File talk:Nativity Monk.JPG

Moved from Project:votes for undeletion by (WT-en) Evan; originally at Project:votes for deletion.


 * Image:Nativity Monk.JPG. Picture of a person (to be avoided per image use policy), not clear that the person gave permission to publish their image (see privacy rights). --(WT-en) Evan 13:18, 20 Aug 2004 (EDT)
 * Delete. -(WT-en) phma 14:16, 20 Aug 2004 (EDT)
 * Delete. -- (WT-en) Colin 17:50, 20 Aug 2004 (EDT)
 * Keep. You're being ridiculous: the monk in the picture is not recognizable as a person, eg. you can't make out any features of his face. (WT-en) Jpatokal 22:30, 20 Aug 2004 (EDT)
 * I dunno. I think he's recognizable, but it seems like a close call. I'd rather somebody else make the decision to actually do the deleting. -- (WT-en) Mark 07:15, 17 Sep 2004 (EDT)
 * Keep. The monk is rather part of the church atmosphere than an individum in this image. His face is so small that it seems to be impossible to recognize him or to missuse it. -- (WT-en) Hansm 06:02, 2004 Sep 20 (EDT)
 * Okay, keep him. -(WT-en) phma 18:51, 22 Sep 2004 (EDT)
 * I still think that this should be deleted, and I don't think we have consensus to keep it. Better safe than sorry. I'll wait for another admin to make the call, though. --(WT-en) Evan 12:55, 26 Sep 2004 (EDT)
 * Just to clarify my comment: the monk is not recognizable. But because the picture is named nativity monk (i.e. the picture is named after him, rather than the place), I'm concerned that legally we don't have a leg to stand on when we argue that the picture is not of him.  (And unfortunately, it's too late to rename the picture to pretend otherwise).   If the picture had been named "nativity chapel" right from the start, I would have been okay with this. (And by the way, everyone should visit Jpatokal's image galleries linked User:(WT-en) Jpatokal; they're awesome.) -- (WT-en) Colin 15:01, 26 Sep 2004 (EDT)
 * Sorry, I don't see the point. As Colin says, the monk is not recognizable. The picture is not named after him, otherwise its name was something like "Brother John in Nativity". The fact, that the picture's name is simply "Nativity Monk" underlines that the monk is just seen as some monk, but not as an individuum. It's true, we don't need consens to delete a file, so you can, but I'd feel unconfortable if you would. -- (WT-en) Hansm 17:21, 2004 Sep 26 (EDT)
 * I was going to suggest applying a blur filter to his face, but if you look at the picture, it's pretty darn blurred already. What recognizable features are there in the picture, other than massively bushy sideburns? (WT-en) Jpatokal 01:28, 27 Sep 2004 (EDT)
 * Delete, generally the photo likely wouldn't be a problem except it is named "monk" which implies the monk is the focus of the image. In Germany (and likely Europe) this means we are violating his privacy rights. It is a close call/blurry issue, but better to err on the side of caution. Oh, I am not a lawyer. -- (WT-en) Nils 08:15, 8 Oct 2004 (EDT)
 * Nils, I would absolutely love it if you provided some sort of cite for this, because otherwise I'll think this is so bizarre that you are pulling it out of your ass. Yeah, there's a monk in the picture.  The question is, is he identifiable?  In case you've never been to the Holy Land, let me assure you that there are a hell of a lot of these guys... (WT-en) Jpatokal 10:32, 8 Oct 2004 (EDT)

Deletion limbo
So, this image was deleted and then re-uploaded in a (failed) bid for undeletion (see Project:votes for undeletion). I don't have any clue what to do with it now. --(WT-en) Evan 12:41, 19 Mar 2005 (EST)