Talk:Peter Reardon
| This article must adhere to the biographies of living persons (BLP) policy, even if it is not a biography, because it contains material about living persons. Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately from the article and its talk page, especially if potentially libellous. If such material is repeatedly inserted, or if you have other concerns, please report the issue to this noticeboard.If you are a subject of this article, or acting on behalf of one, and you need help, please see this help page. |
 | This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||
| |||||||||||
The picture shown is appropriate given that it shows the subject of the article as he is now. The photo illustrates the subject's noteworthiness not the fact that he is currently a musician (which he isn't). — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jayhova4x4 (talk • contribs) 17:22, 13 August 2012 (UTC)
The photo itself is clearly demonstrative or the fact that Mr. Reardon is noteworthy. There is very little evidence outside this particular field that would suggest that Peter is of note. The photo seems to fit the fair use guidelines of the site. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jayhova4x4 (talk • contribs) 20:38, 13 August 2012 (UTC)
A better answer to your question would be that nothing other than a picture will tell you "Is this the person I am thinking of?" No amount of words could ever confirm, for instance, that if you met Mr. Reardon at some point that this is the person you met. Jayhova4x4 (talk) 20:53, 13 August 2012 (UTC) The
- In which case, we should remove this picture and replace it with a free one. —C.Fred (talk) 20:56, 13 August 2012 (UTC)
This assumes that a "free" one exists. I am attempting to locate a free photo of him as a musician. However, even if I did, there is a marked difference in his appearance then and now to the extent that he might be considered unrecognizable. My understanding is that a "fair use" picture can be used if no other is available. It could be argued that for instance a book cover may only be used under fair use, but that a book has other distinguishing features such as a unique title, ISBN, author, etc. A person on the other hand has few uniquely identifiable traits. Peter Reardon shares a name with both an actor and a character from a soap opera. In addition to this, Peter shares a first name with many audio engineers, musicians, manufactures, etc. Most if not all wiki articles on books use images of book covers to illustrate the subject of the article. It therefore seems more than reasonable this "fair use" photo is appropriate in the manner in which it is used. 76.30.210.45 (talk) 21:11, 14 August 2012 (UTC)
- It would seem so, but it isn't. There are many cases where photos used of celebrities are relatively recent photos, even though they're photos taken well past the celebrities' prime, because they're free. —C.Fred (talk) 21:33, 14 August 2012 (UTC)
Your argument seems to be that a free photo should be used if available. As I have already stated I have no knowledge of a free photo. The policy of Wikipedia seems to be that a photo that is available under "fair use" may be used if a free substitute is not available. Is there another policy that you can direct me to that is contrary to this. I find nothing that demands that I produce a free substitute. In the case of celebrities Public domain photos are available for use. In this case they are not. In your argument you say that many celebrities have photos taken past their prime. I don't imagine there are many celebrities that have high school year book photos in their profiles. In most of those cases too the photo would be a reasonably good shot taken close up that would be recognizable as the person in question. Again if you are saying that Wikipedia policy is to deny the use of material that could reasonably used fairly then that seems to invalidate the term "fair use". If you are saying I may not use this if another is freely available I'll say okay where is the freely available one?Jayhova4x4 (talk) 01:12, 15 August 2012 (UTC)
- The image was deleted (and not by me) because it failed criterion #1 of the non-free content criteria: "Non-free content is used only where no free equivalent is available, or could be created, that would serve the same encyclopedic purpose." In a biography of a living person, it is almost always assumed that a free equivalent could be created, because a Wikipedia user could take a picture of the subject at a public appearance. For a good example of this, look at the photographs of athletes, especially football and ice hockey players: many of the photos in the infoboxes are action shots, with their helmets on, because that's what exists in the way of free images. Sure, there are photos of them on team websites with their helmets off, but those photos belong to the team, and we may not use them per Wikipedia's non-free content criteria, because free images can be obtained for the same purpose. —C.Fred (talk) 01:21, 15 August 2012 (UTC)