Commons:Deletion requests/File:WMDC New York Wikimedians meetup165730.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.
I am Dorothy Howard, the woman depicted in this photo. I did not consent to this photo taken, nor did I grant consent for it to be released on Commons. Hexatekin (talk) 08:59, 8 February 2018 (UTC)
Comment @Hexatekin: Interesting. Can you prove in some way it is indeed you or prove you attended that meeting?- Don't get me wrong, I believe you. But for an image to be deleted I also believe some tangible proof needs be given that the claim made is correct. There's probably a page somewhere with a list of people who attended that meeting, if your username is on it that would be enough for me. (but I can't speak for admins) - Alexis Jazz 13:55, 8 February 2018 (UTC)
- Comment I've blurred you on File:WMDC New York Wikimedians meetup165730.JPG. I've assumed that's you since you said "the woman depicted in this photo" and the other woman that is seen on both photos could not be accurately described as such. Won't blur you on File:WMDC New York Wikimedians meetup165734.JPG as that image would be worthless after blurring. - Alexis Jazz 14:07, 8 February 2018 (UTC)
Keep as the face of the woman has been blurred, but if privacy is a concern then 
Delete prior versions of this image from public viewing. --Donald Trung (Talk 💬) ("The Chinese Coin Troll" 👿) (Articles 📚) 16:26, 8 February 2018 (UTC)- Delete per subject request, not in use. however, future literature students will want to know what the famous writer looked like,. Slowking4 § Sander.v.Ginkel's revenge 00:45, 11 February 2018 (UTC)
- Delete, the file is not in use, and the photographer/uploader just voted "delete" above me, so it's a clear-cut case. Alexis Jazz, I understand your concern and intent, but I'd urge you to consider whether "tangible proof" is the proper standard, for any future cases that are not so clear-cut in this respect. I'd suggest that a "reasonable likelihood" that the user is representing themselves accurately would be sufficient in most cases. That information could come from a variety of places, too, beyond the user providing it for themselves -- the photographer may know, or admins/bureaucrats may have knowledge of user identities. When somebody has explicitly stated on their user page that they do not wish to divulge much information about themselves, asking them to do so in a permanent and public way is asking rather a lot. -Pete Forsyth (talk) 05:55, 11 February 2018 (UTC)
- @Peteforsyth: I basically agree with you. That's why I gave the example of a page here that lists her username as having attended the meeting. That information would already be public, it's just easier for her to find it than it is for me. Indeed there are many more ways some sort of proof could be provided. Call it reasonable likelihood or proof, we mean the same thing. Being on the meeting list isn't really "proof" either, but I'd happy with it. As the uploader has already agreed here, that works just as well.
- She said "I am Dorothy Howard", but that information is kind of useless to me as I have no idea what Dorothy Howard looks like. I only guessed it's the blonde, if her wording wasn't clear it could still be the other woman in the photo. Saying it here actually hurts her privacy, if she hadn't said it I would have had no clue about the names of anyone in the photo. Turns out though that her website (and Twitter with profile pic) are easy to find when you have the name, which actually confirms it's the blonde. But if that was the point perhaps she should have linked her website here right away. - Alexis Jazz 06:28, 11 February 2018 (UTC)
- given the poor "photos of identifiable people" policy here, (i.e. not requiring a photo release) i tend to credit even ip requests for deletion. it is rare that standing upon the policy and law will improve encyclopedic content. and people have been doxxed using categories from commons. Slowking4 § Sander.v.Ginkel's revenge 17:44, 11 February 2018 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. Not used, courtesy deletion. Poor quality anyway. --Yann (talk) 10:26, 12 March 2018 (UTC)
