Commons:Deletion requests/Files in Category:Files from Sabine Mondestin Flickr stream

From Wikimedia Commons, the free media repository
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.

Files in Category:Files from Sabine Mondestin Flickr stream

[edit]

Yes, I am aware these are from Flickr. But Commons is not a personal photo album, and this looks like a personal photo album to me. I do not find any article on this person. I do not find that they are anything other than self-promotional. Suggest all images from category be examined by others and if one or two could be kept to illustrate anything educational, perhaps those could be retained. However there are screen shots, red carpet shots (obviously not selfies) and other images that call into question the "own work" label on Flickr. The entire thing requires review.

Ellin Beltz (talk) 18:44, 14 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete out of COM:SCOPE. all are personal photos, mostly selfies, some posed i.e. modelling shots. nothing educational. Robertsky (talk) 18:49, 14 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Do you think the subject is notable? Trade (talk) 22:54, 14 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • User:Robertsky, in my comment, below, I said I was unaware of a policy that barred promotional images of genuinely notable people. Are you aware of one?
User:Trade, in my comment, below, I linked to Ms Mondestin's IMDB page, asserting that her 26 credits as an actor, producer or director, established at least A7 notability. Geo Swan (talk) 23:56, 14 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Geo Swan the titles on some of the images here gives the impression that these photos are promotional and advertising the subject, i.e. 'Follow me @sabinemodestin (Instagram,, Facebook)', 'Come join me on my social media', etc. which may fall under COM:ADVERT. How are these titles descriptive of the subject? Robertsky (talk) 01:23, 15 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@User:Robertsky, thanks for your link to COM:ADVERT. While it says "As dictated by our scope, content which constitutes advertising or self-promotion MAY BE deleted from Wikimedia Commons..." the next paragraph says "For the policy, see COM:PS#EX_ED".

I suggest this should be interpreted as allowing images that are in scope, even if it is argued they are promotional.

Below, in your reply to Trade, you point to en:WP:GNG and en:WP:NACTOR.

  1. Is your reference to GNG backed up by compliance with en:WP:BEFORE? If not how do you know Ms Mondestin doesn't measure up to GNG?

    Lots of people measure up to GNG, but don't (yet) have articles written about them.

    In the 24 hours after Captain Sully saved all his passengers and crew, by his amazing water landing on the Hudson River, close to a dozen good faith people tried to delete or redirect the new article on him, arguing that (1) he was just a BLP1E; (2) he would be forgotten in a couple of weeks.

    Yeah, I know, unbelievable.

    There was so much coverage of the landing that it took all my google-fu to confirm he had already measured up to GNG, before the landing, so the BLP1E claim was nonsense. Please don't assert someone doesn't measure up to GNG just because they don't already have a standalone article written about them.

  2. GNG is an unnecessarily high bar. In my initial keep I asserted en:WP:CSD#A7 notability of an individual made images of them in scope. I asserted that even individuals who don't measure up the GNG notability to have a standalone article may nevertheless get some coverage in a related article - like an article about the movies they acted in, produced, or directed. That would make images of them in scope, because they might illustrate those articles.

    Do you have a rebuttal?

  3. Are you asserting that COM:ADVERT applies to images of individuals, posted elsewhere, and then uploaded here by individuals who are unconnected to them? Should the term self-promotional be reserved only for images uploaded to the commons by the image subject, themselves?

    In my keep, below, I pointed out that free images are hard to come by, which means that, since we restrict ourselves to free images, the subjects of our articles are sometimes unhappy that the (free) image we used seemed unflattering. I have told those individuals that they are free to upload an alternate image of themselves, that they considered more flattering, so long as they release it under a free license. Please clarify if you think I gave them bad advice. Geo Swan (talk) 02:20, 15 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    Do you realise that IMdb isn't realiable source on enwiki? See en:WP:IMDB I had done my search, and I don't see any news articles about the subject. The only few sources I see are imdb and her website. Robertsky (talk) 03:03, 15 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    • @Robertsky, did you review en:Wikipedia:Credible claim of significance that I pointed you at? Are you asserting that all individuals with images on the commons require a en:WP:RS? How many images currently supply a en:WP:RS? I'm sorry, did you say zero?
    • Did you see my second and third point, above?
    • Images of individuals can be in scope, even if they don't now measure up to GNG, because their images might be used to illustrate related articles. People who do not measure up to the GNG standard for a standalone article may, nevertheless, get some coverage in a section of a related article. You knew this, didn't you?
    • I've encouraged people who don't like the free image(s) we found of them to upload their favourite selfie. I said I thought that was a completely reasonable thing for someone to do, and asked you if you thought this was bad advice, would claim those images were self-promotion. Geo Swan (talk) 05:50, 15 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Trade, not notable by enwiki's en:WP:NACTOR's and en:WP:GNG's standards. But if there's other projects that are using the photos, it can be evaluated against the notability standards there as well. Robertsky (talk) 01:19, 15 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Good thing Commons have it's own notability guidelines so we don't have to rely on ENWP for cases such as this Trade (talk) 15:03, 15 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
True that. I was confused that when Geo Swan sprung A7 notability in their earlier comment. Robertsky (talk) 15:13, 15 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Keep I uploaded four of these images.
Nomination reminds us
  1. "Commons is not a personal photo album";
  2. asserts they did "not find any article on this person.";
  3. asserts they did "not find that they are anything other than self-promotional";
  1. I agree, Commons is not a personal photo album
  2. However, imdb describes how Ms Mondestin has 13 actor credits, 7 producer credits, 6 directorial credits. I think this means she is a film industry professional, not a nobody. Would she measure up to en.wiki GNG? I dunno. She would measure up to CSD#A7 notability however. Even if, for the sake of argument, she did not measure up to GNG notability, pictures of her might illustrate articles on the movies she produced, directed, or acted in. I think that should be enough for her to be well within SCOPE.
  3. Sometimes the only free pictures we find of notable people are not that flattering.

    Some subjects don't like their in scope and properly licensed free images we found. Whenever someone says this I encourage them to upload their own favourite selfie.

    I am not aware of any policy that bars genuinely notable people from uploading self-promotional images.

    Over a decade ago, in one of my first attempts to weigh in on a discussion over an image related to human sexuality, the nominator claimed something like, "we don't need this image, because we already have lots of similar images, and the photographer took this picture of his private parts because they wanted to show off."

    The nominator's first claim was bullshit, FWIW, but the second claim is the one I want to address.

    In that discussion I argued that the photographer's intent was irrelevant, if there were legitimate reasons to argue the image was in scope.

    That image was a collage of five consecutive images, showing an adult male penis going from fully flaccid to fully erect. At that time commons had less than 100 penis images, and there were exactly zero similar images. Even if, for the sake of argument, the photographer's intent was to show off, they had released an image that would be highly educational to 500 million prepubescent boys, and to billions of women who had only had sex in the dark.

    Photographer's intent is irrelevant when an image is in scope. Geo Swan (talk) 23:38, 14 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    Exactly which COM:CSD criteria are you talking about?
    I am unable to tell which movies or shows that she produced, directed or acted in from these pictures. There are no indication of these when I reviewed the photos. Robertsky (talk) 01:30, 15 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    1. en:WP:CSD#A7 expands to en:WP:CSD#A7._No_indication_of_importance_(people,_animals,_organizations,_web_content,_events). If someone started up a stub wikipedia article on Ms Mondestin, and a challenger called for its speedy deletion, under A7, the administrator who responded to that A7 claim should decline the speedy, because being a movie producer and movie director was a credible claim of significance.
    2. Are you saying you think it is important that someone challenging whether an images of a topic in scope has it spelled out for them, in the image description, that the image is in scope? How many commons images explicitly spell out why the image is in scope?

      May I suggest that challengers should be willing to do a cursory web search, before asserting a topic is out of scope? Geo Swan (talk) 02:36, 15 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I suggest if the other images are kept, as in scope, this one should be restored. Geo Swan (talk) 01:21, 15 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Kept: procedurally kept as being in scope. If there are particular files with copyright issues, feel free to nominate those in small batches (less than 10) so they can be properly dealt with. --Abzeronow (talk) 16:44, 23 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Commons:Deletion_requests/Files_in_Category:Files_from_Sabine_Mondestin_Flickr_stream&oldid=814589413"