User TLSuda has deleted the following files, File:1920s Henry Ludwig Mond, Liberal.jpg, File:1920s Scott Lidgett.jpg. These are bad decisions and should be overturned. Perhaps you will speak to TLSuda and put them straight. Graemp (talk) 22:29, 12 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I see you contacted him yesterday and he is standing by his close. I think the possibility of the Mond image being unpublished for the first three years after it was taken and then published in 1923 or later seems an unlikely scenario and I would not have advocated deletion of that image myself, but he says he won't overturn his decision without evidence. It's possible the NPG might have additional publication information but I don't know whether they'd be willing to help given our history with them.

From my experience, the NPG does not retain publication information for these images. Any publication information that they would have, would relate to exhibitions which featured this type of work. Also from my experience, such portraiture of election candidates as Mond, was frequently published as part of their election campaign. This would embellish your point about the likelihood of publication. I'm not sure how helpful it is for wikipedia to have editors taking such a strict view of evidence. As regards wikipedia relations with the NPG, this image was made available by the NPG to use in wikipedia under an educational licence and if an editor in charge of a deletion process was unhappy with it being used as free, a fair use rationale could have been supplied. Again, I'm not sure how helpful it is for wikipedia to have editors who decide to delete an image before fair use options have been explored. Graemp (talk) 15:50, 14 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

There is currently a portrait on Commons of Mond (File:Glyn Warren Philpot - Portrait of Henry Ludwig Mond, 2nd Baron Melchett of Landford.jpg), so unless that image is deleted as unfree a non-free image is out of the question. Even if it is deleted fair use would be difficult to justify for a politician active before 1923, because as you say portraits are often published as part of election campaigns so it is unlikely that no image of him was ever published before 1923. The fair use rationale would have to address this and specify what efforts have been made to locate such images. January (talk) 13:32, 17 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

On the Lidgett image, you mentioned in the discussion that you had cards from 1922 LCC elections featuring this image in your possession although you uploaded a copy of the image from another website. If it is apparent from the card itself that it was published in 1922, uploading a scan of it would provide evidence of a pre-1923 publication. January (talk) 10:38, 13 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

If my 1922 cards were digitalised, then I would have uploaded them. I'm not sure how beneficial it is for wikipedia to have editors make decisions about evidence, based upon whether that evidence is on-line or not. Graemp (talk) 15:50, 14 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Any sort of scan or even a photo would do - this is not necessarily to use in the article, just to prove the pre-1923 publication. Some editors upload a scan to provide evidence of copyright status, then overwrite it with the version to be used in the article leaving the original still viewable in the history, eg File:Peter Cook Beyond the Fringe 1962.JPG. January (talk) 13:32, 17 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

To clarify, I have no additional scan of a photo or anything else. When I provide evidence, I can add hard copy evidence where relevant. Editors should not disregard hard-copy evidence. Graemp (talk) 10:37, 18 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

How did you intend to go about providing hard-copy evidence? January (talk) 18:13, 18 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

By completing the section 'Other information'. Graemp (talk) 06:21, 19 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]