Commons:Deletion requests/File:Allen and Keith Farnham.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.
I submitted this photo and am in the photo. I do not want it posted. Loudes13 (talk) 18:35, 15 June 2015 (UTC)
- Why not?
- The file is the source of File:Keith Farnham 2009-12 brick background.jpg that is used in en:Keith Farnham. --MGA73 (talk) 18:49, 15 June 2015 (UTC)
Keep It is the source for File:Keith Farnham 2009-12 brick background.jpg. It should be kept so that the original source remains available. --Stefan4 (talk) 20:03, 15 June 2015 (UTC)- The other person in the image was convicted of child pornography. I am the owner of the image, should I not have a say in the matter? Loudes13
- You have licensed the image under an irrevocable licence. The picture provides important source information. --Stefan4 (talk) 13:35, 17 June 2015 (UTC)
- How does this photo honestly provide "important source information"? Doesn't taking a hardline on keeping this discourage people from submitting content? Loudes13
- It explains where File:Keith Farnham 2009-12 brick background.jpg comes from. --Stefan4 (talk) 15:35, 17 June 2015 (UTC)
- Fair enough, but that headshot is easily replaceable. Under the Courtesy Deletions page this file is eligible for deletion.Loudes13
- A courtesy deletion is a deletion of a file which is unused and was uploaded less than a week ago, see COM:CSD. This was uploaded several years ago and is in use on File:Keith Farnham 2009-12 brick background.jpg, where it is used for the purpose of providing the source of that file. --Stefan4 (talk) 17:58, 17 June 2015 (UTC)
- Since a third party actually took the photo, how would this be fair use?Loudes13
- According to https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Photographs_of_identifiable_people#Removal_requests a reason as simple as "It causes embarrassment" can be a valid reason to to delete an image. Considering the sensitive nature of the criminal accusations (and conviction) against the state representative, removal seems to be valid. I was only a constituent that had a photo taken with my representative. I am in no way linked to his crime. The Courtesy Deletion is not speedy deletion and all the references mention "administrators are normally sympathetic to removal requests if good reasons can be given". Please either crop me out of the image or remove it.Loudes13
- If a third party took the picture, then permission is needed from the third party. Otherwise, both files (the cropped and the uncropped) have to be deleted. See COM:OTRS. --Stefan4 (talk) 18:01, 21 June 2015 (UTC)
- A third party party took the photo and it should be deleted.Loudes13
Comment: Why not just crop out the uploader from the source image and prevent any embarassement to him? Or whitewash the uploader from the image. --Leoboudv (talk) 08:45, 18 June 2015 (UTC)- I would be happy to be cropped out.Loudes13
Kept: as above. Cropped. Yann (talk) 22:12, 22 June 2015 (UTC)
