Commons:Valued image candidates/Lutz Bachmann (2015)-01.jpg

Lutz Bachmann (2015)-01.jpg

promoted

Image
Nominated by	George Ho (talk) on 2017-03-23 04:54 (UTC)
Scope	Nominated as the most valued image on Commons within the scope: Lutz Bachmann
Used in	Global usage
Reason	As the original source of File:Lutz Bachmann (2015).jpg, and out of all pictures within the scope, this one stands out as the most valuable. -- George Ho (talk)
Review (criteria)	Comment Please add geolocation. Thanks, Yann (talk) 09:24, 23 March 2017 (UTC)  Comment Added location, Yann. However, I could not pinpoint the exact location, so I used the city's artificial one instead. --George Ho (talk) 11:28, 23 March 2017 (UTC)  Comment Why do we want to promote criminals here? I cannot oppose according to the rules, but hopefully others will not support. Charles (talk) 09:58, 23 March 2017 (UTC)  Support Best in scope. We have Wikipedia articles about everybody, even the worst people. I don't see any reason why Commons would not have pictures of them. Regards, Yann (talk) 15:27, 23 March 2017 (UTC)  Question - Charles, on the same basis, would you want to exclude photos of Hitler, Stalin, Mao, Pol Pot and Tojo from VI? -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 16:31, 23 March 2017 (UTC) No. They are dead and so publicity here cannot inflame anything. Charles (talk) 19:44, 23 March 2017 (UTC) OK, I understand where you stand. But Wikipedia and others also cover living people who are newsworthy for being notorious, racist, violent, criminal, etc. The philosophical argument that they shouldn't be given publicity is certainly a respectable one, and I have my own views about that in relation to U.S. media coverage of Trump and certainly in relation to the names of mass-casualty terrorists and apolitical mass murderers (who by the way are mostly dead, either suicides or shot dead, but whose publicity can inflame things and encourage copycat crimes), but I wouldn't question the appropriateness of awarding a VI for a picture of Trump or pictures of mass murderers on that basis. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 22:17, 23 March 2017 (UTC)  Comment - @Charlesjsharp: , I've mentioned to you before that you can't hold a Valued or Quality image candidate up to unwritten rules. Valued images are held up to criteria based around an image's ability to illustrate a subject, or as its known here, a "scope". It does not at all have anything to do with ethics, opinions of a scope, or motive of an image. This image is being assessed on whether or not it's the best illustration of Lutz Bachmann. This is NOT a discussion on Lutz Bachmann himself. Philip Terry Graham (talk) 22:50, 25 March 2017 (UTC)  Comment Please don't lecture me. I can comment all I want - it just happens your ethics are different to mine. I am not voting against the nomination. Charles (talk) 16:26, 26 March 2017 (UTC)  Comment - @Charlesjsharp: you're not voting against it, but you're certainly trying to influence the vote. You literally said that "hopefully others will not support". Philip Terry Graham (talk) 19:22, 26 March 2017 (UTC) Of course I was trying to influence the vote. There's nothing wrong in that. Charles (talk) 15:44, 27 March 2017 (UTC)  Support - Of the two shots of Bachmann that currently exist on Commons, this is by all standards the better shot. Philip Terry Graham (talk) 22:56, 25 March 2017 (UTC) Result: 2 support, 0 oppose => promoted. Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 05:24, 27 March 2017 (UTC)