Wikipedia:Files for deletion/2008 October 27

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the media 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 debate was: Commons image. Deletion discussion would need to take place there. —Wknight94 (talk) 16:01, 2 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Image:The friend (nude).jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by TwoWings (notify | contribs).

• unused image, just a naked girl NJGW (talk) 02:30, 27 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Orphaned, Unencyclopedic
  talk 00:21, 27 October 2008 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• That's a Commons image. I don't think IfD has jurisdiction. —Ilmari Karonen (talk) 06:30, 27 October 2008 (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.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the media 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 debate was: Already Speedy Deleted (non-admin closure) MatthewYeager 07:08, 1 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Newspamdalogo.jpg

Image:Newspamdalogo.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Nick (notify | contribs).

• Orphaned, Unencyclopedic
  talk 00:43, 27 October 2008 (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.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the media 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 debate was: Already speedy deleted (non-admin closure) MatthewYeager 07:09, 1 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Nick_at_Laptop.JPG

Image:Nick_at_Laptop.JPG (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Nick (notify | contribs).

• Orphaned, Unencyclopedic
  talk 00:55, 27 October 2008 (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.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the media 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 debate was: Already speedy deleted (non-admin closure) MatthewYeager 07:10, 1 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Night_LH.jpg

Image:Night_LH.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Harsha850 (notify | contribs).

• Orphaned, Unencyclopedic
  talk 02:10, 27 October 2008 (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.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the media 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 debate was: Already speedy deleted (non-admin closure) MatthewYeager 07:11, 1 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Image:No_Additional_Cost_Service.pdf

Image:No_Additional_Cost_Service.pdf (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Cleggebrecht (notify | contribs).

• Orphaned, Unencyclopedic
  talk 02:44, 27 October 2008 (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.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the media 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.

Image:No_arrow.svg

The result of the debate was:

Image:No_arrow.svg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Consumed_Crustacean (notify | contribs).

• Orphaned, Unencyclopedic
  talk 02:49, 27 October 2008 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• This was part of some discussion that I can no longer recall the specifics of. It wasn't used for anything after that. I'll delete it as G7. -- Consumed Crustacean (talk) 04:32, 27 October 2008 (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.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the media 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 debate was: Already deleted by Mr.Z-man (talk · contribs) with edit summary you could have just asked me. (non-admin closure) MatthewYeager 07:16, 1 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Image:NoBorder.png

Image:NoBorder.png (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Mr.Z-man (notify | contribs).

• Orphaned, Unencyclopedic
  talk 02:55, 27 October 2008 (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.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the media 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 debate was: - Delete - not orphaned at the moment but is unencyclopedic Peripitus (Talk) 00:36, 5 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Image:NoTrespassing.JPG (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Da_Vynci (notify | contribs).

• Orphaned, Unencyclopedic
  talk 02:56, 27 October 2008 (UTC)[reply
  ]

Image is now being used in Trespass page as an example of the warning sign. --Da Vynci (talk) 08:21, 27 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete I seriously doubt that this is an image of an official no trespassing sign, considering the wording of the warning. More likely it is either a created image, or something used as a joke. Additionally, the article it was placed into is about the legalities of trespassing, not joke signs, and already has sufficient images to illustrate the subject. This image is serving no useful purpose. Ariel♥Gold 22:59, 27 October 2008 (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.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the media 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 debate was: - Delete - Peripitus (Talk) 00:31, 5 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Bride-two.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by User_talk:Fakundus

• Delete I am dubious about the copyright status of this image, and feel there are clear personality rights issues too Privatemusings (talk) 03:52, 27 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete simply based on the second throwaway account magically appearing to fix the license status to read exactly what it needed to over a year later. Something seems questionable. The original uploader took the time to upload these images, add them to articles and when they were questioned the first time around couldn't find the time to come and talk about them.--
  Crossmr (talk) 04:42, 27 October 2008 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Delete. Marginal encyclopedic value combined with the issues well stated above.--
  talk) 05:17, 27 October 2008 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Note: This image has been nominated before.
• Keep. We have no reason to doubt the copyright status given by the image uploader, and his not contributing other things to the project doesn't make this contribution invalid. It's as encyclopedic as the rest of the article. I don't think we should remove an image that hasn't caused any complaints from copyright holders or people featured in the image in the two or so years it's been visible here. Orpheus (talk) 06:16, 27 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

is it possible that the people involved are unaware of the image's presence on wikipedia, Orph? - and is it reasonable to wonder if this might legitimately be seen to contravene one's

Personality Rights? I'm not really sure that it's appropriate to keep the image, even should consensus be clear in that direction... in the nicest possible way, I hope it doesn't come to that though! cheers, Privatemusings (talk) 06:23, 27 October 2008 (UTC)[reply

]

Well, the problem is that you could say that about every image (and arguably article) on Wikipedia that involves a person, living or with living inheritors. I'm very uncomfortable with using such a wide-ranging rationale to delete an image without some wider community consensus, in the form of policy or guidelines. Orpheus (talk) 08:06, 27 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I share your concern [1], which is exactly why I think this sort of thing may be better handled on a case by case basis rather than through gameable, vague and controversial guidelines - bad facts make bad law. Here we have what looks like a private picture with pretty clearly embarrassing content. The photographer may have the right to the copyright of the picture, but the subjects do retain personality rights and basic human dignity. Deletion here seems consistent with the spirit of BLP and may be an excellent case for

talk) 04:17, 28 October 2008 (UTC)[reply

]

• Delete Indoor photographs of recognizable people require model permission. No OTRS has been filed. This image lacks necessary personality rights. Durova^Charge! 23:03, 27 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  Durova, can you point us to the relevant Wikipedia rule? I'm looking for something a little more concrete than "she's standing there in her underwear, so it's common sense." WhatamIdoing (talk) 04:04, 28 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - Durova might not be able to point to the policy, but I can point to the law:
  Wikipedia:BLP#Basic_human_dignity. Magog the Ogre (talk) 04:10, 28 October 2008 (UTC)[reply
  ]

It seems that Image:Golgotha hill.jpg, for example, falls under the same category. It's an indoor photo of a recognisable person with no model permission. Should we delete that too? Orpheus (talk) 08:23, 28 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That picture does not have the capacity to shame and destroy someone's life. Can you really not tell the difference? Magog the Ogre (talk) 08:48, 28 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

How would a picture of someone in their underwear "shame and destroy" their life? Surely that's a bit excessive. Orpheus (talk) 10:14, 28 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

See personality rights and Commons:Commons:Personality rights. For this type of situation, Commons cites the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, Article 12: No one shall be subjected to arbitrary interference with his privacy, family, home or correspondence, nor to attacks upon his honour and reputation. It would be simple enough to submit an OTRS model consent if the subjects were actually willing to have their likeness appear in an encyclopedia. That has not been done, and there has been plenty of time to submit it if they had been willing. Durova^Charge! 18:21, 28 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Orpheus, while you personally might not mind, there are people who would, and people who could be significantly harmed by it. Have you considered, for example, if she turns out to be a schoolteacher? "Hey, Mom, guess what we found on the web! It's a picture of our math teacher in her underwear, with a penis strapped to her head!" That's a "career-ending injury" in some parts of the world. WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:28, 28 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Being seen in a church can be a life-ending injury in some parts of the world. My point is that a policy this broad should be discussed by the wider community, not applied quietly image by image. I would have thought that Durova in particular would be wary of anything that could be perceived as under the radar. Orpheus (talk) 18:48, 28 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Incidentally, the Commons link above doesn't exist. Orpheus (talk) 18:59, 28 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

OK, that comes across as a bit of a drive-by comment - I should summarise. It seems to me that this is an important issue, regarding personality rights and the level of explicit consent required for an image. It's one that needs a clear policy with wide community agreement, because at the moment some editors are discussing as though such a policy exists. (NB: I realise that sounds quite accusatory, but it's not intended - I just can't think of a better way to word it). I strongly believe that for the good of the project, this should be discussed in a more central, public, widely viewed forum and then whatever consensus we come to there applied to individual images. Orpheus (talk) 19:24, 28 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Here.[2] Orpheus, please explain your concern. Why should I in particular be 'wary', and how does this in any way appear to be 'under the radar'? I am an administrator on Commons and this would be a routine deletion there. If en:wiki is any different in that regard, please point to the appropriate policy page and refrain from personalizing the discussion. Durova^Charge! 20:14, 28 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the fixed link. First off, that comment was VERY poorly worded, and I apologise for the personal attack it (unintentionally) turned into. I would strike it through, but I won't because the underlying point was completely intentional. What we as a community should learn from events such as yours, Essjay, and all the others is that Wikipedia *must* be open. It also must be *seen* to be open, ridiculously and hyperbolically open. This particular image isn't all that important, I don't personally care whether it lives or dies. I do, however, care very much that this policy has grown by accretion and by "stealth" - not intentional, deceptive stealth, but simply the kind that creeps in through a lack of openness and public process. I know this page is public, but it is in practice buried and invisible to all but the most dedicated of wikicreatures.

Now, the Commons policy seems like a good starting point, but there is no en.wikipedia policy that I can find on this matter. There should be! It's an important issue. The policy should answer questions like:

1) How identifiable does someone need to be to trigger deletion, on a scale of full face to paper bag?

2) What counts as embarrassing, what cultural norms do we go with, etc?

3) Should we adopt a policy of blurring or obscuring identifiable parts rather than deleting the whole image?

4) What exactly is a private space and how much trust do we put in uploaders to identify whether photography was permitted?

Please - don't answer these questions here! This page isn't the place for this discussion, but it's one that should be conducted and not just under the banner of this single image and not just by the three or four people reading this. Orpheus (talk) 08:32, 29 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hmmm. Given the existing tension over image use, I was skeptical that it was a good idea to add another layer of image bureaucracy. However, the Commons policy is quite good - perhaps I underestimate us.--

talk) 03:30, 30 October 2008 (UTC)[reply

]

I've started a discussion at the image use policy, which seemed like a reasonable place to begin. WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:23, 29 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete WP:BLP and personality rights. What is and isn't private should be clear. What is and isn't identifiable should be clear. What is and isn't capable of negatively impacting someone's life should be clear. Pictures are one in a million. If this one is taken down it is immediately replaceable. However, if that was you on there and your boss happened to see you on wikipedia, you could be fired (not legally in all states, but cause could be drummed up in most cases). It's also non encyclopedic. Protonk (talk) 19:25, 29 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• While we welcome photo contributions from all editors, "some photo I took of some random party" is not what we're looking for. I don't see that this image is useful for our purpose of writing an encyclopedia. — Carl (
  CBM · talk) 19:29, 29 October 2008 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Delete per Commons policy, which should also be policy here. This is a private party with a reasonable expectation of privacy.
  chat} 19:07, 3 November 2008 (UTC)[reply
  ]