There are no free images available, and someone who's career was in the late 60s-early 70s would indeed be very unlikely to have one (his death occurring before things like flickr really took off added to the unlikeliness as well, and he began playing in 1963, right at the 'no copyright notice' cutoff for baseball cards and pictures). I'm not a fan of having a nonfree image solely for the sake of having one, given that this is a free encyclopedia and all.
Wizardman15:03, 13 August 2016 (UTC)reply
We don't have non-free images for the sake of having them – that's why we have the
strict criteria. We have them for the sake of significantly increasing readers' understanding of the article topic, and the
guideline recognizes that portraits of deceased people at the top of their article for the purpose of identification unambiguously meet this requirement.
This is a content issue in the sense that having images is not mandatory per any policy. An editor (such as the nominator) can choose not to have one. But in the light of GA criteria this is a an omission that doesn't fly. For GA status an article has to bee illustrated, if possible, and non-free images are counted in that possibility. Everyone is entitled to their opinion about the non-free content policy, but a Good Article review should not accommodate dissenting opinions when they are in conflict with the GA criteria.
There are no free images available, and someone who's career was in the late 60s-early 70s would indeed be very unlikely to have one (his death occurring before things like flickr really took off added to the unlikeliness as well, and he began playing in 1963, right at the 'no copyright notice' cutoff for baseball cards and pictures). I'm not a fan of having a nonfree image solely for the sake of having one, given that this is a free encyclopedia and all.
Wizardman15:03, 13 August 2016 (UTC)reply
We don't have non-free images for the sake of having them – that's why we have the
strict criteria. We have them for the sake of significantly increasing readers' understanding of the article topic, and the
guideline recognizes that portraits of deceased people at the top of their article for the purpose of identification unambiguously meet this requirement.
This is a content issue in the sense that having images is not mandatory per any policy. An editor (such as the nominator) can choose not to have one. But in the light of GA criteria this is a an omission that doesn't fly. For GA status an article has to bee illustrated, if possible, and non-free images are counted in that possibility. Everyone is entitled to their opinion about the non-free content policy, but a Good Article review should not accommodate dissenting opinions when they are in conflict with the GA criteria.