Commons:Deletion requests/File:Mitch Miller 1940.jpg
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
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.
This file was initially tagged by BigRed606 as Speedy (speedydelete) and the most recent rationale was: <not a picture of Mitch Miller without a beard, search pictures. Propose to delete because it is misleading and the person in this picture is unknown> — billinghurst sDrewth 08:27, 1 January 2022 (UTC)
Keep See: https://50plusworld.com/july-4th-birthdays/ scroll down to where they identify the same image as a young 1940 Mitch Miller. See also this Getty image where the hairlines and eyebrows match: https://www.gettyimages.com/detail/news-photo/american-bandleader-and-television-personality-mitch-miller-news-photo/56770114?adppopup=true If there is a dispute over the identification, we need to keep it and point out the error, since the image is in use now all over the Internet including Alamy. We can add a note that the image is disputed and describe in detail why we think it is or why we think it is not him. The best way to dispute it is to find another image of Mitch Miller in 1940 and place them side by side, or find another photo of him wearing the same distinctive watch. I also think that the image may be earlier than 1940, even though it was distributed in 1940. --RAN (talk) 19:12, 1 January 2022 (UTC)
Delete as I said before the image in question is not Mitch Miller it is plainly visible by comparing the image with other verified images of Mitch Miller. The image is misleading. We should not keep images of people we don’t know they are. BigRed606 (talk) 06:50, 18 January 2022 (UTC)
- Your tagging of the image is already your !vote, please don't !double-vote. You should present some evidence beyond your opinion that it does not look like him. We host about 1,500 images with the disputed_identification tag. We also house >100,000 images of people with no person identified in the image by either a category, or a link to Wikipedia, or a caption, or the name of the image, or a depicts structured data statement. Just like most stock photo outlets, people can be anonymously depicted. --RAN (talk) 03:21, 19 January 2022 (UTC)
- I do not believe this counts as double !voting. The user added a speedy tag, which was declined and this discussion was opened. The nominator has a right to present their rationale and, as the discussion was opened by another user, this !vote is their first presentation of that rationale. I think we can trust our administrators to recognise the user is the same one as named in the opening statement. From Hill To Shore (talk) 02:24, 15 May 2022 (UTC)
- Keep I do not see any grounds for deletion here. If the uploader is correct that we have misidentified an individual, the answer would be to rename the image and add a description about the disputed identification. Having looked at the image here and other images a couple of decades later, I am unable to judge if they are the same person or not. There are some similarities but also some differences; whether those differences are the result of two decades of aging or an indication of a mismatch is hard to say. From Hill To Shore (talk) 02:24, 15 May 2022 (UTC)
Kept: no reason for deletion. A note about the dispute is added to the file page. --Ellywa (talk) 22:40, 20 May 2022 (UTC)
