Commons:Deletion requests/File:The secret phonecall.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.
release/OTRS lacking. The person could be recognized by her body and the flat. Distribution under a free licence for any purpose is not acceptable without proove of consent by this person.--Martina Nolte (talk) 01:10, 26 January 2009 (UTC)
Delete Agree, needs subject consent. --Eusebius (talk) 07:47, 26 January 2009 (UTC)
Comment COM:PEOPLE has absolutely nothing to do with it, as that applies only to images of identifiable people. This is not identifiable. The flat is probably hired, and if the subject "can be recognised by her back" we may as well have no images of people at all on Commons. If you consider this should be deleted because of the identity of the photographer, please say so directly. --MichaelMaggs (talk) 07:36, 26 January 2009 (UTC)
- For me it's not because of the photographer's identity. I truly believe that the subject can be recognized, but I understand your remark. I'd also like to say that it looks fairly out of scope: it looks very much like the "personal photographs" that we usually delete: no educational content, no notable subject and bad quality. The fact that the author may be recognized as an artist does not change the fact that this is a photograph without composition, made with a portable phone (!), with both under- and overexposed parts, which makes me think that the subject was not conscious at all of being shooted by a "professional photographer" who would then publish the picture. Looks like a "stolen photograph", and this is why I think we shouldn't host it without explicit consent of the subject. --Eusebius (talk) 08:05, 26 January 2009 (UTC)
Keep Subject not identifiable. Megapixie (talk) 12:59, 26 January 2009 (UTC)- Keep Work by notable photographer so seems likely to have an educational value and as a photographer I would expect anyone who poses for him to not have any expectation of privacy so I don't consider this image to be an unreasonable intrusion. It doesn't appear that the individual is identifiable anyway. It also slightly irritates me that the nominator didn't bother to group together their similar deletion requests and so make it easier to discuss. Adambro (talk) 14:57, 26 January 2009 (UTC)
- This picture could have been taken by Doisneau or Cartier-Bresson, it would still be a crappy cell phone picture and I still cannot decently believe that the woman knew it was aimed at publication. When Picasso blows his nose, his handkerchief does not magically become a notable work of art of reasonable educational value. --Eusebius (talk) 15:11, 26 January 2009 (UTC)
- Delete I tend to agree with Eusebius on this one. The case is not much different from other personal snapshots that get routinely deleted. The image could maybe illustrate Dating#Dates making phonecalls they don't want you to hear, but how educational is that? The woman here is not posing in front of a photographer with professional equipment, and she may very well have had an expectation of privacy (certainly in making that phonecall). But she is not really recognizable. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 18:12, 26 January 2009 (UTC)
- Comment I understand objections to value, but subject can't be recgnisable for sure. I mean, if someone knows this person they might suspect who she is, with the same lack of certainty others would misrecognise a different person. Please excuse my English. --Javier ME (talk) 21:20, 26 January 2009 (UTC)
- Keep The COM:PEOPLE argument is irrelevant here since we don't recognize the person. --TwoWings * to talk or not to talk... 18:11, 29 January 2009 (UTC)
- Keep A work by a notable artist, and the subject is unidentifiable. Prolog (talk) 09:37, 31 January 2009 (UTC)
Kept. MichaelMaggs (talk) 21:46, 9 May 2009 (UTC)
