Having an illustration on an article that has none is valuable. Therefore I don't agree with this revert 1 nor with the deleting the work of new wikimedians on all projects. Hyruspex (talk) 18:31, 25 February 2023 (UTC)Reply
- The illustration is derived from a specific photo of the person. If that photo is free/public domain, it should be used instead. If that photo is not free, then the illustration is also non-free. Nikkimaria (talk) 19:16, 25 February 2023 (UTC)Reply
- Is there one iota of proof that that is what she looked like? You may as well include any random photo of a person on the article if that is your pathetic standard. I see a youthful woman in the drawing and the article says she died in her seventies at the end of the Second World War. So unless you're suggesting (with a straight face) that the Wiki editor who drew it drew it from life some time in the 1900s–1930s, you're going to have to provide proof that (1) this actually is what she looked like and (2) that it isn't copied from a photograph like many of the other drawings this Wiki editor did are. -- Veggies (talk) 03:04, 26 February 2023 (UTC)Reply
- @Veggies: It is indeed copied from a photo, here. Nikkimaria (talk) 03:08, 26 February 2023 (UTC)Reply
- Wow! Excellent find! I hadn't been able to find anything before, although I'm thoroughly convinced that this "artist" simply copies photographs and passes them off as their own. I'll nominate it for deletion per the Commons derivative work policy. -- Veggies (talk) 03:25, 26 February 2023 (UTC)Reply
- Please respect good faith here, especially since this is a new contributor.Hyruspex (talk) Hyruspex (talk) 21:34, 1 March 2023 (UTC)Reply
- No. Copyvio is copyvio and editors should know that. -- Veggies (talk) 23:24, 1 March 2023 (UTC)Reply
