Wikipedia:Files for deletion/2012 December 8

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< December 7 December 9 >

December 8[edit]

File:SW lake powell.jpg[edit]

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 discussion was: Wrong forum. The file is on Commons. Please nominate it for deletion there if you still feel it should be deleted. AnomieBOT⚡ 05:02, 8 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

File:SW lake powell.jpg (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by RJHall (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log).

No source or author listed Fredlyfish4 (talk) 04:35, 8 December 2012 (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.

File:Raymond Reierson.jpg[edit]

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 discussion was: Delete - fails NFCC#1 - Peripitus (Talk) 22:40, 12 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

File:Raymond Reierson.jpg (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Connormah (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log).

Fails WP:NFCC#1 and WP:NFC#UULP as the subject is still alive and I am unaware of a source establishing a reclusive nature or other reason he would be unable to be photographed at present.

I previously proposed this image for speedy deletion under F7 which was closed as a keep "based on the information contained on the Provincial Archives website, which allows use of their images for educational purposes" and per subsequent comment of the closing admin, "that it would be okay to use it for fair use". See previous discussion on the file page itself and at User talk:Diannaa/Archive 24#File:Raymond Reierson.jpg.

Per WP:IUP#Free licenses and the first paragraph of WP:NFC, such permission for educational use is not free enough for Wikipedia's purposes, and so should be judged by the same criteria as all other non-free content. As such, I'm bringing this image here for wider discussion. VernoWhitney (talk) 15:33, 8 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

As I said I am unaware of any public appearances that he has made since 2006. He also has not been mentioned in the news any time recently. For all we know, he may be living a quiet retirement, or, unwell at such an advanced age (he is 93). Also, this is the only photo I could find online in which it clearly depicts him - I've tried looking for a free image, but since he became active after 1949, there does not seem to be anything. The only other photos I could find are low-res group photos in which they clearly do not depict him as this image does. – Connormah (talk) 17:47, 8 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I also hunted online with the same result. My opinion is that the notice on the Provincial Archives website is adequate for us to keep the image as fair use. -- Dianna (talk) 19:10, 8 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
To try and address the points brought up so far and further explain my reasons for starting this process, I'll note that NFCC#1 requires not only that no free image be available, but that one could not be created. UULP goes further and clarifies that this applies to images of living people except for those "individuals whose notability rests in large part on their earlier visual appearance." Judging from the article, his appearance does not factor highly into his notability, leaving the question of whether a free contemporary image could be created. As to answering that question, I propose that rather than being unwell he could be an active member of his local community attending social events five days a week. Without a source we simply don't know. Obviously there are age-related probabilities involved, but it's it's still guesswork.
While the use of the image almost certainly qualifies as fair use as well as meeting the educational use provision, neither of those is the issue at hand. Wikipedia's non-free content requirements are explicitly and purposefully stricter than required by fair use, and as I indicated above, free use for educational purposes isn't free enough to ignore the NFC requirements.
In light of the points above, I feel that in order to live up to the Foundation's requirememt that we not use non-free content in the case of "almost all portraits of living notable individuals" we need something more solid than assumptions based on age to count this as an exception. VernoWhitney (talk) 02:53, 9 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Well, it can also be said that he's a bit obscure - like I said there are only two images of him, and this is the only one obtainable where he is clearly recognizable. – Connormah (talk) 19:32, 9 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep We have followed the criteria required by the Government of Alberta for its use. Canuck89 (what's up?) 05:16, December 10, 2012 (UTC)
  • Delete. Textbook violation of WP:NFCC#1. Subject is alive and a freely licensed image can be created. Keep arguments don't address policy at all, making no persuasive points. — ξxplicit 02:04, 16 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • The issue is not that, that issue here is the likeliness that one will or can be created. The answer to that seems to be in the negative. I'm from and live in Alberta and I have not heard of or seen Reierson for at least 6 years. – Connormah (talk) 04:31, 16 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Textbook violation of WP:NFCC#1. The subject of the photo is still alive. For example, try calling him and ask if you can come over for a photo shot. If he won't let you in, wait outside his door until he needs to go out to shop and then take a photo of him on the street. --Stefan2 (talk) 22:01, 18 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ninety-three-year-old men don't go out to shop. -- Dianna (talk) 22:30, 18 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • They usually leave their homes at some point, though. It should be easier to get a photo of him than to get a photo of Kim Jong-un. --Stefan2 (talk) 22:39, 18 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • Not sure it matters, but he likely lives in St. Paul, Alberta, which is not the end of the universe, but you can see it from there, lol. -- Dianna (talk) 22:47, 18 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      • Probably. But frankly I'm not interested in invading his privacy at this time. Who knows, he could be senile in a nursing home just lying in bed all day. I could maybe explore some other options but I really feel that this image is the only one that I can get without spending a great deal of money, or invading a retired 93 year old man's privacy. – Connormah (talk) 00:52, 25 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • keep These bizarre theories that anything extant can be photographed need to be ditched. But at any rate, a picture of him in the period in which he was politically active is what is informative, not the picture of a retiree sixty years after the fact. Mangoe (talk) 14:45, 30 December 2012 (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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Files_for_deletion/2012_December_8&oldid=1142599392"