Commons:Deletion requests/File:Uudam singing painting.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:Uudam singing painting.jpg

This file is not an accurate representation of the person depicted and is of very poor quality. A photograph is required, but I would argue that this image is worse than no image at all, as it misrepresents his appearance. NikNaks _{talk - gallery - wikipedia} 16:53, 24 March 2013 (UTC)

 Keep I disagree, while trying to hunt down a free image or images to satisfy the request at the graphics lab and the demand for an image which has led contributors to upload copyvios, I think I came across the photograph that this was based upon. This image describes the subject. The drawing is clearly not an old man, an old woman, a girl, a dark-haired boy and so on. So it has significant illustrative value in a number of respects, especially prompting readers who have seen the original. They would think 'ah yes, this is the article, and the reverse effect worked for me, I recognised the image upon which this image was based. The image is also the best quality free image available, so I wouldn't call it low quality unless you can show me something better. Penyulap ☏ 11:19, 27 March 2013 (UTC)

I disagree almost entirely. Any photograph is better than this drawing, and I really do not believe that this depiction contains enough details or features for someone to identify Uudam if presented with a roster of similar looking children. Users shouldn't be expected to have to find the original image to be able to recognise the person. NikNaks _{talk - gallery - wikipedia} 14:26, 27 March 2013 (UTC)

Most people can't choose the President from a series of donkey photos. :)

Most people know this guy from TV, they would have seen the precise performance I expect. He's not known for anything else as far as I know. Penyulap ☏ 22:41, 28 March 2013 (UTC)

 Delete The image is a derivative work. Even if considered that the derivative work is so different to the original not to be an actual derivative work, we lack permission from both the image this DR deals with and the original image. --Ecemaml ^{talk to me/habla conmigo} 12:21, 27 March 2013 (UTC)

derivative of what ? the other half of your point is missing. Penyulap ☏ 16:02, 1 April 2013 (UTC)

 Delete I think this illustration shows Uudam in a way grotesque. I doubt that he the same would like to accept it. And his opinion and his legal guardians (adoptive parents) should be primarily taken into account. But can not ask them, so therefore should be removed it. On the internet there are enough real photos of a good quality.--Seti6908 (talk) 19:52, 28 March 2013 (UTC)

(inserted comment) I've just changed the res, please consider the new image. Penyulap ☏ 16:02, 1 April 2013 (UTC)

Unfortunately. I stand by my opinion. Please, do not think of this as malice on my part, but I do it out of respect for Uudam. Not against him, not against you and not against the author. I hope you understand my position on this matter and I consider this matter is closed for me.--Seti6908 (talk) 19:34, 1 April 2013 (UTC)

Post Scriptum :Foregoing comment relates to this file. If you mean this file, although I'm not convinced it, I approved it on plwiki. I have no the possibility in German wiki. I can only automatically approve my own edits. I hope this is a temporary solution and in the future will a free real image.--Seti6908 (talk) 20:06, 1 April 2013 (UTC)

Why can't we ask them exactly ? and while we are at it, let's ask them for a decent photo. Penyulap ☏ 22:38, 28 March 2013 (UTC)

You can write him an e-mail if you know that and if you can break through the Chinese Internet censorship. I am too small. Even if Uudam has an e-mail, he probably can't answer to USA. Furthermore this image has really very poor quality. In my opinion it is ridiculous, and Uudam is not able to defend himself. If it were otherwise, surely he or someone from his family would be able to load on The Commons truely real picture a hundred times better than this. Of course I would like to, that in the article was a legal photo of Uudam, not violate copyright, but not at any price. Not at the cost of common sense. Sorry, that's my opinion and I will stand by it emphatically insisted.--Seti6908 (talk) 00:42, 29 March 2013 (UTC)

Of course of course no problem. I think I better give it a try can't be bothered myself. I had seen things like this image which is headed for deletion. There'd be a wide variety of people to ask, however I can't sign in to face book and ask them, so I may need help there. Penyulap ☏ 06:32, 29 March 2013 (UTC)

The image is headed for deletion? It's licensed with self-cc-by-sa 3.0 by the uploader User:Amirul bunkerzs and the history indicates no past proposals of deletion. Anyway, thanks for finding that free image… Ok, it's actually suspicious this user is uploading several non-free media without license as has the image File:Uudam Wudamu.jpg been uploaded by the same user and is currently going through the process of deletion.--Flekstro (talk) 19:36, 1 April 2013 (UTC)

You can try contacting him at http://weibo.com/wudamutieba (definitely accessible within the Great Firewall)--Flekstro (talk) 19:36, 1 April 2013 (UTC)

 Delete Don't see it being used for anything useful. --Conti|✉ 14:34, 29 March 2013 (UTC)

It was in the article for some time as far as I recall, I think the main problem was how ugly it is when looked at up close, as is any image, be it oils, watercolour, macaroni :) or pixels on a glass screen. I've reduced the resolution, which always made it look better, so that now people can't get that close-up surprise.

However, I don't know who can 'look again with new eyes' and who will simply have the memory cache stuck in it's usual position. who knows. Penyulap ☏ 16:02, 1 April 2013 (UTC)

Even if this version is a small improvement, it is still of very low quality and doesn't accurately display the image of Uudam, unlike the new image you uploaded. NikNaks _{talk - gallery - wikipedia} 16:13, 1 April 2013 (UTC)

I wouldn't pin your hopes on that one. I still think this one is useful, even if you need to squint (no longer) to see it. It's all they have for that article, every other image that has been uploaded so far has been non-free, beggars *should not* be choosers. Penyulap ☏ 16:27, 1 April 2013 (UTC)

As I intimated before, in my opinion this image is worse than no image at all. There is no requirement for an image, and this one really isn't fit for purpose. NikNaks _{talk - gallery - wikipedia} 16:30, 1 April 2013 (UTC)

Hey, what about silhouettes, are they any good in articles ? Penyulap ☏ 16:48, 1 April 2013 (UTC)

I really don't understand how that's relevant... NikNaks _{talk - gallery - wikipedia} 17:24, 1 April 2013 (UTC)

Hello, I'm the author of this ugly painting noticing this discussion a bit too late! Thanks User:Penyulap not only for creating the perfect alternative free “drawing” (File:乌达木2.png), but also for appreciating my “quick-and-dirty” drawing! I'm not going to vote for or against the deletion. Thanks all for elaborately discussing about this. --Flekstro (talk) 18:28, 1 April 2013 (UTC)

Hey. I'm sorry that I was at the opposite side of the barricades. I hope you believe in my good intentions. Thanks for your forbearance. Best Regards.--Seti6908 (talk) 19:34, 1 April 2013 (UTC)

---

Deleted: The discussion indicates that it was based on a photograph, and hence is a derivative work. Probably not much loss anyway, as the file is not in use and it is of poor quality MichaelMaggs (talk) 09:19, 3 May 2013 (UTC)