Commons:Deletion requests/File:Alexandre Barrette dans l'extérieur de métro Pie-IX.jpg
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
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.
No permission from subject being photographed. This is required in Quebec. See Commons:Country_specific_consent_requirements#Canada The Haz talk 05:29, 23 February 2014 (UTC)
- But wait, the rule states: "Exceptions include (i) a person of public interest," and photo subject is a media personality. That said, it's too dark; unless it can be lightened I don't see it being useful. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 05:34, 23 February 2014 (UTC)
- I didn't know he was a public figure. Thanks for pointing that out. In that case, my original argument is not a case for deletion. However, I will leave the request open as I do agree with you that it's quite dark and probably not usable because of that.The Haz talk 14:07, 23 February 2014 (UTC)
- Brightness fixed- image now usable if a little noisy. Generally speaking, fairly- but not extremely- dark images like this *can* be recovered with some straightforward adjustment and IMHO should *not* be deleted. If the image is so dark that any shadow detail has been entirely crushed (i.e. does not exist in the first place) or compressed, or proves to be excessively noisy when the brightness is increased, that's different, but it doesn't apply here- some quick filtering solved the problem. Ubcule (talk) 14:50, 23 February 2014 (UTC)
- Removing deletion request. The Haz talk 15:09, 23 February 2014 (UTC)
- I've added it to his English and French wiki articles, as well. If someone has a problem with it, they can create their own deletion discussion, or raise it here if this is still open. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 20:03, 23 February 2014 (UTC)
Kept: Withdrawn Natuur12 (talk) 19:53, 3 March 2014 (UTC)
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.
Not in use, not educationally useful -- Adds nothing educationally distinct to the collection of images we already hold covering the same subject, subpar quality (high loss due to JPEG compression, high amount of noise) Webfil (talk) 20:45, 29 February 2024 (UTC)
Keep It's not a great photo, but it's passable for article use in its current form and- unlike many of this user's other images of people- not so bad that it falls to the level of "acceptable only in the absence of anything better" (or "unacceptably bad even *in* the absence of anything else", for that matter).- Especially as there are only two other images in that category (that this one is somewhat different from) and those are video stills that, frankly, aren't all *that* great either.
- I don't see a problem with multiple distinctly-different images of a person, so long as there's not a glut.
- (Disclaimer; I'm not the original photographer, I only uploaded the version with improved levels and saturation)
- Ubcule (talk) 21:57, 29 February 2024 (UTC)
- @Ubcule indeed, the stills are not great; the camera and the subject are constantly moving so it is nearly impossible to extract anything that does not have motion blur. However, I still think they are better on some levels, with way less artifacts and noise, and focus that's not on the background. Webfil (talk) 22:07, 29 February 2024 (UTC)
- @Webfil: - Yes, but the point is that they're not *so* much better and the original upload *so* bad that the latter warrants deletion. As I said, it's not like there's a glut of images of this subject. Ubcule (talk) 22:09, 29 February 2024 (UTC)
- @Ubcule indeed, the stills are not great; the camera and the subject are constantly moving so it is nearly impossible to extract anything that does not have motion blur. However, I still think they are better on some levels, with way less artifacts and noise, and focus that's not on the background. Webfil (talk) 22:07, 29 February 2024 (UTC)
- Keep not so bad as to be out of scope, and we have very few images of this person — Rhododendrites talk | 20:57, 3 March 2024 (UTC)
- Keep. Usable image of notable subject. Definitely within scope. IronGargoyle (talk) 01:27, 7 March 2024 (UTC)
Kept: no valid reason for deletion. --Bedivere (talk) 14:43, 7 March 2024 (UTC)
