Commons:Deletion requests/File:Lorene Scafaria Close-up (48749032293).jpg

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:Lorene Scafaria Close-up (48749032293).jpg

Poor quality image 2600:100C:A211:73E1:78BC:D15B:EA1D:2C4 19:35, 5 July 2023 (UTC)

Keep. It's been the lead image for the actress for a couple years. It's better than nothing. The image could be reduced so the blurring is less noticeable if desired. Kolya Butternut (talk) 20:00, 5 July 2023 (UTC)

•  Keep... I uploaded this. Yes, cropped headshots can be blurry. But finding "free" images is hard. So, images of celebrities shouldn't be barred, just because they are blurry.

Some might interpret User:Kolya Butternut's comment as (1) keep; but (2) a tacit endorsement of deletion, if and when the image has been superseded by enough(?) superior images. Personally, I think that the culling of blurry images, that were once our best images of a subject, when they are, arguably, superceded by better images, is a terrible mistake:

1. Our images description pages will include a section #File usage, where link to where the file is used on other WMf are listed. However, IN ADDITION, for many years the WMF software, which is used on thousands of non-WMF wikis, has a feature that allows those non-WMF wikis to access commons images just as if they were WMF projects, with the main difference that, when they are used that usage isn't reported on the #File usage.
2. One routinely sees older images, that might be blurry, or of less than modern resolution, put forward for deletion, when that topics gets a sudden burst of newer, higher-resolution images, that aren't blurry, where the nominators don't seem to notice that the old image has something unique and irrreplaceable to it. In some instances it shows the image from a different facade, or it was taken before old neighbouring buildings are demolished, or new neighbours are contructed.
3. Frankly, debating whether an old image, that was once considered useful, should be deleted, is a terrible waste of volunteer time. (1) that old image should already be properly classified. Most of what we do is curation, not new uploads. So, this is a big advantage an old image has over a new image. Plus, we are not running out of disk space, so there is no real downside to keeping the image. Geo Swan (talk) 19:20, 9 July 2023 (UTC)

• 2600:100C:A211:73E1:78BC:D15B:EA1D:2C4, please show other project contributors the respect they deserve by establishing one wiki-id, for all your WMF contributions.

There are individuals, with too much time on their hands, that routinely abuse the kind of anonymous IP you used here, to waste the time and energy of good faith contributors, when what they really want to do is cause chaos. I have several wikihounders that specifically target my contributions. Honestly, it happens so often, I really have to wonder whether you are one of them.

Please, prove you aren't a vandal, right off the bat, by establishing a permanent wiki-ID. Geo Swan (talk) 19:31, 9 July 2023 (UTC)

---

Kept: COM:INUSE. —‍Mdaniels5757 (talk • contribs) 01:04, 12 July 2023 (UTC)