Wikipedia:Files for deletion/2008 May 20

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the media below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the media's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was deleted, replaceable non-free image. —Angr 21:27, 13 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Justice Hayne.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Peter Ellis (notify | contribs).

• Copyrighted Image exhibiting a living Australian man. I disagree with the rationale that says "This image is almost impossible to replace". It may be hard, but not impossible. The policy requiring the use of free images for people is not just for the trivial cases. We do have exceptions, but I don't think that "Australian Judges" should be one of them. Damiens.rf 13:16, 20 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• The same rationale is used for other australian judges images from the same uploader:
  • Image:Justice Heydon.jpg
  • Image:Justice Gummow.gif

--Damiens.rf 13:40, 20 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Super strong keep - I don't thiunk Australian judges' should be one of them. That is not the point and is ridiculous— it is not about what Damiens.rf thinks— it is about whether we can get hold of the judges to get an image of them, and the answer is NO. I fully support the Wikipedia rationale for people like politicians, where it is possible to meet them in the street and perhaps get a photograph of them. But for judges in countries such as Australia, especially the senior judges on the High Court, that is all but impossible. Damiens.rf is not Australian and quite simply he does not understand about it— he relies on his thoughts. There is a long-standing convention in Australia that judges do not appear in public. The only time you will see him is in court where you cannot take photos. It is essentially impossible to find a photograph— I know, I have tried and asked and failed to get one— anywhere. The image rationale is a valid one and I'm sick of users trying to impose on hard-working users rationales which simply don't make sense when applied to situations that they know nothing about. Except for Justice Kirby (who is a very unusual exception who appears in public on human rights/gay rights things due to his work outside of the bench) and the Chief Justice of New South Wales, Jim Spigelman (where the image was graciously provided by a family member), we don't have any images of Australian judges besides those photographs which were in the public domain being 50 years and older. The images we have provided are put there for public use and are not financially disadvantaging anyone. Without the images, we simply have no picture to add to the article— because quite simply there is nothing that we can add to them besides a picture of the judge. I ask other users to please understand the situation that we are in and let us have these images here as they significantly improve the articles, and more importantly, practically and realistically there is no alternative. JRG (talk) 05:31, 21 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  Please, try to be less confrontational. It's "not about what Damiens.rf thinks" but it's also not just about what you think. I would say it will end up being about coming up with third part sources that support your statements about it being virtually impossible for an Australian Judge to be flashed. Both of your examples count against you. The fact that we only found a copyright-free image of the "very unusual exception" Michael Kirby as late as this month shows how we are doing such a poor job in finding free images for these people (I'm sure way before this month he was already appearing in public on human rights/gay rights things). --Damiens.rf 13:00, 21 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • I'm not being confrontational - you are just being blatantly ignorant and petty, insisting on something being right in your own opinion when you have no idea whatsoever about it. I work in the legal system and I am Australian— why can't you just accept that I might know a little bit more about Australian judges than you? I don't need to come up with third party sources - it is a convention (ie. unwritten rule) that judges not appear in public and refrain from public comment; it is not compulsory, but just about all judges do it. 99.5% of Australians wouldn't have a clue who Justice Hayne was if he were (hypothetically) to walk past him in the street. Australians familiar with the legal system would support what I am saying. Kirby is a blatant exception to this rule. I have checked before and I did not find any photo of Kirby— those ones appeared recently, — and I was supportive of deleting the photo of him. I have already said that what counts above does not count for Kirby. I challenge you to go and find free photos for any of the other judges on the High Court— I can guarantee you won't find a single one, because they DON'T EXIST. Why are you so intent on destroying what significantly adds to quite a lot of articles on Australian judges? I say again - the pictures are not doing anyone any harm being on Wikipedia (because they are freely available to the public on a Government website); they have a fair use rationale that would be supported by Australian copyright law (for the purposes of research— WP is an encyclopedia). What are you getting out of this? I ask you to stop trying to spite other people by wrecking the work they have done. It's not fair. We're not vandals or copyright violators— we have been simply trying to improve the articles here and you're not helping. JRG (talk) 13:12, 22 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - Per JRG's comments above. As much as it is virtually impossible to get a free photo, unfortunately the harsh wiki rules will probably see it deleted anyway. Timeshift (talk) 09:15, 21 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as replaceable, per nom, unless some evidence can be shown that free equivalents can't be obtained. Kelly ^hi! 14:29, 22 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The evidence is written above - there is a convention that judges not appear in public to make public comment. Why don't you people listen? JRG (talk) 13:32, 25 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You actually refused to give any evidence above. You just asked us to accept your credentials (as a legal system worker and as an "Australian") and challenged us to find free images immediately available to replace these ones (what is not required by Wikipedia's policy, as far as I know). Calling editors "blatantly ignorant and petty" is unfruitful. --Damiens.rf 14:25, 26 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have given my evidence and certainly did not refuse to do so- that there is a convention that judges do not appear in public. Being a convention, it is obviously not going to be written down anywhere. I am familiar with the practice of the High Court of Australia and with other courts and I know for a fact that they do not make public appearance except in the circumstances I have outlined elsewhere. I can't find a source proving that and I don't think I should have to provide one - I am asking that users trust me on this and I cite as the only evidence I can show, the lack of photos we have on Australia judges - simply because it is practically impossible to get ones - it's not out of laziness by any stretch. Do a search on Hayne in Flickr or another photo site and you will not find a single photo on him -because they don't exist. I'm just sick of editors that don't understand the situation that editors elsewhere in the world are in - and that's all I've experienced with you so far - you don't even make any attempt to come to understand what I'm saying. That is why I used the word ignorant. JRG (talk) 12:11, 28 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - JRG is right - it is practically impossible to get a photo of High Court judges. Kirby is a definite exception as he's always in public. You never see the others ever speak in public. Lonelygirl16 (talk) 14:04, 5 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  Instead of just repeating this, someone could provide some evidence for that. The keep arguments are being just "JRG knows better" (including those from JRG himself). --Damiens.rf 23:00, 5 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  Anyway, it seems that all Lonelygirl16 contributions consists of supports for JRG... --Damiens.rf 23:02, 5 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep I'm the uploader... and, Damiens.rf is right, it SHOULD be easy to get a 'free' picture of Justice Hayne; but, it is NOT EASY. It's VERY HARD, for the reasons JRG has said at length. Among the only 'public' pictures I can find are here, and it even shows his wife. But, I don't think it would be okay to copy that up to his page. - Peter Ellis - Talk 00:40, 7 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the media's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the media below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the media's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was

Keep now used. WilyD 13:57, 13 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Altenhofen Dark Side.PNG (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Altenhofen (notify | contribs).

• Unused, no stated purpose. seicer | talk | contribs 22:15, 20 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• I used it on my page and think it should not be deleted. If my page is revived, it will be in use again. I will let you delete it if it is not used after june first.Altenhofen (talk) 22:25, 20 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - No encyclopedic value, I don't think that east will restore the user's page nor do I think that it would be healthy to do so. This user has a serious case of "MySpaceitis" he has been complaining about the deletion to several admins (including Jimbo) and has stated in other words that editing his userpage is his "life", his main motive here, I don't know if he is playing around or just trolling, but surely restoring that userpage is not a good idea. - Caribbean~H.Q. 00:57, 21 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Me and east have a deal, and I am letting you delete it if it is unused after june first.Altenhofen (talk) 23:48, 22 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the media's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.