Commons:Deletion requests/File:Randy Lennox at the 2017 CFC Annual Gala & Auction (32687750515).jpg

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

File:Randy Lennox at the 2017 CFC Annual Gala & Auction (32687750515).jpg

A higher-quality headshot already exists under a more permissive license at File:Randy_Lennox_2020.jpg. This file appears to be a cropped derivative from a large batch of imported flickr photos set rather than an original upload. For these reasons the image appears to be redundant. CJMiller71 (talk) 11:39, 14 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Excuse me, @CJMiller71, your nomination seems to claim that we remove perfectly valid images, when someone -- you in this case -- claims another image is superior. I don't remember this ever being policy, or long-standing precedence.
Category:Randy Lennox now contains 17 elements. I dont remember anyone claiming we can't have more than 16 images of any particular individual.
Excuse me, @CJMiller71, your nomination seems to claim that the image you prefer was released under "a more permissive license." I think that means if I went to the source URL, [1], I should find the "more permissive license."
Yeah, I don't see ANY license on that page. Nor do I see the actual image in question. Now, maybe, in 2020, when that image was uploaded, your image was on the bellmedia page... maybe that bellmedia page did have the license your favoured image's {{Description}} page?
This is when experienced uploaders tag the image with {{License review}}. {{Flickrreview}} automatically verifies that images from Flickr were release under the claimed images. Uploaders should consider having a third party verify that the image was present on the claimed source page, under the claimed license, at the time the image was uploaded.
I didn't read the image page carefully enough. It says an OTRS volunteer was satisfied the image was released under the Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 4.0 International license, via email. Is the Creative Commons Attribution 2.0 Generic license significantly less permissive than 4.0?
Working on the commons can be hard work. I suggest we should not argue over keeping or deleting images over anyone's personal notion that one image is superior to another. I particularly suggest it is a waste of time to argue for removing an image that is both properly licensed and is in scope. That is a whole other level of unnecessary work.
If there was no Category:Randy Lennox, and all 17 images were in Category:Television executives, that other category's usefulness would be eroded by the number of loosely related images it contained. The clear solution would be to create Category:Randy Lennox, and move those images there, rather start a number of time-consuming deletion discussions. There are individuals for whom we have hundreds of even thousands of in scope properly license images. And for those individuals we further categorize them by year, or location.
@CJMiller71, your nomination seem to suggest that cropping a large number of CFC images, to make further properly license image, is problematic. Starting in the mid-2000 the CFC uploaded over 6,000 images to Flickr. Most of those images included prominent film people (actors, directors, producers, film technical people, composers for films), or wealthy donors, or influential politicians. Many of those images were group shots. You are the first person to suggest that a large number of headshots were cropped from the original CFC images is problematic. The CFC events were invitation only. Wealthy donors, or influential politicians, or prominent film industry people were the attendees at these events. Sure, waiters also were in some of these photos, or the spouses of attendees... but most of those people were, IMO, prominent enough to be in scope. The CFC images were a rich source of in scope people.

Keep, for the reasons state above. Geo Swan (talk) 03:40, 16 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the comprehensive reply, Geo Swan, but I worry that we might be talking past each other.
To be clear, by "higher quality" I am talking about literal image resolution:
- File:Randy Lennox at the 2017 CFC Annual Gala & Auction (32687750515).jpg (1,021 × 1,426 pixels)
- File:Randy Lennox 2020.jpg (3,571 × 4,353 pixels)
I am not suggesting that the source image be deleted, only the cropped derivative headshot.

Also, I am not suggesting that all such content is problematic. I think it makes sense to crop an image to generate a headshot in cases where one doesn't exist. That is not the case here.

In this case, creating an additional cropped derivative where a policy-aligned, higher-resolution headshot already exists seems unnecessary.

CJMiller71 (talk) 14:30, 16 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

WRT resolution... Usually, when an image is used to illustrate an article on a wikipedia page, it renders on that page at around 250x250 resolution. So, even low resolution images, images in that range, are indistinguishable from 1000x1000 or 3000x3000 images.

Sometimes all the images we have, that are free, are in the 100x100 resolution range. If that is all we have, I think that is what we should use. And, if someone later finds a higher resolution images, the older low resolution images should be retained...

@CJMiller71, there is a very important point I should have made in my initial response. Are you aware that other projects, non-WMF projects, use the commons? I don't mean people downloading an image they found on the commons, and then re-uploading the image to their own project... I mean the pages on their projects understand references to images on the commons, and directly render them, on their pages, for their readers. The WMF could disallow this. It doesn't.

The commons page shows when other WMF projects are re-using the image in question. It does not show when images are used on non-WMF projects. We have no accurate way to know when an image someone proposes for deletion is in use elsewhere. I suggest this means we should have an extremely strong reason to delete images that have been on the commons long enough for commons readers to find them, and re-use them. That reasons should be MUCH stronger than "I don't like it". Discovering that an image that seemed to be properly licensed, was flickr-washed, for instance, would be a good reason. I don't like it? Bad reason

Okay, I am going to repeat myself.

For images that, (1) are in scope; (2) properly licensed, I suggest the way for someone to address a concern over the number of images is to methodically and sensibly further categorize those images, not try to delete those images.

When images are (1) in scope and (2) properly licensed PLEASE don't try to get us involved in discussions over quality. Everyone has an opinion. What is that famous Latin phrase? These discussions are time consuming. They are a waste of time.

And, what is wrong with allowing our re-users a choice?

In discussions of this sort, one finds people writing "I can't imagine a context where the image I personally prefer woulnd't be superior to that other image," I think that is your position. In general I think those opinions show a failure of imagination.

And I am going to repeat, again, because it is important. Discussions over which in scope and properly licensed images are superior is inherently a waste of time. Geo Swan (talk) 20:14, 18 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Kept: no valid reason for deletion. Commons is not limited to having only a single image of a notable person. --Infrogmation of New Orleans (talk) 20:23, 24 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

File:Randy Lennox at the 2017 CFC Annual Gala & Auction (32687750515).jpg

Requesting a courtesy deletion of this image. The image breaks no rules but is unflattering as well as a derivative crop that is appearing in Google image search results.

This request for deletion applies only to this low resolution derivative headshot crop, not the source image. A higher resolution headshot with more permissible licensing already exists at File:Randy Lennox 2020.jpg.

Again, this is explicitly a courtesy request for deletion. I apologize for not citing this rationale more clearly in my previous request for deletion. I understand that you are under no obligation to honour this request, but hope that you will choose to. CJMiller71 (talk) 16:13, 13 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

CJMiller71, the short version as to why we should decline your courtesy requestː (1) you haven't explained why you think you have standing to make this request; (2) deletion of long-standing, properly licensed images, can be very damaging to the WMF, it can make the WMF look unreliable.

CJMiller71 could you please explain what role you play in Mr Lennox's life? Are you one of his subordinates? Did he hire you as his publicist? More particularly, has he officially authorized you to speak on his behalf? In your second sentence, above, you called the image "unflattering". I think we have to be very carefull to only consider requests for courtesy deletion requests of images, on vanity grounds, that come from the actual person. Suppose you or I were dedicated fans of a pop star, like Taylor Swift. If our fandom dated back to when Ms Swift was a teenage girl, and all images of her portrayed her as a sweet, innocent teenage girl, should the WMf consider requests for courtesy deletion from someone who was merely a fan, who wanted to prune the internet of images of Ms Swift where they thought she no longer looked sweet and innocent, on grounds there were "unflattering"? Absolutely not.

In your second sentence, above, you called the image a "derivative crop". Cropped remain as adequately licensed as the uncropped images.

In your second sentence, above, you seemed to be saying the image's appearance in the Google image search results was, in some way, a problem. I just did my own image search. Seven other images of Mr Lennox appear prior to this image. Come on. No public figure can make a reasonable complaint when images they don't control don't meet their vanity standards.

If you are a professional publicist I think you already know this. But I will state it explicitly. Once a person becomes famous, they can no longer fully control their public image. They take steps to craft their public image, but it is never going to be perfect. Famous Gwyneth Paltrow and famous Jessica Alba, both have very lucrative sidelines touting health products to their fans. Yet both are clandestine cigarette smokers. Both of them would have their health sidelines falter if their fans knew they were smokers, so they are careful to only light up when they have privacy.

About fifteen years ago I came across an impressive young Native American, Dawn Dumont. She was a lawyer, an actor, an author, screenwriter, and stand up comic. Further, we had two images a fan had published of her as a stand up comic. Well, about a year after I started that article, she tried to upload her preferred pictures, and use them, in the article, in place of the earlier images. I never saw her preferred images, because she failed to give them a free license, when she uploaded them, and we can't use unlicensed images, even if they are the work of the uploader. I re-instated the properly licensed images, and that triggered here to get mad at me. Paraphrasing from memory, it seemed natural to her that she should control the Wikipedia article about her as if it were her own MySpace page.

Okay, assuming Mr Lennox authorized you to speak and act on his behalf, why shouldn't we delete this image, as a courtesy? Because, the image you prefer, File:Randy Lennox 2020.jpg was not uploaded until 2020. This image, File:Randy Lennox at the 2017 CFC Annual Gala & Auction (32687750515).jpg, was uploaded here in 2017. This means that, for three years, anyone who came here to link to an image of Mr Lennox, only had one choice, the older image. If we comply with you request if makes their links break. This is extremely discourteous, and those broken links make the WMf look unreliable. This is an avoidable problem, and the solution is simple. don't honour requests for courtesy deletion, unless there is a very strong argument for doing so. Geo Swan (talk) 20:19, 14 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, for the reasons stated above. Geo Swan (talk) 13:57, 17 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I sent an email entitled **Wikimedia Commons email from user "Geo Swan" regarding the Randy Lennox images** to CJMiller71
I responded to your most recent request for courtesy deletion... https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Commons:Deletion_requests/File:Randy_Lennox_at_the_2017_CFC_Annual_Gala_%26_Auction_(32687750515).jpg&diff=1148841574&oldid=1147253074 I think you may work for Mr Lennox. I hope you understand that I think it is an enormous mistake for us to consider requests to delete images that are said to be unflattering when the request is not coming from the actual person in the image. If Mr Lennox authorized you to deal with this image, to save himself the time to do it himself I am afraid you have to tell him he has to budget the time correspond with the confidential committee that confirms that third parties are who they say they are. Requests for courtesy deletion may be coming to us from frenemies, fans, or actual enemies. Mr Lennox should send an email to permissions-commons@wikimedia.org That email should suggest a method by which they can verify he is the real life Randy Lennox. It should say "I've asked CJ Miller to explain why this image should be given a courtesy deletion. I've authorized him or her to speak on my behalf."

Call for closure. It's been over 3 weeks, and nominator has not returned to offer a further explanation. Geo Swan (talk) 13:17, 5 February 2026 (UTC)e[reply]
Yes, this request is on Mr Lennox's behalf, with his authorization.

I'm happy to answer any questions an administrator might need to make their determination.
We have emailed permissions-commons and several other addresses. Ultimately it was legal who advised the explicit courtesy takedown request here. CJMiller71 (talk) 14:32, 5 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
- The decision as to whether this image merits a courtesy deletion is a community decision. So, please don't insult non-administrators, like me, by stating you only have to convince administrators.
- I suggested that, if Mr Lennox's request was simple vanity, he should openly acknowledge that.
- Your reply seems to be that the reason for the request was initiated by Mr Lennox's lawyers... "Ultimately it was legal"... This assertion has my skepticism alarm bells ringint like crazy.
- I am not a lawyer, but aren't competent lawyers obliged to give reasons for their legal advice?
- On October 25th, 2025, in your very first comment here, you touted File:Randy_Lennox_2020.jpg, correct? Please ask Mr Lennox's lawyer what argument for deletion applies to this properly licensed image, and not to File:Randy_Lennox_2020.jpg?
- Let me give you a history lesson.
  For decades, everyone has had at least one intranet router, in their home, or office. Every single one of these routers is a computer, a special purpose computer. So, every single one of them has to run some kind of operating system, on its CPU. The two main legal options for the manufacturers of these routers were to pay some to write and test a brand new operating system for their routers, or to make a very few trivial modifications to the source code to the linux operating system, and run linux on their routers.
  However, while simply running the linux operating system on their routers saved about six months of work, it had legal consequences. While the volunteers who developed the linux operating system, had made the source code freely available, they did so under a license that said if you re-used their source code, you had to make modifications you made available to the public, to be re-used.
  That would mean their competitors would get to take advantage of the tweaks they had made, so linux was a better fit for use on a small router. Some router manufacturer's didn't want to do that. So they lied, tacitly claiming the software in their router was all their own work
  When their clandestine illegal re-use of the linux source code was legally demonstrable, the hard-working volunteers who wrote linux spent some of the limited precious donations their organizations had been given to hire lawyers to sue those router manufacturers. Lawyers cost a lot of money. Volunteer organizations are usually cash-strapped. Were there volunteers who saw the very large legal expenditures as equivalent to a century's worth of annual volunteer appreciation barbeques?
  The thing is, legal rights have to be defended, in every single instance. Corporations that own a valuable trademark have to go to court to defend their trademark, every single time a competitor tries to use it for their own product. When they don't do so, a judge can rule their rights have been surrendered.
  I am not a lawyer, but it is my understanding the WMF cannot simply accede to every single whim made by someone who wants something deleted. If we were to accede to every whim-based request for deletion we risk turning these from favors we grant to demands we are now obliged to accede to, no matter what.
  I am not a lawyer, but, in my opinion, we must protect the legal rights we have to use our images by insisting, first, that those making such requests prove they are who they say they are, and seccond, that they clearly explain why we should consider their request.
- CJMiller71. even though three months have gone by, since you made your first request, you still having managed to make sure the identification step was completed. Second, I don't think Mr Lennox has had you offer a meaningful explanation for why we should consider deletion. Geo Swan (talk) 17:33, 5 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Kept: I'm going to close this as keep with some notes. First of all, I looked at Google Images myself and for me this crop was only the 8th result. I will note that Google Images crops it further by cutting off the bottom and having the chin touch the edge of the image, which makes it worse IMHO. But we can't control how Google presents this image. I have re-cropped the image with slightly less space at the top and more at the bottom, which is better anyway in my opinion, and this might cause Google to present it better. (note that Google will take time to update) Further I note that we have not seen public proof that CJMiller71 is in any way representing Randy Lennox. As such, there's nothing really to discuss here. If Mr. Lennox insists, I can offer one thing: contact permissions-commons once more and ask them to contact me on-wiki to confirm that you represent Lennox and with a "noindex" request. If the VRT agent agrees they could also do it themselves. If this is done, I (or the VRT agent) will add a code to the file page that may cause Google to forget the image exists. It will not be deleted from Wikimedia Commons and we can't guarantee Google will stop showing the image, but it may work and is less controversial than deletion. - Alexis Jazz ^{ping plz} 03:40, 10 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]