Commons:Deletion requests/Files in Category:Michaela Dietz

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:Michaela Dietz

Unfavorable facial expression, photos do not do the person any justice, missing educational usefulness

• File:Michaela Dietz at the Florida Supercon 2016 (12).jpg
• File:Michaela Dietz at the Florida Supercon 2016 (2).jpg
• File:Michaela Dietz at the Florida Supercon 2016 (5).jpg
• File:Michaela Dietz at the Florida Supercon 2016 (6).jpg
• File:Michaela Dietz at the Florida Supercon 2016 (7).jpg
• File:Michaela Dietz at the Florida Supercon 2016 (8).jpg

A.Savin 10:00, 28 January 2019 (UTC)

•  Keep all. These are wonderfully expressive photographs. 2 and 5 definitely could be used to illustrate "serenely in thought about answering a question" & "surprised". @Alexis Jazz: , @Fæ: Abzeronow (talk) 14:49, 28 January 2019 (UTC)
•  Keep no valid reason for deletion. Potentially valid argument in a discussion about which picture to use in an article, but Commons is not Wikipedia. - Alexis Jazz ^{ping plz} 14:51, 28 January 2019 (UTC)
•  Comment The two "votes" above, obviously, can only be seen as trolling, especially due to pinging the presumably "right" people. --A.Savin 18:54, 28 January 2019 (UTC)
•  Keep In project scope, and accusations of trolling should be taken elsewhere. — 1989 (talk) 19:49, 28 January 2019 (UTC)

  And how is it in scope? Only because you are the uploader? --A.Savin 20:53, 28 January 2019 (UTC)

  Notable figure and could be useful. Your personal opinions are invalid here. — 1989 (talk) 20:57, 28 January 2019 (UTC)

  Well, it's really concerning what is going to become a sysop here. --A.Savin 21:05, 28 January 2019 (UTC)

  Wherher you like it or not, I’m allowed to have a different opinion than you. -- 1989 (talk) 21:06, 28 January 2019 (UTC)

•  Abstain — 1989 (talk) 08:38, 29 January 2019 (UTC)

 Keep Notable person, photos have normal quality. Maybe photo 12 has unfavorable facial expression, but others are in scope. Taivo (talk) 09:02, 29 January 2019 (UTC)

I think 12 expresses "it was so amazing/so delicious", I don't think it's unfavorable. But that may just be what I see in it. - Alexis Jazz ^{ping plz} 09:18, 29 January 2019 (UTC)

 Keep We are not a project for favourable photographs. The question is whether the photograph is a true representation of an individual, and the answer to this is that it is. ℺ Gone Postal (〠 ✉ • ✍ ⏿) 04:55, 31 January 2019 (UTC)

And we are not a project for freely licensed content either, and 2x2 is 5 of course. --A.Savin 08:25, 31 January 2019 (UTC)

Nonsense!! CC-BY-SA 2.0 is a free licence. The review has been passed by a reviewer. ℺ Gone Postal (〠 ✉ • ✍ ⏿) 19:41, 31 January 2019 (UTC)

You forgot to say: "Nonsense!! 2x2 is 4, because I happen to know it" ;-) --A.Savin 21:04, 31 January 2019 (UTC)

---

Kept: no valid reason for deletion, as per discussion. --Gbawden (talk) 06:58, 4 February 2019 (UTC)