The following discussion is an archived inquiry of the possible unfree file below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the media's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was: Delete; deleted by Diannaa (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 22:17, 19 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

File:Joseph Crabtree.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs).

• This is allegedly a painting of an established hoax, Joseph Crabtree (fictional polymath), which is obviously an impossibility. It was "presented" by a Professor James Sutherland in or around 1956. Another guy (William Coldstream) claimed the painting was the work of Henry Raeburn. I seriously doubt that Raeburn painted an non-existent man, and instead believe Coldstream (himself a painter and art teacher) produced the painting and lied about its origin. That would put the painting at under a 100 years after the authors death (in 1987), invalidating the current PD claim.

Whatever you or I may believe, the simple fact is that we do not (and cannot) know the truth due to the hoaxy nature of the circumstances, and that when in doubt, we should err on the side of caution when it comes to copyright. ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉ 05:00, 8 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: I have no idea if this is a hoax or not, but there is something strange about the painting, as if it was modified to look older than it should be. Viriditas (talk) 05:10, 8 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Which exactly what would be expected if my theory is correct. ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉ 05:21, 8 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete If the painting is by Raeburn, it is not a portrait of Crabtree (a fictional character not invented until long after Raeburn's death). Also, if it is truly a work of Raeburn, it would likely have been cataloged prior to its "discovery" in 1956. As pointed out by Viriditas, it is more likely a much more recent creation, and since the Crabtree foundation is dogmatically opposed to revealing its true provenance (as this would undermine their running joke), we have no way of knowing what the copyright status of this image is. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 13:51, 8 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete To me it's no Raeburn, no matter who the sitter was. Even allowing for the apparently bad condition, it hasn't got the qualities a Raeburn has - character and life. If it is genuinely an old painting, and not a bit of computer work, we shouldn't have it labelled as Raeburn in case someone else uses it in an article as an example of Raeburn. If it's a modern creation in either oils or pixels, it's copyright and should go as we have no evidence of it being public domain. Even if it is based on an old painting, and has been 'brushed up' rather than 'shopped', there is likely to be copyright in the modification. I'm not an art expert, but I do have some works by collectable artists, and more that aren't. To me, this comes into the category of 'instant ancestor' bought cheaply at an antiques fair. They wouldn't use a real Raeburn to bolster a hoax - that would be going against the raison d'être of the hoax. And most colleges and unis could use the money a real Raeburn would fetch - even in this apparent condition. I'd like to see the it close up - if not in the flesh, in whatever medium it is in. Peridon (talk) 15:51, 10 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Having now looked again at the image, and at Coldstream's work, I think it is old. Artists can paint in different styles, but this is way off Coldstream's lines. That line down the picture is odd - it could mean that the painting is on a panel rather than canvas. I must stop looking at this. Can anyone else see the other figure in the picture? Over to the viewer's left. Peridon (talk) 16:17, 10 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. I also do not believe for a moment that this is a Raeburn, just on the look of it. Also, prolific as he was, his works are well known and studied and it highly unlikely that a previously unknown one should surface. Even the source cited says only "believed by Sir William Coldstream to be the work of Sir Henry Raeburn." Coldstream was a member of the Crabtree Foundation, the group that originated and maintains this in-joke. Since it is admitted that Crabtree never existed, all we can say about this is "Portrait of an unknown man by an unknown artist, presented as part of the Crabtree spoof". If kept, it should absolutely not be labelled Raeburn - we are not in the business of propagating misinformation. JohnCD (talk) 20:19, 12 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the media's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.