Wikipedia:Files for deletion/2007 September 15

September 15

Image:Ken Gourlay & Justin Berry.jpg

Image:Ken Gourlay & Justin Berry.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Ssbohio (notify | contribs).

• This is a photograph of a living person claimed as fair use. It is a private photograph of uncertain date and ownership, taken without permission from the personal website of one of the subjects.

The two people depicted were involved together in child pornography websites both before and after the younger turned 18. It is impossible to say whether the younger subject was a minor at the time of this photograph. This means that photograph may or may not depict the younger subject in the act of underage prostitution.

The notoriety of the two subjects was passing, and has not become lasting notability. I have proposed and received support for making the article this image is listed into a redirect. DanB†DanD 00:53, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

Keep the problems with this nomination are many, some subtle, some so at variance with the facts as to beggar belief.

1. It is a photograph of a living person claimed as fair use. What Dan leaves out is that it has a valid fair-use rationale that meets FU and which has previously been reviewed. It is a photo of a living person as he appeared during the period of time for which he is notable along with one of the people he became notable for knowing.
2. It is … taken without permission from the personal website of one of the subjects. That's the definition of fair use. Fair use requires no permission. Fair use requires a valid rationale, which this image has.
3. It is impossible to say whether the younger subject was a minor at the time of this photograph. THe photo is taken in a public place and is not even suggestive, much less salacious. Berry's age is not a deciding factor, unless deciding by simply not liking it.
4. The photograph may or may not depict the younger subject in the act of underage prostitution. This is an unfounded accusation against two living people, one which on its face meets the definition of libel. Nothing in the article or the image suggests that Berry ever prostituted himself for Gourlay. It's hardly fair or sensitive toward Berry to accuse him of such a thing in order to win a deletion debate.
5. The notoriety of the two subjects was passing, and has not become lasting notability. I have proposed and received support for making the article this image is listed into a redirect. This has nothing whatsoever to do with the question of deleting this image. If the article is deleted, then the image goes away as fair use content not used in any article. It is not in any way a reason to delete the image separate from the article.

This nomination appears to be a case of forum shopping when the nominator was unable to gain the advantage in a content dispute in the article. This image has been viewed and reviewed by a number of editors and admins. Its fair use rationale is solidly within policy guidelines. This nomination treads the fine line as to whether it is in good faith. --Ssbohio 01:18, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

Image:20102000 sean.jpg

Image:20102000 sean.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Alkivar (notify | contribs).

• Non-free image of a living normal football player from a news story on nfl.com. Previously nominated as a replaceable image, but inexplicably kept. There is no fair use justification for the use of this photo - we cannot use news photos and call it fair use. Our use is not at all transformative - it's merely an attempt to not have to pay royalties. Even if we could legally use this photo, it violates our replaceability policy as it is used only to show what the guy looks like and he is still living. B 00:56, 15 September 2007 (UTC)
• Delete This image is clearly replaceable fair use. It is an image of a living person as he currently appears, thus lacking the characteristic of being nonreplaceable. It might arguably be legal fair use, but it is not within fair use policy. --Ssbohio 01:38, 15 September 2007 (UTC)