The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more files. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the file's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Non-free image taken from newspaper and with plausible commercial value. Fails WP:NFCC#2. Additionally, as an influencer, it is very likely free photos of her exist, or a photo could be released as such. Stifle (talk) 14:28, 8 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Additionally, as an influencer, it is very likely free photos of her exist, or a photo could be released as such. Where did you take this from? I have searched for it and I have not found any free image of Shani Louk. Additionally, asking for a relative of Louk to release a photograph of her under a license accepeted by Wikimedia Commons would be nearly harassment—respect their grief. Moreover, what is the problem of the image being taken from a newspaper? (The same newspaper that is used in the article to… source information!) I fail to see where is the commercial value of that ordinary photograph, but isn’t that what fair use is all about? Inviting people who have contributed to the article or seemed to be interested in discussions related to it: @Alalch E., Red-tailed hawk, and Reading Beans:. RodRabelo7 (talk) 01:33, 9 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. It is implausible that this low resolution cropped version of a photograph which exists in the original, high, resolution, alongside many other high-resolution photographs, is commercially usable at all. This specific file does not have desirable properties for commercial use. The author can benefit from distributing the original version, and this modified version appearing in one Wikipedia article does not substantially diminish their commercial opportunities with respect to this work. I don't think that free images exist, I don't understand why it would be likely that they exist, and it's doubtful whether asking someone to freely share their photo could realistically succeed, and asking a relative of this recently deceased person doesn't feel like the best idea.—Alalch E.14:10, 10 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the file's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more files. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the file's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the file's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more files. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the file's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Tagged as replaceable by George Ho with the rationale "image of living person replaceable per WP:NFC#UUI". Contested by Dmartin969 with the rationale "Free image could not be created as subject is incarcerated in a federal prison. WP:NFC#UUI states: 'In considering the ability to take a free photograph, it is expected that the photographer respect all local property and privacy laws and restrictions'. No free equivalent exists, the FBOP does not release mugshots to the public." King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠18:49, 16 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I followed the discussion George links above and agree with the comments there. The person is not indefinitely incarcerated, so a free image is possible, and if a non free image was to be used, there are ones with more critical commentary that can be justified better per the NFCC. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchstalk19:51, 16 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the file's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
