Commons:Deletion requests/Krafla Power Plant

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.

Add {{delete|reason=Fill in reason for deletion here!|subpage=Krafla Power Plant|year=2024|month=May|day=23}} to the description page of each file. Notify the uploader(s) with {{subst:idw||Krafla Power Plant|plural}} ~~~~ Add {{Commons:Deletion requests/Krafla Power Plant}} at the end of today's log.

Krafla Power Plant

• File:Krafla Geothermal Plant.JPG
• File:Krafla Geothermal Power Station 21.05.2008 15-31-19.JPG
• File:Krafla power plant in summer 2009 (4).jpg

Krafla power plant was designed by VA Arkitektar[1] in 1975. 70 years cannot have passed since the death of the architect per COM:FOP#Iceland. --JD554 (talk) 12:00, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

• The nomination calls upon hte authority of COM:FOP#Iceland -- which says "Overview photos in which no single work is the main subject of the image should be fine." Well File:Krafla Geothermal Power Station 21.05.2008 15-31-19.JPG and File:Krafla power plant in summer 2009 (4).jpg show roads and hills as well as the plant. According to FOP, aren't they "fine"? Geo Swan (talk) 21:07, 24 April 2012 (UTC)
  • I shouldn't think so, the roads and hills are incidental to the main image of the power plant. --JD554 (talk) 06:55, 25 April 2012 (UTC)
    • This is a judgment call -- one in which we disagree. Why couldn't someone interested in landscapes say the roads and buidings are incidental to the hills? Geo Swan (talk) 18:10, 19 May 2012 (UTC)
•  Keep - just a power plant, not an artistic work.

/Pieter Kuiper (talk) 21:42, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

• •  Comment - It is an artistic work as defined by Article 1 of Iceland's Copyright Act, which says: "Literary and artistic works shall include any oral or written text, a dramatic work, musical composition, work of visual art, architecture, cinematography, photography or applied art, or other comparable art form, by whatever method and in whatever form it is presented. Therfore it isn't covered by freedom of panorama, see Article 16 the Act. An English translation is available here. --JD554 (talk) 07:18, 26 April 2012 (UTC)
    • That does not say that this is an artistic work. Who is the "artist" supposed to be? Just some engineers. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 07:40, 26 April 2012 (UTC)
      • In what way is a building designed by architects not architecture? Which Article 1 does define as an artistic work. --JD554 (talk) 08:27, 26 April 2012 (UTC)
•  Delete. Architecture is a field of the arts and the legal text is obvious. De728631 (talk) 15:00, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

---

Deleted: . .     Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 21:47, 19 August 2012 (UTC)