Commons:Deletion requests/File:Daniela Pierre Firme.jpg

From Wikimedia Commons, the free media repository
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.

File:Daniela Pierre Firme.jpg

[edit]

This file was initially tagged by Kacamata as no source (No source since) Yann (talk) 15:01, 16 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  •  Keep uploader confirmed they took the image themselves.
Recently User:Kacamata has justified placing {{No source}} speedy deletion tags on images where uploaders asserted the image was their own work, by asserting he or she knew those individuals were unreliable. I don't think it should matter whether Kacamata had a dispute with those individuals, on the Portugese wikipedia, and explained there, why they concluded the individual was unreliable, if they don't also explain why they think the individual is unreliable here, on the WMF commons.
In the interests of open-ness and transparency, the group decision of commons contributors, as to whether this image merits being kept or deleted should include the reasons why it was challenged. And, if the real reason is the challenger thinks the uploader is an unreliable contributor, that is what the challenger should state in their deletion nomination.
User:Elder_Ibanhez asserts they took the image with their cell phone. It looks like an image taken with a cell phone. And the subject of the photo has her own wikipedia page, so the image is in scope. So, I don't think it should matter whether they had a dispute with Kacamata, on the Portugese wikipedia, or even if they were under sanctions there.
FWIW, I think this link confirms User:Elder_Ibanhez is not under sanctions. AGF, I am going to assume that User:Elder_Ibanhez is a fine good faith contributor.
FWIW Kacamata tagged File:Banda Rock Beats em 2022.jpg with a {{No source}} speedy deletion tag a couple of weeks before they tagged this image. That would be an image of Ms Firme's band. And if it was taken on the same day, with the same cell phone, as this image, I think it is obvious it should be restored. ̴Geo Swan (talk) 15:58, 18 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  1. Note: WP:SPA is not a policy here on the WMF commons, or on en.wiki.
  2. WP:SPA is an essay on en.wiki. So, please don't cite it as if it had the authority of a commons policy.
  3. And, if you are going to ask people to look to it for good advice, may I request you read what it says more closely?
  4. It says en.wiki's ARB said: "single purpose accounts and editors who hold a strong personal viewpoint on a particular topic covered within Wikipedia are expected to contribute neutrally instead of following their own agenda..." I think this means that, on en.wiki at least, so long as they contribute neutrally, they should not be tarred with the label "unreliable".
  5. If Rock Beats is a band that gets meaningful press coverage, then images of them are in scope, and images of Ms Firme are in scope.
  6. WRT to your request I view File:Andressa Fontinele.jpg. I already agreed to its deletion ten minutes after its nomination.
  7. I also encouraged Elder Ibanez to get Ms Fontinelle, the copyright holder, to initiate an OTRS ticket, confirming the licensing, in which case the image should be kept.
  8. Is it your position, here, that Elder Ibanez is lying about taking this image? That is an ugly accusation.
  9. I continue to be concerned over the instances when you tagged apparently valid images with {{No source}}, because you had a concern the uploaders were "unreliable". I think those contributors had a right to hear your actual concern. If you told them your concern, they might have been able to respond convincingly, and established they were trustworthy. Or, alternatively, if they had been making mistakes, without being aware of it, they could have fixed their behavior.
  10. You've defended those {{No source}} speedy deletion tags by claiming you KNEW that "most" of those uploaders were unreliable. And you have defended those speedy tags by claiming "most" of the images were copyright violations. That is hugely unfair to these uploaders. Having an image you uploaded deleted should be a learning experience. But if the deletion log incorrectly says the image was deleted due to no source, when the real justification was copyright violation, then how can they be expected to learn the right lesson?
  11. Finally, other WMF contributors are entitled to know the REAL justification for your nominations. While we would agree with deleting images that were genuinely no source, or were genuinely copyright violations, if your real justification was you had a bad gut feeling about their good faith, due to your observation of their behaviour on the Portugese Wikipedia, that is far from sufficient for me. What your comments in various discussions seem to say is that if you have a bad gut feeling about a contributor, you don't bother to actually check to see if the image is a copyright violation. You have been prepared to justify your tagging with claims the images are "likely copyright violations". That is not good enough. Geo Swan (talk) 00:59, 19 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • It has been about seven weeks. The contributor who first claimed "no source" did offer a brief further explanation. I've already responded to that. Now weeks have passed, with no one else weighing in, so I call for closure. Geo Swan (talk) 18:10, 29 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Kept: no valid reason for deletion. --Yann (talk) 18:12, 29 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Commons:Deletion_requests/File:Daniela_Pierre_Firme.jpg&oldid=846878500"