Wikipedia:Files for deletion/2012 December 30
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
December 30
[edit]
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the media below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the media's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: Delete; deleted by Explicit (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 03:02, 7 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- File:Luoping Yunnan.jpg (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by ConfuciusInstitute (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log).
Image appears at: http://www.umagazine.com.hk/filedata/tbl_photo_sharing/org/102_1.JPG Brianga (talk) 07:12, 30 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Speedy delete as F9. - Presidentman talk · contribs (Talkback) 13:31, 30 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the media's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
 | This discussion was subject to a deletion review on 2013 March 31. For an explanation of the process, see Wikipedia:Deletion review. |
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the media below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the media's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: keep. — ξxplicit 02:19, 21 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- File:Flora Martirosian.png (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Yerevanci (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log).
Presumably replaceable nonfree image. The subject died only last month, and was a public figure who made regular public appearances. Apart from concert performances, Google image search shows the subject appearing at the sort of public events from which WP regularly receives free images from photographers. Finally, the subject was an active advocate for charitable causes, and it is certainly plausible that an appropriately licensed image could be obtained from an affiliated group, or from her own publicist or family. Per WP:NFCI #10, there has been no showing that obtaining a free equivalent is not "reasonably likely." Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 18:50, 30 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- I did search for a free licensed photo. There isn't one on Flickr and advanced Google Image search also didn't help--Երևանցի talk 03:26, 31 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. Invalid deletion rationale. WP:NFCI #10 is a guideline designed to show instances where non-free images may be used, not a exclusionary principle or a reason to delete. Whether or not there might exist a free image that could serve the same purpose as the image under discussion, the only issue at hand is whether the non-free image under discussion satisfies WP:NFCC. This image meets all ten of the criteria at WP:NFCC, specifically #1. Uploader seems to have made a good faith effort to find a free image as well. A further search for freely licensed photographs of Martirosian using different iterations of her name turned up nothing. Gobōnobō + c 22:02, 31 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- You plainly don't understand the applicable NFCC policy. Likely replaceability by a free image is always grounds for deletion of a nonfree image, and shows failure under criterion #1. The only justification suggested for allowing a nonfree image here was NFCI#10, but since the claim fails the "reasonably likely" test, that justification fails and the uploader hasn't met their burden of proof. The "good faith search" argument isn't part of our strict NFCC requirements, and would reduce the NFCC requirements to the lowest common denominator of editor competence and diligence. This is exactly a use that the "reasonably likely" language was intended to prevent. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 13:09, 3 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Likelihood, however, is highly subjective, and nominators have historically shown a certain detachment from reality in asserting it. For someone who cannot be photographed anymore at all, I presume that what photographs we have are what we are going to get until someone produces a substitute. Rationalizing that someone already has a photograph which they are willing to give us is improbable. Mangoe (talk) 15:24, 3 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- That's ridiculous, in terms of NFCC policy. First of all, the burden falls on the advocates of nonfree use, and empty rhetoric like this does exactly zero to meet that burden. Second, your analysis makes exactly zero sense; there's no "detachment from reality" involved in suggesting that there's a more than reasonable likelihood of obtaining free images of someone who was an active concert performer and public figure -- Wikipedia already has thousands of such images -- and pretending otherwise is no basis for trying to evade the WMF's commitment to free content. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 01:48, 6 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Then which of these thousands of other images do you suggest we use to replace this one? There is no sort of sympathetic copyright magic that allows pictures of other people to wish a picture of this person into existence. It makes more sense to believe that if there were a free picture available, we would already have it, because that after all is what "available" would imply. Someone may give us a picture, but such a picture is not free now. Mangoe (talk) 03:37, 7 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- For god's sake, that's completely incompatible with the applicable limiting language of WP:NFCI, which says that an image of a deceased person may be used "provided that ever obtaining a free close substitute is not reasonably likely." Nobody's made a good faith effort to show that, just waved their hands and made arguments which, if accepted, would undermine the WMF's commitment to free content. Especially when, as here, the subject had no article during her lifetime, so that the incentives to provide a free image were minimal. There is no basis whatsoever in policy for establishing the presumption you want to make. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 03:33, 8 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- "Ever" is, on one scale, a useless standard: one might presume that copyright law will eventually allow any image to go into public domain, so on that basis one could forbid any fair use. Having set that aside as inaccurate (because nobody acts as if it were a valid theory) it seems to me that you've simply presumed that there are sufficient images out there, waiting to be used, one of which is owned by someone who is or will be a Wikipedia editor and will be moved to give the image away, assuming that they cross all their Ts on the upload forms and it isn't summarily deleted. I don't see that as a reasonable likelihood. If everyone wants to say "sorry, we have to assume such pictures exist," then fine, I won't contest any more of these. But this is just an opinion on image availability that you've pulled out of the air; I conversely doubt that the material is as available as you argue that it is, and it's a running feature of these discussions/nominations that fair-use exclusionists make up theories about how it is possible to easily enough take or get a free picture, which, somehow, everyone is supposed to accept without argument. You've said your piece on this, and I've said mine, and it is time to let others judge between them. Mangoe (talk) 04:29, 8 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- For god's sake, that's completely incompatible with the applicable limiting language of WP:NFCI, which says that an image of a deceased person may be used "provided that ever obtaining a free close substitute is not reasonably likely." Nobody's made a good faith effort to show that, just waved their hands and made arguments which, if accepted, would undermine the WMF's commitment to free content. Especially when, as here, the subject had no article during her lifetime, so that the incentives to provide a free image were minimal. There is no basis whatsoever in policy for establishing the presumption you want to make. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 03:33, 8 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Then which of these thousands of other images do you suggest we use to replace this one? There is no sort of sympathetic copyright magic that allows pictures of other people to wish a picture of this person into existence. It makes more sense to believe that if there were a free picture available, we would already have it, because that after all is what "available" would imply. Someone may give us a picture, but such a picture is not free now. Mangoe (talk) 03:37, 7 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- That's ridiculous, in terms of NFCC policy. First of all, the burden falls on the advocates of nonfree use, and empty rhetoric like this does exactly zero to meet that burden. Second, your analysis makes exactly zero sense; there's no "detachment from reality" involved in suggesting that there's a more than reasonable likelihood of obtaining free images of someone who was an active concert performer and public figure -- Wikipedia already has thousands of such images -- and pretending otherwise is no basis for trying to evade the WMF's commitment to free content. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 01:48, 6 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Likelihood, however, is highly subjective, and nominators have historically shown a certain detachment from reality in asserting it. For someone who cannot be photographed anymore at all, I presume that what photographs we have are what we are going to get until someone produces a substitute. Rationalizing that someone already has a photograph which they are willing to give us is improbable. Mangoe (talk) 15:24, 3 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- You plainly don't understand the applicable NFCC policy. Likely replaceability by a free image is always grounds for deletion of a nonfree image, and shows failure under criterion #1. The only justification suggested for allowing a nonfree image here was NFCI#10, but since the claim fails the "reasonably likely" test, that justification fails and the uploader hasn't met their burden of proof. The "good faith search" argument isn't part of our strict NFCC requirements, and would reduce the NFCC requirements to the lowest common denominator of editor competence and diligence. This is exactly a use that the "reasonably likely" language was intended to prevent. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 13:09, 3 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep I would presume that there is no non-free image until one is produced; if one is produced, it can replace this one. Mangoe (talk) 02:38, 1 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the media's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.