Commons:Deletion requests/Files in Category:Personal files

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:Personal files

Unused personal photos, OOS.

大诺史 (Talk/留言/토론/Discussion) 08:43, 9 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: as above. ~riley (talk) 06:18, 17 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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:Personal files

Out of scope: unused personal images with no apparent encyclopedic relevance.

GFJ (talk) 22:44, 19 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: per nomination. - FitIndia ^{Talk Mail} 04:47, 26 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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:Personal files

Unused personal files, out of scope.

GFJ (talk) 23:42, 2 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep for File:Rear view of Alex Neman.jpg. It's me from behind and I used it on my user page. Alex Neman 03:35, 3 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The file was unused at the time of nomination, but now it is indeed in use. Removed from the list. Thanks for your response, GFJ (talk) 08:10, 3 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep for File:Sam and Cake.jpg, which is of Sam Vaghar on whom there is an English Wikipedia article. Presumably 'MCM' on the cake refers to the Millennium Campus Network which he co-founded. Verbcatcher (talk) 08:16, 3 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your comment! Removed from the list. GFJ (talk) 09:25, 3 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep photos for users with any positive contributions globally, a specific deletion rationale is required. A mass DR without proper examination against the 'contributions' criteria of CSD F10 is not appropriate and the burden for doing this is on the nominator. --Fæ (talk) 08:20, 3 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree. You would be right if these files were nominated for speedy deletion under CSD F10. However, they are not. They are nominated for being out of scope in a regular deletion request, for which the number of contributions of the uploader is not of essential importance. If a portrait neither shows a notable person, nor serves as a personal image for a user page or something similar, it can be considered out of scope even if it was uploaded by a regular contributor. GFJ (talk) 09:25, 3 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The problem is that the nominater has not been bothered to check. This is a deletion "on sus" which is simply a bad faith nomination against these uploaders. If any uploader has made positive contributions then it is perfectly reasonable for them to have a photograph of themselves to help illustrate their work, it is irrelevant if such a selfie happens to be in use right at this moment. Until that work is done, this is a badly constructed deletion request. --Fæ (talk) 11:14, 3 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Again you are incorrect, of course I have checked all of the nominated files individually. If I hadn't and this would be some sort of automated list, the number of nominated files would not be around 50, it would be in the thousands. However, as said before, whether an uploader has contributed just once or is doing so regularly is irrelevant for whether an image is in scope or not, which is what this nomination is about. Just because an uploader is an active user does not mean that the image of a non-notable person is automatically in scope, unless said image is in use. Therefore, I have not only nominated files by non-contributors, but also files uploaded by users that have indeed made a past or present contribution. If the list above would only consist of files by non-contributors, a regular deletion request would not even be necessary (CSD F10). Countless images of this nature - that is, images considered to be out of scope due to a lack of both notability and use - have been deleted in the past, independent of the edit count of the uploader. GFJ (talk) 11:46, 3 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

It's super to hear you have been so diligent. Could you explain how File:Personal use.jpg in the above list is of a non-notable person, or is so clearly out of scope that it does not need any further justification for deletion? In my amateur view there is nobody in the photograph, and it is in-scope as an illustrative photo of a misty morning landscape and country road. Thanks.

Checking your diligence further, could you explain why File:Spencer Knapp promo.jpg, a photograph hosted since 2006 and transferred from en.wp, therefore old enough to be considered grandfathered, is up for deletion and does not need any specific deletion rationale? --Fæ (talk) 12:33, 3 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Since you like to be precise, please note that the deletion nomination does not actually state that the nominated files are exclusively portraits, regardless of whether our discussion now went into this direction or not. I did include a small number of non-portrait images, another example being File:Madison Bamseys Signature.png. This was on purpose. If you think that File:Personal use.jpg is in scope for illustrating a misty landscape, I can certainly follow that reasoning and am happy to remove it from the list, which is now done. Regarding File:Spencer Knapp promo.jpg, however, I fail to understand why you think that an old upload date automatically means than an image is in scope. If you think that the person in the low-resolution picture has notability, I'm happy to remove it from the list, but an old upload date alone is not enough. Is this the case? If not, the deletion rationale - out of scope - does stand. GFJ (talk) 13:08, 3 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Commons:Requests for comment/Grandfathered old files means that bundling very old files in with "personal" is not an adequate rationale as by default we presume to keep. --Fæ (talk) 13:48, 3 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

As I understand COM:GOF, the guideline deals exclusively with permission/license issues, but does not affect issues regarding project scope? If my interpretation of the guideline is wrong, however, I am happy to be corrected and learn from mistakes. GFJ (talk) 15:11, 3 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The issue here is files that have been hosted for a decade. This is not legitimate housekeeping, it is blanking the project's history. The files marked as "personal" are being categorized this way based on subjective values, not because there is a clear reason to deleted. The principle of grandfathering applies more generally than just licencing questions, it certainly applies to woolly questions about scope.

Yet another example is File:Tim Labor 01.jpg who started the article about the Open Fist Theatre Company. The fact that they became inactive 10 years ago, is not a reason to delete their portrait photograph. The basis of this DR is clearly a bad faith predisposition, rather than defaulting to keep old files or files where the value is uncertain, not negative. --Fæ (talk) 11:05, 4 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your clarification concerning the question whether COM:GOF applies not only to permission/license issues, but also to project scope. While I have to say that based on the actual text of the guideline I'm still not convinced that it indeed applies to more than just permission/license issues, I'm looking forward to hearing a third opinion on this topic, likely from the closing admin. And yes, I very much agree with you that just because a file is categorized in the category of personal files, this by no means automatically means that it is out of scope - for it to be out of scope, both a lack of notability and use are required, which are independent of the file's categorization.

Regarding File:Tim Labor 01.jpg, I certainly respect the uploader's contribution to the article en:Open Fist Theatre Company, but I do believe that his image is out of scope. The reason is that it is both unused and lacking sufficient notability. In regard to notability, please see the deletion discussion for an English Wikipedia article the uploader wrote about himself. Based on the lack of both notability and use, I do uphold my deletion nomination for this file for Commons:Project scope. In case new information comes to light that does support notability, I'm happy to change my opinion, but so far I have not been able to find such information. In terms of upload date, considering that COM:GOF has January 2007 as a deadline and the image was uploaded in December 2010, this anyway is not a case where the grandfather clause would apply (if it applies to issues with project scope in the first place). Based on the deletion of the uploader's Wikipedia article due to a lack of notability, the image should probably have been nominated already back in 2010 (unless used on a user page, of course). Just because back then the image was missed and nobody bothered to nominate it does not mean that with time it automatically gains notability and that a deletion nomination today is an attempt to "wipe the project's history" or a bad faith action. That being said, I understand that you disagree with this nomination and I do respect your opinion. Luckily, thanks to the deletion request system with one person nominating, others commenting and an independent admin closing, I think that us disagreeing is a healthy process and not necessarily a problem, and I will be happy to accept whatever decision the closing admin will make. GFJ (talk) 13:02, 4 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Nowhere does scope mention notability, and portraits of people like directors or a reasonable number of illustrative portraits of any Wikipedia contributor are considered within scope, regardless of whether they are active or have not contributed for a decade. Commons is not governed in any way from the English Wikipedia, this is a fundamental misunderstanding that undermines this deletion request.

With respect to GOF, refer to Commons:Village pump/Proposals#Apply a default of Good Faith for very old files --Fæ (talk) 13:11, 4 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the link to your VP proposal from today where you are using this discussion as illustration, I had not seen it until now. It will certainly settle the question then of how far the grandfathering principle should reach, which is helpful to discuss.

For new readers coming over from the VP proposal, please allow me to note that of the 55 images originally nominated in this request, no more than 4 have actually been uploaded more than ten years ago and only these four (1, 2, 3, 4) would therefore be relevant to the proposal. Strictly speaking, the example File:Tim Labor 01.jpg that Fæ is using as an illustration is not actually affected, reaching ten years only in December 2020.

Back to our previous discussion, in regard to "notability" not being mentioned on Commons:Project scope, notability is connected to "must be realistically useful for an educational purpose", as a completely non-notable person will not usually fulfill that criterion. I do agree, however, that in the case of File:Tim Labor 01.jpg, the notability is not black and white and I certainly have no problem with keeping this file should the closing admin decide to do so. And yes, I am well aware that the notability criteria of other projects including Wikipedia are independent of ours, the link to the deletion discussion serves as an illustration/addition and is by itself of course no "final proof". GFJ (talk) 15:00, 4 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep all per Fae's comments. Commons has a looser notability standard than Wikipedia Abzeronow (talk) 17:11, 5 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: OoS is Oos. plus a number were claimed as own work but had photographer names in EXIF so needed OTRS and others had FB MD. --Gbawden (talk) 09:02, 11 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]