Wikipedia:Files for discussion/2019 April 6

< April 5	April 7 >

April 6

File:TomMcDonald.jpg

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. — JJMC89 (T·C) 00:20, 14 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Unused personal image. Magog the Ogre (t • c) 02:39, 6 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, orphaned with no obvious value. Salavat (talk) 05:20, 7 April 2019 (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.

File:Trump Guy.jpg

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. — JJMC89 (T·C) 00:21, 14 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Not used for educational or critical purposes, fails WP:NFCC#8. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 21:22, 6 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Koavf: Not sure how this is any different than any other TV show screenshot that's included in several thousands of pages on Wikipedia. Not to mention that it's a form of art and there's no free alternative. GeekInParadise (talk) 21:29, 6 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@GeekInParadise: It's not any different than that and almost all of them should be deleted. E.g. see this day a few weeks ago when I proposed 65 such deletions (which all passed). You have to justify why this passes NFCC#8, not argue other stuff exists. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 21:36, 6 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Koavf: linking to an essay that's not policy, with a mocking headline doesn't really make any point valid. Furthermore, reading it, it says that stuff existing doesn't validate or invalidate a point. This isn't a matter of me saying "well xyz broke the rules too" but rather pointing out that there's a long standing precedence that rules are interpreted as such, and should be continued to be until an official ruling on this matter is clarified. Wikipedia needs to have some consistency to make it legible and not confusing to people.

Isn't that the entire purpose of Manual of Style? A few select editors deciding to proactively creating policy that removes 100K+ images from a platform seems contradictory to the point of wikipedia. Do you plan on going after every single photo that's fair use? Because honestly I worry it's a slippery slope to just start deleting photos based on your personal interpretation of fair use. Wikipedia guidelines clearly indicate fair usage for art with scaled down photos even with non-free images. An attack on this photo and ones like it is an attack on all non-free images and ones like it defeats the purpose of fair use. If 100% of the photos on Wikipedia were required to be public domain, you could not learn anything from it, and it wouldn't be very useful as an encyclopedia. I'm confused on if you're disagreeing with this entire premise or how the photo is tagged? If the later, it would be helpful in the future if you could please encourage people to tag things properly, instead of simply insisting on its deletion. GeekInParadise (talk) 23:35, 6 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@GeekInParadise: You asked, "How is this different from [x] examples just like it?" Well, that's your question to answer, not mine. There are lots of uncited claims in Wikipedia, too--they should all be removed or cited. The existence of lots of other bad things doesn't justify adding one more. I'm not sure that I understand your point about the Manual of Style... But it seems like you are misunderstanding the more fundamental point of Wikipedia which is that it's free culture. Other language editions don't contain any fair use media (e.g. es:--compare Adore (The Smashing Pumpkins album) with es:Adore (álbum de The Smashing Pumpkins)) and there should be a lot more scrutiny to adding a screenshot than there is now. The community here could decide tomorrow to get rid of all non-free media and that would be entirely consistent with the purpose and function of Wikipedia. It seems like you have an additional misunderstanding about fair use and public domain: there is no such thing as "fair use" of public domain media. If something is in the public domain, anyone can use it for any purpose. Fair use is a legal argument for copyrighted works in certain contexts. We apply strict scrutiny to non-free media per WP:NFCC to ensure that we are following fair use guidelines that exceed what is legally required. E.g. there is no court case or statute that specifies exactly how many pixels in size album art can be in order to be fair use but we have a convention at the English Wikipedia for it purely because the community decided to have one. I'm not proposing deleting all fair use media (tho that is a defensible position); I'm proposing deleting this one. And I'm not doing because it's improperly tagged but because it's not used in any way that is educational, instructive, or critical at all: it's purely decorative in an infobox. Lastly, you don't have to worry about photos being deleted based on my preference as this is Files for discussion: I can't unilaterally delete anything. All I can do is propose things for deletion, which I have done thousands of times and been successful at 98%+ because almost all of these were improperly added in the first place. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 23:59, 6 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

weak delete It's not essential to the article but I don't like how English Wikipedia basically wants zero fair use in practice. And other language versions of Wikipedia shouldn't be a factor in how we apply fair use to this. Abzeronow (talk) 15:59, 7 April 2019 (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.