Commons:Deletion requests/File:Wagner Group Mutiny.svg

The sources for these maps are a mercenary group's claim. This map is used as a fact on wikipedia. Beshogur (talk) 10:55, 24 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Beshogur The source doesn't use what is entirely the groups claim. See its sources in the description, it also follows the relevant article. Here is what is linked in its description. [1] [2] [3] [4] Noorullah21 (talk) 10:58, 24 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Twitter is the most reliable source right? These kind of speculative maps shouldn't be used as facts. Beshogur (talk) 11:00, 24 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The article itself also states what is potrayed on the map.

See for rostov and reaching Voronezh: [5]

Nonetheless.. We also have used twitter as source when verifiable or corroborated such as during the Taliban insurgency maps. Noorullah21 (talk) 11:05, 24 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not against a map, claiming they've captured territories based on their claim is just absurd. Beshogur (talk) 11:05, 24 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Also map made by "War_Mapper" is way more appropriate. I'm against such a map like this. Beshogur (talk) 11:10, 24 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Beshogur Wagner presence was confirmed in Rostov and Bugayevka as corroborated (by other sources). However Voronezh was disputed, with initial reports saying it was captured, and then it wasn't. War_Mapper's showed it as not controlled/disputed, and that is also what my map shows on the city with striped lines indicating it is disputed. Noorullah21 (talk) 11:13, 24 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Voronezh - 1 2

Rostov - 1 2

Bugayevka - 1 2

Way to Moscow - 1 2 3 4 DinoSoupCanada (talk) 11:26, 24 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

High quality sources too. I don't know why they used Twitter first, but everything seems to be corroborated by now. DinoSoupCanada (talk) 11:27, 24 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

This is not a valid reason for deletion no? Just contest the image on the proper page if you have an issue with the sources it uses Tweedle (talk) 11:33, 24 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep not valid grounds for deletion per se Synotia (talk) 12:38, 24 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

 Keep. Deletion is not an appropriate remedy for factual disputes. Besides, the image is currently in use on the frwiki home page; we're not about to delete it out from under them. Omphalographer (talk) 20:25, 24 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

 Keep Per Tweedle. It should be discussed on talkpage first instead of deletion request. Thanks. SCP-2000 04:03, 25 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Commons also allows fantasy/propaganda maps like this one, therefore I don't see any reason for deletion here. -- Chaddy (talk) 11:26, 25 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Kept: no valid reason for deletion: if map is displaying bad information, fix the map. —holly {chat} 18:11, 30 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]