Commons:Deletion requests/File:Ndifreke Ukpong pix.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.
This file was initially tagged by SVTCobra as Speedy (SD) and the most recent rationale was: F10 IMO high quality portrait. Yann (talk) 19:14, 23 October 2022 (UTC)
Keep per Yann. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 22:12, 23 October 2022 (UTC)
Comment While I did not consider the high-quality aspect of F10, I still maintain it is out-of-scope. This and File:Ndifreke.jpg and a series of other (since deleted) photos were uploaded for the express purpose of creating a vanity biography article on Wikipedia and Wikinews for a non-notable person. See w:User:Google4glo/sandbox. School portraits and other professional portraits do not qualify as "own work" either. --SVTCobra 11:55, 24 October 2022 (UTC)
Delete. Out of scope. IronGargoyle (talk) 21:06, 3 November 2022 (UTC)
Kept: no valid reason for deletion. --Yann (talk) 19:35, 4 November 2022 (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.
This picture was taken directly from Facebook. As such it's presumed to be a copyright violation until we have a permission that proves otherwise Trade (talk) 21:23, 27 December 2022 (UTC)
- @Yann, Ikan Kekek, and SVTCobra: --Trade (talk) 21:25, 27 December 2022 (UTC)
- Delete. Out of scope and likely copyright violation. IronGargoyle (talk) 01:06, 28 December 2022 (UTC)
- Comment This is much bigger than the photo at Facebook and appears to be dated earlier. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 07:24, 28 December 2022 (UTC)
- Keep This is the original picture with EXIF data, so it was not copied from the URLs mentioned above. It is quite a good portrait. Yann (talk) 16:19, 28 December 2022 (UTC)
- It is high resolution, sure. It is not a good picture though for any realistic educational purpose. Should we really keep every high-resolution vanity shot from non-notable self-promoters and the simply vain when they get uploaded? IronGargoyle (talk) 15:31, 1 January 2023 (UTC)
- A good portrait of a man wearing an interesting shirt is clearly of no realistic educational purpose to you, but that doesn't mean that it's actually out of scope or not useful to others. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 19:31, 1 January 2023 (UTC)
- @Yann: Is there a reason why I don't see any EXIF? Lymantria (talk) 17:01, 30 January 2023 (UTC)
- Actually, this is a duplicate of File:Ndifreke.jpg, which has EXIF. Yann (talk) 17:04, 30 January 2023 (UTC)
- Ok, thanks. Lymantria (talk) 21:51, 30 January 2023 (UTC)
- Well, clearly we don't need both. I just don't like letting people keep their uploads if they do it as part of a cross-wiki campaign to elevate their online presence. And this is not a rhetorical question, who owns the copyright for a portrait like this? The subject or the photographer? SVTCobra 23:10, 30 January 2023 (UTC)
- Actually, this is a duplicate of File:Ndifreke.jpg, which has EXIF. Yann (talk) 17:04, 30 January 2023 (UTC)
- It is high resolution, sure. It is not a good picture though for any realistic educational purpose. Should we really keep every high-resolution vanity shot from non-notable self-promoters and the simply vain when they get uploaded? IronGargoyle (talk) 15:31, 1 January 2023 (UTC)
- Pinging @Trade. Brianjd (talk) 14:27, 1 January 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination - Flipped duplicate of File:Ndifreke.jpg. . Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 21:54, 10 February 2023 (UTC)
