissioned the sculpture). A photograph of that sculpture is a derivative work of the sculpture, and cannot be licensed freely without the copyright holder's permission (unless the copyright has expired). Some countries have exceptions in their copyright laws for artistic works in public places, but Finland does not. LtPowers 09:29, 20 February 2010 (EST)
Well, I think it is just taking it a bit too far. Are there any precedents for that? Or is it just one of several possible ways to interpret CC-BY-SA? I think so. I have never heard about an artist getting upset about having their work pictured in a tourist guide! However, I am not a lawyer, so I might be wrong. But, as I said before, I do not think we have to be THAT strict about it - not without precedents. Riggwelter 11:04, 22 February 2010 (EST)
Rather than have this discussion in four different places on this page alone, please add your comments at Talk:Image policy#Editorial use. Thanks! LtPowers 11:28, 22 February 2010 (EST)
Delete. Seems like the Wikimedia Commons crew have deleted the original image from the original page too. Ypsilonatshared 11:00, 3 March 2010 (EST)


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. states that the triptychs "date from 1907-1917". According to, 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)
If ChubbyWimbus is unwilling to take the risk, I'm fine with removing the image, I guess. But I think it unlikely that the church's entry conditions (don't take photos and sell them) would be enforceable after the fact, so I don't think he has much to worry about if he chooses to leave the image here. LtPowers 18:42, 24 November 2009 (EST)

Depends on your perspective. If someone told me I wasn't allowed to take commercial photos, and I inadvertently uploaded it with a commercial use licence, personally I would want to do what was right, and what I had agreed to do, and remove the image. Does everything have to be viewed in terms of the likelihood of being successfully sued these days? However, I see it as ChubbyWimbus's call, and it is unclear whether that is to delete, or not. --Inas 22:07, 2 December 2009 (EST)

I don't see it as a matter of being sued or not, but whether the church has a right to expect such a requirement to be followed. They own the physical medium, but they do not own the artwork as a concept; it belongs to the public. LtPowers 11:56, 3 December 2009 (EST)
I appologize for not following up on this. I uploaded it in order to highlight one of the city's more interesting sites for it to be featured (probably with this picture on the main page), but if it's a violation, then it should go. Do you think it would be best for me to send an e-mail to the church? ChubbyWimbus 15:57, 23 May 2010 (EDT)
The image doesn't violate any of our policies, nor any copyright law, as far as any of us can tell. What we can't tell is a) if a non-commercial restriction was imposed on you by the church as a condition of your entry, b) if such a restriction would even be enforceable after the fact, and c) whether you feel you should respect that restriction or not. If you leave it up to us, we'll keep it because the windows are in the public domain. If you want us to take it down so as to respect the church's wishes (if that's what they are), we will. But it's up to you. LtPowers 20:30, 23 May 2010 (EDT)

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)
If LtPowers is right, and the start date for counting copyright was 1942, then we should Keep, as the statue would not be covered by copyright in Latvia, and there is no reason to delete it. --Inas 17:32, 29 November 2009 (EST)
  • Keep. I have no formal legal background, so I'm really not too qualified to make these types of judgments, but my understanding is that Wikitravel is hosted in the U.S., and is thus subject to U.S. laws, which allow for fair use. Fair use should give us the right to use editorially important images for illustrative purposes, I think. In any rate, in absence of any complaints, I'm inclined to keep images of landmarks, since images of landmarks are precisely what our guides are meant to include. --Peter Talk 23:20, 2 January 2010 (EST)
    • Our current image policy makes no provision for fair use; it demands that all images be freely licensed. Inas's argument is at least in line with policy, but keeping on the basis of "fair use" is not. LtPowers 20:17, 3 January 2010 (EST)
  • Keep. "Freedom of panorama" is - to me - a completely new and incomprehensible reason for deletion. An image of a sculpture in a public place for the public to enjoy is not something we should delete with reference to the creator of the statue (in this case). Or are we to remove all images of houses just because the architect is still alive? Riggwelter 12:58, 19 February 2010 (EST)
    • Most countries have exceptions to their copyright law allowing photographs of architecture to be made regardless of the copyright status of the architecture. But not all of those countries extend that freedom to artworks. And in Latvia, they don't even do the former, unless the photograph is only used non-commercially. LtPowers 09:29, 20 February 2010 (EST)
Any source to that claim? As I put it earlier, I do not think we have to be that strict. Riggwelter 11:08, 22 February 2010 (EST)
Rather than have this discussion in four different places on this page alone, please add your comments at Talk:Image policy#Editorial use. Thanks! LtPowers 11:28, 22 February 2010 (EST)


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)

  • Keep per my rationale regarding Image:IMG 4460.JPG. I believe we should keep these types of images of tourist attractions for our purposes under the principles of fair use. And in general, I'm inclined to err on the side of inclusion of useful images. --Peter Talk 23:22, 2 January 2010 (EST)
    • As above, "fair use" is not a policy-based argument. As you mention below (in #Image:Lovina Dolphin Statue.jpg), a discussion is necessary if we are to begin accepting non-free files. LtPowers 20:17, 3 January 2010 (EST)
  • Keep - but no to fair use. Riggwelter 13:00, 19 February 2010 (EST)
    • You can't have it both ways. The sculpture is copyrighted, so it can only be used under a claim of fair use. And we don't allow that in our current policy. LtPowers 09:29, 20 February 2010 (EST)
See below. Riggwelter 11:12, 22 February 2010 (EST)

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)
Agreed. Peter - you are usually the first to say that vfd is here to follow policy not develop it! :-) But - I don't think we should start deleting Indonesian monuments until the legal framework becomes clear. As Burmesedays implies, the possibility of actual legal action seems very remote. --Inas 17:28, 29 November 2009 (EST)
Guilty as charged ;) Whether we should keep images under fair use is a discussion we really do need to have. Cases such as this one remain totally uncertain since we are charged with simply applying policy to vfds, but we do not have a clear policy regarding the issue brought up. As Jani said, we should have a serious discussion on this topic at Talk:Copyleft. I will abstain from starting this discussion at this present, due to the lingering effects of... --Peter Talk 23:30, 2 January 2010 (EST)
  • Keep - but a firm no to the use of fair use. Riggwelter 13:01, 19 February 2010 (EST)
    • Again, you can't have it both ways. You can't say "no" to fair use and "yes" to keeping this file. What is your justification for keeping this if not through a fair use exemption to copyright? LtPowers 09:29, 20 February 2010 (EST)
I will not pretend I understand the legal principles involved here, but it seems bizarre that a travel guide cannot use pictures of publicly owned landmarks through fear of breaching copyright.--Burmesedays 21:41, 20 February 2010 (EST)
I can only agree with Burmesedays. It is simply bizarre. Riggwelter 11:10, 22 February 2010 (EST)
Rather than have this discussion in four different places on this page alone, please add your comments at Talk:Image policy#Editorial use. Thanks! LtPowers 11:28, 22 February 2010 (EST)

December 2009

Image:Douro Internacional.jpg

I'm not sure about this one, but TinEye shows a match. LtPowers 19:25, 10 December 2009 (EST)

I'm not sure either. I found a very similar map [1] through a Google search that did not have any copyright info on it. Although other pages in the site were copyrighted. Shaund 00:38, 6 February 2010 (EST)
Lack of copyright notice doesn't imply lack of copyright, sadly. The additional instance of use is merely more evidence that the uploader doesn't own the image and thus cannot release it into the public domain as he/she claims. LtPowers 20:55, 6 February 2010 (EST)

Image:Colombian Fruits.JPG

Derivative of the pictured painting; doubtful that a local Colombian artist agreed to release his painting under a free license. LtPowers 10:04, 16 December 2009 (EST)

Image:Logo cooltour.jpg

Logos are not likely to be licensed freely. LtPowers 17:30, 16 December 2009 (EST)

Image:Toronto District Map 1.PNG

License tag says the uploader owns the image, which seems highly unlikely given the "Toronto Tourism" logo in the bottom left. LtPowers 12:27, 23 December 2009 (EST)

  • Delete - The map is derived from the back of a visitor's map on the City of Toronto's website [2]. The page and all its contents are copyrighted [3]. - Shaund 19:57, 1 January 2010 (EST)

Image:Welcome to Rottingdean.JPG

No freedom of panorama for signs in England. LtPowers 10:21, 28 December 2009 (EST)

  • Delete. Don't know about the freedom of panorama, but I would support a image policy change saying that entry signs to towns are rarely useful. --Inas 01:41, 7 April 2010 (EDT)

Image:BCC lowres darthet 05 250x250px.jpg

The card design is presumably copyrighted. LtPowers 11:17, 31 December 2009 (EST)

Deleted. Riggwelter 12:14, 5 April 2010 (EDT)

Image:Teslic old postcard.jpg

Unless we can show that the author died before 1940, we must presume this work to be copyrighted. (Copyright term in Bosnia is 70 years after the death of the author.) LtPowers 11:17, 31 December 2009 (EST)

  • Delete. Can't see the relevant to the traveller, so investigation seems to have little return. --Inas 01:39, 7 April 2010 (EDT)

April 2010

Images uploaded by User:Babycute911

Image:Ao dai, Vietnam.jpg
Image:Ha Long Bay Boat, Vietnam.jpg
Image:Lantern, Hoi An Ancient Town, Vietnam.jpg
Image:Opera house in Hanoi.jpg
Image:Temple of Literature, Hanoi, Vietnam.jpg
Image:Girl with peach flowers, Vietnam .jpg
Image:Terraced field, Sapa, Vietnam.jpg
Image:Vũ điệu thần tiên sếu đầu đỏ9.jpg
Image:The Mon Gate- Hue citadel, Vietnam.jpg

Vfd'd for various reasons, the most important one being copyright violation. They were uploaded with a not-copyrighted notice but were taken from sites like and, which have clear copyright notices.

  • Delete all - Texugo 01:22, 5 April 2010 (EDT)
  • Delete all --Burmesedays 06:03, 6 April 2010 (EDT)
  • Result: All deleted.--Burmesedays 22:55, 23 May 2010 (EDT)

Images uploaded by User:Glenn.scott

User has uploaded four Australian images with no source information. For this image:Harbourbridge.jpg, tineye gives a return here. The image has been substantially cropped and re-processed from that original. I would be nervous about the other three also (not yet checked). --Burmesedays 01:08, 7 April 2010 (EDT)


  • Delete. Category duplicated as Category:Seville. I fixed all images at Seville, so it's empty. Jatrobat 12:30, 7 April 2010 (EDT)
  • Can a category be re-directed? If so, redirect to Category:Seville.--Burmesedays 22:02, 7 April 2010 (EDT)
    • I think Mediawiki sort-of allows category redirects but they don't work as one might expect. Another reason we might want to consider having gallery pages in addition to our category structure. The Wikimedia wikis often use "soft redirects", or a template pointing users to the correct category. LtPowers 09:29, 8 April 2010 (EDT)
It's odd that we haven't discussed image category redirects before, but I've been speedy deleting these for years for one clear reason: it's best that they show up as red links. Otherwise, if someone sees the blue link at the bottom of the image page after adding [[Category:Sevilla]], they'll have no way of realizing that they sent the image to the wrong category.
I'd suggest that we take this discussion elsewhere, but it seems we don't have any policy pages regarding use of categories on Shared!! --Peter Talk 11:51, 8 April 2010 (EDT)
For reference on technical limitations, please see Wikipedia:Template talk:Category redirect#What this template is for. LtPowers 21:48, 8 April 2010 (EDT)


A painting, not a photo. Is it OK to speedy this kind of thing as a clear violation of our "only simple photography" guideline? Texugo 01:56, 9 April 2010 (EDT)

  • Delete - Texugo 02:06, 9 April 2010 (EDT)
  • Delete --Burmesedays 22:16, 9 April 2010 (EDT)
  • Result: deleted. --Burmesedays 22:58, 23 May 2010 (EDT)


A clear copyvio case. Copyright Travelocity Partners Network, here.

  • Speedied - Texugo 02:06, 9 April 2010 (EDT)

Image:Opera house sydney.jpg

Nailed on copy vio from here which has been adapted all over the blogosphere it seems. The same user has caused a fair bit of havoc with the Australian article at en, so I am not too surprised she did not understand our copyright situation.

  • Delete... quickly. --Burmesedays 22:22, 9 April 2010 (EDT)
  • Speedied. LtPowers 16:30, 10 April 2010 (EDT)


This clearly professional shot gives many positive returns on tineye, but this appears to be the original at Flickr, all rights reserved. --Burmesedays 01:34, 13 April 2010 (EDT)

Image:MacLehose 1.JPG

  • Delete. Probably a copyvio and even if not, it is nigh on useless.--Burmesedays 09:14, 15 April 2010 (EDT)
    • Assuming the map is in Hong Kong, if it's installed in a public location then derivative works are okay. But I agree it's useless for us in this form. A photograph of a map is only slightly better than one drawn in Microsoft Paint. LtPowers 16:36, 15 April 2010 (EDT)

Images by User:Goastin

I am not quite sure why this user is uploading lots of (badly drawn) symbols and I think all should be deleted as a combination of useless and out of scope. Also some sketchy maps which look like scans. Symbols:

Others that look dodgy:

  • Delete - Looks like another Vandal/troll and the pictures are pointless. --User:SnappyHip 03:38, 19 April, 2010
  • Notice. User:Senis appears to be related somehow. Might want to check his/her contributions as well. LtPowers 18:30, 20 April 2010 (EDT)


Out of scope, probable copyvio to boot. LtPowers 18:32, 20 April 2010 (EDT)

  • Delete. I have already deleted all the text that went with that image and which was copied from the same website.
  • Result: deleted. --Burmesedays 23:00, 23 May 2010 (EDT)


Out of scope, blurry. LtPowers 21:44, 20 April 2010 (EDT)


Likely copyvio; several results on TinEye. LtPowers 21:47, 20 April 2010 (EDT)

  • Delete. Also out of scope. --Burmesedays 20:55, 21 April 2010 (EDT)


Apparent copyvio from LtPowers 17:55, 22 April 2010 (EDT)

Image:Cambridge Gulf.jpg

Both images are from Flickr, where they are both licensed CC-by-nc-sa 2.0. We don't allow noncommercial-only images. LtPowers 17:55, 22 April 2010 (EDT)

  • Delete. Obviously. --Burmesedays 04:22, 27 April 2010 (EDT)

Image:IMG 0172.jpg

Badly-named duplicate of Image:Ashdod marina.jpg. LtPowers 09:09, 23 April 2010 (EDT)

Image:William Walker by Brady.jpg

Portrait of William Walker. Out of scope. LtPowers 13:34, 24 April 2010 (EDT)

  • Delete. Nice portrait of an interesting man, but no relevance here.--Burmesedays 04:24, 27 April 2010 (EDT)


Appears to be a copyvio from --Burmesedays 00:38, 25 April 2010 (EDT)

replace with: found through creative commons. —The preceding comment was added by (talkcontribs) .

Isn't that a picture of en:Providence, not en:East Providence? LtPowers 17:32, 26 April 2010 (EDT)

yes, the caption can read: Providence skyline from East Providence —The preceding comment was added by (talkcontribs) .

Well, that's a discussion for East Providence talk page. LtPowers 11:31, 27 April 2010 (EDT)

Image:Maderia Interior.jpg

Copyvio from . Same uploader as East_Providence_Skyline.jpg (above). LtPowers 13:25, 25 April 2010 (EDT)

This image can be deleted. —The preceding comment was added by (talkcontribs) .

Image:UL StadthausMünster01 VSCD.jpg

Source listed as the official tourism organization for en:Ulm, but it seems unlikely they'd release an image under a Creative Commons license -- especially under all versions of the license. Without further proof of such a release, I don't think we can keep this image. LtPowers 11:39, 27 April 2010 (EDT)


Duplicate of Image:Pristina manhole.JPG. LtPowers 11:43, 27 April 2010 (EDT)

Cuba Family Photos

There are some photos on the Cuban pages that were obviously taken during a family vacation and feature the family members:

The last one is of fruit vendors, so I'm not exactly sure if that's allowed or not. ChubbyWimbus 16:46, 27 April 2010 (EDT)


Non-commercial license on Flickr. LtPowers 08:29, 29 April 2010 (EDT)

May 2010

Image:Pub crawl outside realt dearg.jpg

Out of scope; recognizable people. LtPowers 10:25, 5 May 2010 (EDT)

Images uploaded by user:L2ugl3urn

I do not think the user understands our copyleft.


It is an easily recognised Google Map (as the uploader freely states).--Burmesedays 11:59, 10 May 2010 (EDT)

  • Speedy delete. --Burmesedays 11:59, 10 May 2010 (EDT)
    • Speedily deleted. LtPowers 13:00, 10 May 2010 (EDT)


Obvious copyvio from -- the uploader lists this site as the source, but the site says nothing about a free license. LtPowers 13:11, 10 May 2010 (EDT)


Obvious copyvio from -- the uploader lists this site as the source, but the site says nothing about a free license. LtPowers 13:11, 10 May 2010 (EDT)

Image:Modern diner.jpg

Obvious copyvio from -- the uploader lists this site as the source, but the site says nothing about a free license. LtPowers 13:11, 10 May 2010 (EDT)


Obvious copyvio from -- the uploader lists this site as the source, but the site says nothing about a free license. And something tells me that blog stole the picture too. LtPowers 13:11, 10 May 2010 (EDT)


I don't trust these two. There's no copyright notice on, the listed source, and the uploader is User:Chestertouristcom, so there's a possibility they're okay legally. But they're also not that great as far as images go, so I don't think it's a big loss if we err on the side of caution. Would appreciate other perspectives, though. LtPowers 13:21, 10 May 2010 (EDT)

Image:Toms RivBig.jpg

Copyvio from LtPowers 08:35, 11 May 2010 (EDT)

Image:Central-New-York Region.jpg

I have to question the marking of this file as PD-self, as it appears suspiciously similar to wikipedia:File:Central New York.png, which is licensed dual-gfdl-cc-by-sa-3.0. Normally I would just change the license, but this file represents the Central New York region as defined by the New York State tourism organization, not as we define it on the English Wikitravel. LtPowers 19:46, 13 May 2010 (EDT)

Image:Star Lite Motel.jpg

Out of scope. An image of a ghastly motel in Minnesota.--Burmesedays 11:25, 15 May 2010 (EDT)

I'm not sure it's out of scope. We already have images like Image:Seligman SupaiMotel.JPG, which is prominently displayed on en:United States of America#Sleep. LtPowers 13:40, 17 May 2010 (EDT)
I would say the Seligman image is illustrative of a peculiarly American form of accommodation and is valid because of that. The Star Lite Motel image is just another photo of an uninteresting hotel. I thought we discouraged that?--Burmesedays 21:34, 17 May 2010 (EDT)
I'm saying that the Star Lite Motel is also illustrative of a peculiarly American form of accommodation, isn't it? LtPowers 09:04, 18 May 2010 (EDT)
One example seems like enough to me. Slippery slopes all over the place. Or do we want lots of images of grotty Victorian Bed and Breakfast houses from England with a justification of their being peculiarly distinctive? --Burmesedays 23:54, 18 May 2010 (EDT)
That's a novel deletion criterion that I haven't seen used before. I'm not sure it's in line with policy. LtPowers 16:42, 19 May 2010 (EDT)
Isn't this covered by en:Wikitravel:Accommodation_listings#Avoid_using_images. Seems a clear case to delete to me. If we keep every average motel because its an example of an average motel, then that policy becomes a farce. --Inas 02:28, 20 May 2010 (EDT)
I'm not suggesting we keep every average motel. Just that this one might be useful and isn't necessarily out of scope. Notably, it shows the actual motel building instead of just the sign. LtPowers 08:16, 20 May 2010 (EDT)
I honestly don't see your point. The photo isn't particularly good, and we have a policy of not keeping images of hotels unless they are used to exemplify a style, or are landmarks worth visiting in their own right. Can you give a reason as to why you think this one in particular may be useful, that wouldn't lead us to have to apply the same reasoning to every photo of a motel? I can't see anything remotely notable about it, and I agree with Burmesedays that this slope is so slimy as to be treacherous. If we keep this, then the policy we use to stop every accommodation provider adding an image of their establishment goes out the window. --Inas 19:27, 20 May 2010 (EDT)
My only point is that we don't appear to already have an image illustrating the typical American roadside motel. If we have a higher quality one, then I have no problem deleting this one. LtPowers 08:53, 23 May 2010 (EDT)
  • Delete. We don't keep images of hotels, unless they are required to illustrate a class of accommodation in an article. --Inas 07:39, 18 May 2010 (EDT)
  • Keep. The Seligman photo is a cute Route 66-y photo of a motel sign, but this one actually shows the building and layout. Jpatokal 08:29, 24 May 2010 (EDT)


Copyvio. --Inas 07:38, 18 May 2010 (EDT)

Yep, but you forgot to mark it with the vfd template. Anyway, I would have speedied it as a blatant copyvio, but there was an earlier version that the most recent uploader uploaded over. (Totally different maps, of course, but this is what happens when you use a stupid filename like "map.jpg".) We should discuss if there's value in the old map. I suspect not -- it's probably a copyvio as well -- but I didn't want it to get forgotten. LtPowers 09:02, 18 May 2010 (EDT)
Yes, this really was just a placemarker while I figured out what to do with the older map. Thanks for adding the template.
  • Delete this image and the one it overlays. Top layer is a blatant copyvio. Bootom layer is a likely copyvio, and is unused on en or shared. --Inas 23:40, 19 May 2010 (EDT)


Nice shot of a stunning bar where I have spent a fair bit of time. The image is copyrighted here, and has been added by a user clearly working for the hotel in some capacity or another. Same user has made many (mostly bad) edits to the Jimbaran article at en. I will be amazed if the hotel management have actually released this shot with a cc licence.--Burmesedays 11:50, 19 May 2010 (EDT)


It's either a copyvio (from ) or blatant advertising (since it was uploaded by User:EAHOTEL). LtPowers 09:24, 20 May 2010 (EDT)

Image:Award misc birthday cake.jpg

I don't see the relevance. --Tiagox2 16:35, 21 May 2010 (EDT)

"Keep". It's in use on the talk page of a good ole friend of ourscacahuate talk 19:31, 22 May 2010 (EDT)

Image:Mina tripoli lebanon 1 .jpg

Obviously a (very) professional shot which makes me nervous of a PD self claim. Tineye gives one positive return from an all rights reserved Lebanese news site [4]. --Burmesedays 02:41, 24 May 2010 (EDT)


  • Delete. Out of scope image of a hotel.--Burmesedays 02:44, 24 May 2010 (EDT)


  • Delete. Out of scope image of a hotel.--Burmesedays 02:44, 24 May 2010 (EDT)



In other languages