Commons:Deletion requests/File:Ulbricht Passport.jpg

From Wikimedia Commons, the free media repository
Jump to navigation Jump to search

personal information of living person The Quixotic Potato (talk) 11:23, 6 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom, with thanks!--Kintetsubuffalo (talk) 11:59, 6 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Is public domain governmental document entered into evidence at a much publicized Federal trial of subject. Specifically, it is document "Government Exhibit 134" "14 Cr. 68 (KBF)"; made available by U.S. Department of Justice to domestic and international Press and other news media in "press packets". Example is USA Today using it, and many others discoverable via basic Web search. "Personal" is misnomer; it is public domain document anyone can retrieve from DoJ (et al) Web site or upon request. How is different from basic demographic data available from Wikipedia entries of such subjects; Name, Photo, Nationality, Age/D.O.B.? If truly confidential, would be filed Under Seal or redacted like much of other material related to case. DoJ have deemed it neither sensitive nor confidential. --dsprc (talk) 12:08, 6 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Remove the sensitive personal information as not being of encyclopedic value. Common sense applies here. Readers gain nothing from that material. Collect (talk) 21:41, 6 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • Would love to do that except none have noted what is deemed "personal" (again, a misnomer) or "sensitive" (notion which DoJ and Press don't share); mailbox is open for explanation. Exemplification of overall document structure is most certainly encyclopedic. --dsprc (talk) 06:50, 7 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep passports are government documents like federal mugshots. If it needed to be redacted it would have been before release as a photo. The federal government releases passport application forms for genealogical purposes. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 20:04, 9 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Richard Arthur Norton. This is an informative and relevant document concerning the convicted felon, serving two life sentences, in question - could Kintetsubuffalo clarify which portions they consider should be obscured, under what Commons rules? Which personal information has not been revealed and propagated in full by the US Federal Government already? - David Gerard (talk) 21:09, 9 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]