Commons:Deletion requests/File:Evstafiev-bosnia-serbs-boy-gun-to-head.jpg
Unencyclopedic, persons on the photo have no apparent or aserted notability, photo reflects negative perception and defames the entire group of people claiming unproven and questionable source. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.10.182.56 (talk • contribs) 06:58, 2009 February 19 (UTC)
- When it comes non-copyright issues, I'm only concerned about the personality rights of the young boy. And not even so much about that as the image is already 16 years old. Other than that, I can't agree with anon's argumentation. With regard to copyright issues, the image lacks a proper combination of source and permission. Samulili (talk) 08:17, 19 February 2009 (UTC)
- The image does not a proper combination of source and permission, you mean? It was released under the CC-by-sa by User:Evstafiev. Rama (talk) 10:26, 19 February 2009 (UTC)
- Right, the image does not have a proper combination of source and permission. On the page it says that the image is self-made by Evstafiev, but User:Evstafiev has not touched the page. Also, there is no link to a page (or an OTRS link) where he gives permission and announces that he is the person took the image. Samulili (talk) 15:57, 19 February 2009 (UTC)
- In fact he most likely did: [1]. Further information is all around Template:Evstafiev Mikhail and [2]. Rama (talk) 17:48, 19 February 2009 (UTC)
- Right, the image does not have a proper combination of source and permission. On the page it says that the image is self-made by Evstafiev, but User:Evstafiev has not touched the page. Also, there is no link to a page (or an OTRS link) where he gives permission and announces that he is the person took the image. Samulili (talk) 15:57, 19 February 2009 (UTC)
- I agree that we know for sure that Evstafiev has been a photographer in ex-Yugoslavia in 1992-1993, but there is really nothing that would give strong or even strong-ish evidence that this image is one of his. Unfortunately, the current state of the image and the information given does not meet the standard requirements for an file. Samulili (talk) 16:56, 21 February 2009 (UTC)
- Oh, and I'd like to add that I checked Evstafiev's remaining and deleted uploads on Commons and on the English Wikipedia, and this image has never been uploaded by him. Samulili (talk) 17:00, 21 February 2009 (UTC)
- Bumping the page on the watchlists, just to remind that this issue is still not resolved. Samulili (talk) 21:24, 26 February 2009 (UTC)
- This image comes from [3], which clearly shows it as a work of Evstafiev's. Rama (talk) 22:02, 26 February 2009 (UTC)
- The page you provided as a reference does not exist and cannot be used to prove anything.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.10.139.252 (talk • contribs) 03:35, 28 February 2009 (UTC)
- Page excists, and seem to verify Evstafiev as photographer. Finn Rindahl (talk) 01:40, 5 March 2009 (UTC)
- The page you provided as a reference does not exist and cannot be used to prove anything.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.10.139.252 (talk • contribs) 03:35, 28 February 2009 (UTC)
keep, negative perception is not enough reason and lapse of showed people either. dontworry (talk) 09:29, 19 February 2009 (UTC)
keep
- It is not "unencyclopedic" to document a war on the ground, and Commons is not Wikipedia, so the argument is moot anyway.
- The people on the photograph are indeed not notable, as is the case in the vast majority of the images of Commons. This argument is irrelevant.
- The photograph might indeed be read as rather negative to a bunch of undisciplined, unshaved militiamen, but their lack of standards are their own doing; one can hardly assert that the photograph was taken without their full knowledge, so this is how they see fit to appear. User:Evstafiev's perception of these people, negative or otherwise, is 1) in his head, to which nobody has access and 2) irrelevant to how photons impressed the film in his camera. Even having the outmost admiration for these people would not make them look like the 1st regiment of infantry of the Garde Républicaine; maybe proper attire, trimming, shaving, discipline would have, but well, there we are. In any case, this is irrelevant to the status of this image.
- That User:Evstafiev is an "unproven and questionable source" is gratuitously insulting and borders on defamation. Rama (talk) 10:26, 19 February 2009 (UTC)
Delete This image should be deleted because it is clearly in contravention with the Official Policy of Wikimedia Commons. While it is correct that Commons is not Wikipedia, it should be understood that Commons is not Flickr, Pbase, Youtube, or a personal gallery either. This image is eligible for regular deletion under the following criteria that is clearly stated in the Official Deletion Policy of Wikimedia Commons:
A file or page can be listed for deletion on Commons:Deletion requests in the following cases:
- The file is not realistically useful for an educational purpose. Examples of files that are not realistically useful include:
- Private image collections, e.g. private party photos, photos of yourself and your friends, your collection of holiday snaps and so on. There are plenty of other projects on the Internet you can use for such a purpose, such as Flickr. Such private image collections do not become educational even if displayed as a gallery on a user page on Commons or elsewhere.
- Self-created artwork without obvious educational use.
- Advertising or self-promotion.
- Files that add nothing educationally distinct to the collection of images we already hold covering the same subject, especially if they are of poor or mediocre quality.
Wikimedia Commons does not grant exemption from its policies based on the perceived greatness of the author in the eyes of his of her admirers. All that we are presented here is an image of a bunch of weirdos, one of whom the author claims was a "Serb commander". What is the name of that "commander"? What is his rank, "the Commander"? There aren't any ranks visible on his person. What is the name of his unit? What exactly is educational about this image? Thy shall not play with guns, or I shall post your image on Commons, perhaps? Comparison of this below-mediocre shot with the Pulitzer prize winner Raising the Flag on Iwo Jima[4] is an insult to those brave men and to the war photographer who took that image. Comparing it with the images of prisoner abuse at Abu Ghraib is preposterous - those images have clear origin, including the name of the military unit, the name of the military personnel and their commander. This staged photo-op does not contain any such information nor any other valuable information.
There is an image of a personal, non-military vehicle right behind the group that is in the image. Did those "military men" perhaps drive to their photo-op in their personal car for the alleged prisoner exchange? For all what it is worth, that image could have been taken in someone's front yard in the Midwest. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.10.139.252 (talk • contribs) 04:57, 21 February 2009 (UTC)
Delete The whole setting seems to be posed and hence unencylopedic. The image shows only a few guys and a boy who play a weird game for the camera. --Eva K. is evil 00:26, 20 February 2009 (UTC)
- Double non sequitur:
- that the image is posed does not make it unencyclopedic: Raising the Flag on Iwo Jima is posed, for instance, as are a number of images in Category:Abu Ghraib prisoner abuse;
- that it be unencyclopedic would not be an argument for deletion. Commons is not Wikipedia.
- Rama (talk) 22:26, 20 February 2009 (UTC)
- Double non sequitur:
Delete I agree with all the above arguments.The photograph illustrating serbs is posed and therefore misleading. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.32.209.48 (talk • contribs) 18:30, 20. Feb. 2009 (UTC)
- this photo from same source also "...reflects negative perception..." and is "...a bad representation of one whole nation...": [5] ?? dontworry (talk) 05:47, 21 February 2009 (UTC)
- ps. this photo "...reflects..." etc. [6] too - should we therefore all such documents delete? dontworry (talk) 06:18, 21 February 2009 (UTC)
- No, we should not "all such documents delete", with reference to the documents that you mentioned, because unlike this particular image that should indeed be deleted, the documents you referred to: a) do not put the entire nation on the spot based solely on the ethnic origin, b) have clear historical perspective, context and reference, c) have indisputable source (German Federal State Archives), including the date it was taken and the place.
Keep The reason given for deletion is that the image shows some group or other in a bad light. The Commons is not censored. Though the subjects are clearly posing for the picture it illustrates a bit of military jollity and the attitudes of those involved. --Simonxag (talk) 20:34, 23 February 2009 (UTC)
Delete I agree with the deletion request. I believe the photo is meant to enflame anti-Serb bias. That the photo is posed is not reason in and of itself to be unencyclopedic. I would argue that it is unencyclopedic because the participants in the photo are not identified/verified and cannot be identified/verified as Serbs or of the Serb military. I believe the purpose of the photo is to incite hatred against Serbs as barbaric and warmongering. See how they treat their children?
- the photo don't show babarism, it shows only stupidity - like any multiple votings from the same person on this side! ;-) dontworry (talk) 08:12, 28 February 2009 (UTC)
Kept. There's no rationale to delete this image pr Commons:SCOPE, and I can't really see a copyright issue either. Finn Rindahl (talk) 01:43, 5 March 2009 (UTC)