On 25/09/2007, charles.r.matthews@ntlworld.com charles.r.matthews@ntlworld.com
Well, of course, we have also had complaints here that WP is very slack on the topic of >non-free images.
Let's see, can we get a sense of whether this perceived large-scale takedown affects >more than a couple of per cent of the total of the images; and whether this is mostly about >well-exposed people, for their bios? Or are there cases (such as book or album covers) >where arguably the removal of a fair-use image leaves the article looking scantly.
I have to say _I really don't care that much_ about the bios case. Because the biographies of living people are always causing some or other trouble, and my resolution is to get on with the rest of the encyclopedia. It is far too easy to become sucked in.
Charles
There are no exact figures that I know of. However going by total number of admin deletions and the likely sources of those you would be looking at in excess of 10% of images on wikipedia deleted during the main deletion period.