Commons:Deletion requests/File:FEC Thomas Crooks Donation 202102049425215728 189746.pdf
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
Duplicate of File:FEC Thomas Crooks Donation Cropped.jpeg and potential privacy violation.
Although other people's personal information has been redacted, there are transaction IDs and dates of receipts that may be used to track and doxx irrelevant individuals. These information is also unnecessary and not useful for educational purposes. Plus, this file is only used in the Wikipedia namespace, not in articles. Of course we can redact these information, but as we already have the photo which is specifically used to show the donation record of Thomas Crooks, there is no valid reason to keep this PDF file. See also the relevant discussion. SCP-2000 15:18, 21 July 2024 (UTC)
Keep The image is available unredacted on a federal government website: it is trivial to search for it on the FEC's website. The source link goes to an unredacted version (click "view image" there). So the doxxing concern seems pointless. This nomination is more or less like saying that it would be doxxing to list the address of the White House as 1200 Pennsylvania Avenue.- I have said before and will say again: this document seems to me to be perfectly in scope. It documents a fact that has figured in the news, and it is a document that there is no reason we cannot host. While use in a Wikipedia article would be a clincher to keep it, non-use is not a reason to delete: a good 90% of what is on Commons is not used in Wikipedia articles. Being a host for Wikipedia is one of Commons' purposes, but only one.
- I helped redact our copy to meet others' concerns, but I thought then and think now that even those concerns were largely without merit for the reason I just stated.
- In terms of whether it is in scope, a comparable case would be Lee Harvey Oswald's Social Security card, which as far as I can tell no one has questioned in the decade we have had it posted, and which has even long been used as the example in Identity documents in the United States. - Jmabel ! talk 17:13, 21 July 2024 (UTC)
- Though I was one who suggested deletion, I'm not able to specify a concrete or policy-based reason to delete this. Observations:
- It's so redacted that it's of limited educational value (especially while the complete PD original is freely available)
- Some commenters have questioned whether we got the correct Thomas Crooks with this evidence, so I hope that news sources have done their due diligence on the address/other PII
- Wikipedia policies, such as BLPPRIMARY and BLPPRIVACY, while they may be of limited relevance here, are based in US law, and should give us pause: Oswald's long dead, but as recently deceased, BLP (BDP) still applies to Crooks and all other involved parties, IMHO. In fact, Crooks was 17 as of the date of these transactions, so his parents may bear responsibility for it.
- Elizium23 (talk) 03:21, 23 July 2024 (UTC)
