Wikipedia:Images and media for deletion/2007 September 29

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 debate was

[edit] Image:JayneMariePlayboy.jpg

Image:JayneMariePlayboy.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Aditya Kabir (notify | contribs).

• This non-free image is not being used in a way consistent with Wikipedia policy. It is supporting a section of the article Jayne Marie Mansfield discussing the fact that Jayne Marie Mansfield was the first nude Playboy Playmate whose mother was also a nude Playboy Playmate. But this image is not related to that fact in any way, and certainly does not significantly increase readers' understanding of that fact, as would be required by WP:NFCC#8. If this photograph itself were iconic or historically significant in some way, it might possibly be usable under Wikipedia policy (which actually allows non-free images under such circumstances!), but neither the article nor the image's fair-use rationale makes any such claim. —Angr 17:59, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

Oppose. WP:NFCC#8 neither demands an image to be necessarily iconic or historically significant (though the image actually is historically significant, if we are to believe that Playboy is a cultural phenomenon and has massive coverage on Wikipedia) nor it prohibits for use as the primary means of visual identification of the subject or topic or used to illustrate a particular topic (per WP:FURG). It is difficult to see how an image from the pictorial that featured the first instance of a daughter of a Playmate to be featured on magazine is not related to that fact in any way. IMHO, the image is in fine accordance with the explicit guidelines and policies. Aditya^{(talk • contribs)} 19:37, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

Delete. THe standard is not related to the fact in any way. It is whether it would be detrimental to readers' understanding not to have it. Without this image, readers would easily be able to understand that she posed in Playboy. Especially considering that Playboy is known for its vigorous policing of copyrighted images, we should pass on this one. Calliopejen1 23:55, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

Comment The argument was not about related to the fact in any way. It was about historical significance and use as the primary means of visual identification of the subject or topic. It is also about image use policies at Wikipedia, not Playboy. And, finally it is about a work of art (if we are ready to believe that glamour/nude photography has long been accepted as art work, and Playboy commissioned quite a few award winning work so far) out of a very limited set which can not be described without a visual depiction of the work, as opposed to any non-free image of the subject, it comes from a specific historic junction for the the subject and for Playboy, too. Also, I hope have managed to remove the bone of contention here, i.e. the article doesn't discuss the image enough. We should not pass this one. Aditya^{(talk • contribs)} 03:16, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

Update I have made an attempt to make things a bit more proper, both at the article and the image description page. Take a look, please. And, I was reading the IFDs concerning NFCC#8. Nice arguments all, including a particular gem - "Although the WP:NFCC are not negotiable, their case-by-case interpretation as to whether a particular image fits them remains an issue of community consensus--particularly for criteria with a degree of subjectivity (i.e. #8)." - by IronGargoyle while closing deletion review of Image:Georgecarlinmugshot.jpg (see here). Well, I hope the community, instead of hurrying to delete the image, would let me make things neat enough for a pass (IMHO it is passable enough already). My experience tells me it is possible to make space for fair use of images that apparently don't seem so with a little hard work. And, my understanding tells me that the narrow doctrine of fair use was created not to make a bible cast in stone out of it, but to avoid lawsuits made against our dear Wikipedia.

This viewpoint is nicely put forward in a discussion on wide acceptance among editors, where DHowell asks - "Would this image (warning: contains nudity) be acceptable to illustrate the centerfold article? Marilyn Monroe, the first Playboy centerfold, should suffice as an iconic representation of centerfolds." - and Abu badali answers - "My proxy didn't allow me to examine the image, but by your description, it seems a good candidate for the centerfold article. And yes, the centerfold article is equally "handicapped" without an image. Make sure to write a fair use rationale specific for this article" (see here). And, I forgot to tell that Haemo already thought the image to be a proper fair use image. Aditya^{(talk • contribs)} 15:18, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

Yet another quote that complements the viewpoint - "Imagine there's a cover of, say, Playboy with Jennifer Aniston on it. And furthermore, this cover generates a lot of controversy. You could now use a scan of that cover in the article on Jennifer Anison but only in the section of the article that talks about the controversy. You could not use it as the first picture right at the top-right of the page, for example. But let us look at another cover. Jennifer Anison on the cover of Cosmo. No controversy, no discussion of that particular issue in the Jennnifer Aniston article. That image could NOT be used in the article, then, because it would simply be used to depict the person and that is not fair-use." - made by Yamla while discussing magazine pictures (see here). —Preceding unsigned comment added by Aditya Kabir (talk • contribs) 21:35, 30 September 2007

Delete - Playmate's daughter as a Playboy model - the image doesn't increase any value for understanding the matter anyway. And also, the update section is for other images; it has no bearing on this image. --NAHID 20:59, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

keep this image adds significantly to the article. It is free use, and the article wouldn't be as interesting without it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.245.187.178 (talk) 01:01, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

• Delete per WP:NFCC#1 and WP:NFCC#8. Omission of the image would not cause significant detriment to a reader's understanding that she appeared in Playboy. Videmus Omnia ^Talk 01:12, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

Comment I hope this isn't becoming a legal battle where the power of the argument may have the opportunity to rule over the power of reason. While significant detriment to a reader's understanding may represent one type of image for a football match and another for a UN secretary general, it may carry another set of value for a magazine image presented as visual art. The bit of "law" that is at work here is best explained by the Yamla quote I used above. The image itself has been discussed, along with third party reproduction and critical commentary, not just the fact that it represents a historical event (please note, that historical event for Playboy may not represent a change of course in human history, but a milestone in the history of the magazine itself). Well, a three/fourfold repeat of the "clause" has fairly established it as the bone of contention. But, it may be necessary to judge "significance" not by a blanket call, but in context. And, in the current context it passes the fair use criterion quite fairly. Right? Aditya^{(talk • contribs)} 12:31, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

• Please don't repeat other user's name and explanation. We have already read it.--NAHID 18:10, 6 October 2007 (UTC)
  • I hope the fact that you have read something doesn't necessarily render that argument null and void. I also hope that reading doesn't render good pieces of explanation obsolete. And, I really hope that this discussion is about fairness of image use, not differences in discursive styles. Thanks. Aditya^{(talk • contribs)} 08:34, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

Image deleted. Image fails WP:NFCC #8. -Nv8200p talk 20:53, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

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.

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 debate was

[edit] Image:Than Shwe.jpg

Image:Than Shwe.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Kurzon (notify | contribs).

• Seems to violate the non-free content policy. In particular, the rationale does not explain why no free equivalent exists or could be created, as required by point 1 of the policy, and the source information, required by point 10(a) of the policy, is somewhat dubious (I doubt that www.summit99.ops.gov.ph is the original source of this image, and the copyright holder is not identified). The non-free use rationale is simply boilerplate text. It claims, for example, that "this image is an historically significant photo of a famous individual," but there is no justification for why this particular image is historically significant. There is not a separate rationale for each use of the image in articles, as required by point 10(c) of the non-free content policy. This is an image of a currently living person that merely shows what he looks like; see the 12th example of an unacceptable image. This image could be tagged as a replaceable non-free image, but that was tried already [1] and the tag was deleted by Hemlock Martinis [2], so I'm listing it here. —Bkell (talk) 18:01, 29 September 2007 (UTC)
  • He isn't just a living person, he's a head of state and therefore in public interest. Given his extreme paranoia it's just about impossible to get a public domain image from him 83.77.1.76 23:38, 29 September 2007 (UTC)
• Oppose mainly because a replacement is not available. Also, if you read the 12th example of an unacceptable image it doesn't say that it should be deleted simply because it merely shows what he looks like. Do you have a free replacement since you claim that it could be tagged as replaceable? It's a bit hard to take seriously unless you actually have a free replacement. EconomicsGuy^{Return the fire!} 03:25, 30 September 2007 (UTC)
  • The first point of the non-free content policy says "No free equivalent is available, or could be created, that would serve the same encyclopedic purpose" (emphasis added). For living persons, it is always assumed that a free image could be created (see the 12th example of an unacceptable image). If this is not the case, the burden falls on the uploader to justify that no free equivalent could be created. I do not have to prove that a free equivalent is possible; this is assumed by default. Additionally, there are more conditions than just irreplaceability that must be met. For example, we must identify the copyright holder (point 10(a) of the non-free content policy). And yes, I guess the example doesn't specifically say "images of living people that merely show what they look like"; it used to say something to this effect, but I guess it's been changed. The idea is still there, though. —Bkell (talk) 04:38, 30 September 2007 (UTC)
    • Comment From Wikipedia:Non-free content#Unacceptable images example 12: "Pictures of people still alive, groups still active, and buildings still standing; provided that taking a new free picture as a replacement (which is almost always considered possible) would serve the same encyclopedic purpose as the non-free image. However, for some retired or disbanded groups, or retired individuals whose notability rests in part on their earlier visual appearance, a new picture may not serve the same purpose as an image taken during their career." How did that turn in to always assumed? I'll agree with you on the mising copyright holder thing although anyone who knows just a little bit about Burma could figure out that the copyright holder is obviously the Burmese government since that is how things work there. You can delete this as not properly specifying the source and copyright holder but to claim that it violates example 12 is not reason for deletion given that a free image obviously cannot be obtained since Burma is a military dictatorship with a leader who never appears in public and with such extensive restrictions on freedom of speech and the press that no such free image could ever be obtained. EconomicsGuy ^{Return the fire!} 06:18, 30 September 2007 (UTC)
• Speedy delete as straightforward WP:CSD#I7 violation. It's a nonfree image being used only to show what a living person looks like. Just tag it {{subst:rfu2}} and move on. —Angr 05:31, 30 September 2007 (UTC)
• Angr you are such a joker. Have you even looked into the matter before making such unqualified comments? The gouvernment has disabled internet for the whole of Burma and you believe that it is possible to just walk in there and make a photo of someone who never appears in public? Please! Such GPL fanboy behaviour is the reason why Wikipedia is still crap compared to even the most third class news portal out there. --78.49.79.83 10:18, 30 September 2007 (UTC)
• Strong keep. EconomicsGuy's argument's are very persuasive. I think the nomination of this image was a result of ignorance, and the support of its deletion is pride and copyright paranoia.--Esprit15d 12:53, 30 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Please avoid personal attacks and assume good faith; please also be aware that there is no such thing as "copyright paranoia". Wikipedia's distaste for nonfree images has nothing whatever to do with fear of getting sued. —Angr 13:49, 30 September 2007 (UTC)
    • Please do not encourage the nom to game the system by tagging for speedy based on a false representation of WP:NONFREE. Let the debate run its full course. There will be no shortcuts this time. EconomicsGuy ^{Return the fire!} 13:57, 30 September 2007 (UTC)
      • I'm not; I'm encouraging the nom to use the system correctly by tagging for speedy based on both the letter and the spirit of WP:NFCC. There is no need for debate; the image should be deleted this coming Wednesday, seven days after it was first correctly tagged as replaceable. —Angr 14:13, 30 September 2007 (UTC)
        • Just because you keep repeating it doesn't make it true. The image is neither replaceable nor in violation of the spirit and certainly not the letter of WP:NONFREE or WP:NFCC as illustrated above. There is no automatic assumption that the image can be replaced. All you will get out of trying to stop this debate is a trip to DRV. EconomicsGuy ^{Return the fire!} 14:19, 30 September 2007 (UTC)
          • No, your quote from WP:NONFREE above says nothing whatever that supports your argument. Let's look at it again: "Pictures of people still alive, groups still active, and buildings still standing; provided that taking a new free picture as a replacement (which is almost always considered possible) would serve the same encyclopedic purpose as the non-free image. However, for some retired or disbanded groups, or retired individuals whose notability rests in part on their earlier visual appearance, a new picture may not serve the same purpose as an image taken during their career." The first part says that taking a new free picture of a living person is almost always considered possible; the second explains exemptions for "retired individuals whose notability rests in part on their earlier visual appearance". Than Shwe is not retired, he's still the head of state of Myanmar, and his notability has never rested in the least on his visual appearance. Considering we have a free image of Aung San Suu Kyi, even though she's been under house arrest and hidden from the public eye for the greater part of the last 20 years, it's hardly unreasonable to expect it to be possible to get a free image of a standing head of state. —Angr 14:30, 30 September 2007 (UTC)
            • Sigh... did you read the description on that image? It was taken in 1995 when she was still allowed some freedom to travel. Than Shwe does not make any appearences that could possibly allow anyone to take a picture of him. Let me ask you this: Are you implying that the regime itself would release a picture and license it under the GFDL? Do you consider that a possibility? If so then you and I clearly have nothing left to discuss as you clearly don't understand the situation inside Burma. EconomicsGuy ^{Return the fire!} 14:37, 30 September 2007 (UTC)
              • No, I'm saying he's a standing head of state who, according to his article, was making public appearances as recently as last year, and there's no reason to believe he won't be making them again soon. Tourists and their cameras are still allowed into Myanmar, or were at least until the recent protests, and doubtless will be again after the protests have ended and Than Shwe has returned to the public eye. I'm also saying that because he is not retired and his notability has never relied on his physical appearance, the exemption stated at WP:NFC does not apply to him. —Angr 14:52, 30 September 2007 (UTC)
                • I don't need to rely on the excemption simply because there will be no free image to replace it with. What you call public appearences are strictly controlled events where no one who haven't been thoroughly checked are allowed anywhere near the guy. The fact that you believe that a tourist could come to Burma, take a photo of the guy and return home shows that you and I are clearly worlds apart when it comes to realizing the situation inside Burma. For that reason I'll leave it at that and return to this issue at DRV if the image is deleted based on your arguments (there is still the outstanding issue of the actual source of the image) or process circumvented. EconomicsGuy ^{Return the fire!} 15:03, 30 September 2007 (UTC)
    • In response to Angr: My comment contains no personal attacks. People make nominations, edits, changes, heck, deletions everyday based on ignorance of procedure, precedent, the topic, etc.... I continue to believe this nomination is a case of ignorance. Saying that someone is ignorant of an issue is the definition of assuming good faith. I attributed the, what I believe to be, bad call on a lack of knowledge of the dictator in question, not on a right-wing agenda or another presumption. However, the persons who support this aren't ignorant since they have been presented with evidence and a lively debate. So I attribute their support to copyright paranoia, a term that is common shorthand vernacular here at Wikipedia, the subject an ongoing meta-wiki discussion and a phenomena that I think everyone acknowledges at least happens sometimes. I might also add that I made no comment on anyone getting sued.--Esprit15d 12:40, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
      • If you read the nomination, it's clear the nominator is not acting out of ignorance of anything, and you attributed support for deletion not only to "copyright paranoia" but also to pride, which certainly seems like a personal attack. I know very well that "copyright paranoia" (which does entail "fear of getting sued" even if you didn't use that word) is a commonly used term at Wikipedia, and indeed across Wikimedia projects, but that doesn't change the fact that it's a completely specious argument to use in a deletion discussion, because the reason Wikipedia avoids nonfree images whenever possible (such as in this case) has nothing at all to do with avoiding lawsuits. —Angr 16:37, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
        • It may very well be that part of my nomination was due to ignorance—I don't know much at all about Than Shwe. I don't know a lot about the political situation in Burma, or any of that. In that sense, I am ignorant. Perhaps this image should be kept, because perhaps it cannot be replaced by a free version, and perhaps it really does meet all the points of the non-free content policy. However, I listed it here because, not having specialized knowledge about the topic at hand, I was unable to see why the image met the required criteria. This is the entire point of the non-free use rationale—to explain to someone (like me) who doesn't know all the particulars exactly why the image meets all the criteria. Several problems have been fixed: the rationale now includes "Due to strict media and Internet control in Burma and the subjects' reluctance to make public appearences it is not possible to obtain a free replacement" and "Copyright The Burmese Government (publicity photo)", which address why the image is not replaceable and (apparently) who holds the copyright. (There still doesn't seem to be any original source to back up the claim that the Burmese government is the copyright holder, though I can see that this claim is likely to be true.) The rationale still claims this is a historically significant photo, but does not explain why; I'm not sure I believe that this particular photo is historically significant. Overall, I am not advocating the deletion of this image; I am advocating either deleting the image or writing a much better rationale that explains why it can be kept. —Bkell (talk) 03:44, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
          • Two issues reamin as far as WP:NFCC goes. The source of the image and whether it is really needed. I have not disputed that these are issues that need to be resolved but they require case-by-case evaluation which together with the interpretation of example 12 is why I have objected strongly to Angr's idea of tagging it for speedy to bypass process. As far as the rationale for keeping an image of the guy I suppose there may be some truth to the argument that it does not add significantly to the article. It depends on how you look at it, it is very subjective. As far as the source goes I'm afraid this is just bad timing because the government has shutdown all Internet connections in and out of the country. For this reason it is not possible to browse the most likely source of the image, www.myanmar.gov.mm. However, the image was copied from an ASEAN website but since it is a publicity photo any given restrictions may or may not apply. Until Internet access to Burma is restored by the government I'm not able to investigate this any further. It is also worth remebering that until recently Burma was defacto without any usable copyright law. Whenever you deal with something related to Burma and any laws there it is incredibly complicated because you can never be sure that what you see is what you get so to speak. Laws have been known to be changed whenever it suits the regime's needs for that particular law so you can never be sure of anything without asking first and, until Internet access is restored, that is impossible. EconomicsGuy ^{Return the fire!} 07:56, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

Keep WP:NONFREE may be better worded than it seems as it has a clause saying that taking a free picture is almost always considered possible. That is exactly why fair use can't be judged by a blanket understanding, but rather should be judged case-by-case (apart from the obvious violations, of course). Jimmy Wales himself agrees that "the issues surrounding fair use are actually very complicated because fair use is very complicated." (see here). As in this case it cannot be considered possible that a free image can be taken. None of the facts that Shwe has returned to public eye, photographs has been taken of protests in Myanmar and tourists are allowed to take pictures there nullify the statement only the inside people of the regime can get near him and take a picture. If fair use of this image is so difficult to agree to, why not ban fair images from WP altogether. Then we can speedy delete any and every image that's not free without any debate. Aditya^{(talk • contribs)} 14:31, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

Indeed, banning non-free images from Wikipedia altogether would be the ideal solution, as it would greatly improve Wikipedia's quality and credibility, but fans of popular culture are simply a far too powerful bloc here for that ever to happen realistically. —Angr 16:41, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

Who is accusing others of bad faith now? This has nothing to do with devotion to popular culture. That argument is old and moot in this case. This is about gaming the system by misrepresenting WP:NFCC and example 12 in WP:NONFREE. Your responses to my criticism of your application of these clearly show that you know nothing about about the situation in Burma and hence are unable to evaluate whether a free replacement can be found. Indeed your example with the picture of Aung San Suu Kyi was a blatant display of grasping at straws. I trust that the closer will be able to see through your arguments and spot your real mission here which is to help delete all non-free images without regard to the wording of WP:NFCC and as you have clearly demonstrated here without the need for consensus or any respect for process at all. EconomicsGuy ^{Return the fire!} 17:02, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

I never said it did. I was no longer talking about this image; I was explaining why English Wikipedia will never actually be a free encyclopedia. And the only straw-grasping I see in this discussion is "What you call public appearences are strictly controlled events where no one who haven't been thoroughly checked are allowed anywhere near the guy." Is there a head of state for whom that isn't true? And even if it were the case that no free image of him could ever be made, you still haven't explained how this image's "presence would significantly increase readers' understanding of the topic, and its omission would be detrimental to that understanding" as required by WP:NFCC#8. Does knowing what this guy looks like really significantly increase readers' understanding of his biography? I don't think so. —Angr 17:23, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

You are contradicting yourself. You said yourself above that since tourists would be allowed in to the country with cameras soon, getting a free image would be possible. Now you agree with me that it won't? Further, there is a world of a difference between public appearences by heads of state like George W. Bush and this guy. However, even if there wasn't, we wouldn't have a free image unless all US government works are public domain. This is not the case in Burma (or this debate would be moot - how ironic!) so we don't have that option. What is it I'm not explaining clearly enough to you about how a military junta works? As for the rest of your reply please observe that I have not disputed that nor have I disputed the fact that the original source is not properly stated other than this is a work of the Burmese government. That may or may not be enough, especially since there is no Internet connection in and out of Burma at the moment. EconomicsGuy ^{Return the fire!} 17:37, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

• Oppose - how can users fully inform themselves of who is charge in that country without this photo? there is no replacement at this time. --Zyro456 13:54, 2 October 2007 (UTC)— Zyro456 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
• Comment If anyone cares anymore please compare with this photo. The situation is very much the same and this guy is equally shy of the public and any press that he does not control. The situation in Burma, though horribly bad, is not as bad as in North Korea, I'll admit that. But when it comes to their leadership they are very similar. That image or it's use on the biography article has never been contested. EconomicsGuy ^{Return the fire!} 13:16, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

Keep: If, as indicated, this is a widely circulated official portrait, then it may be very difficult to provide a single specific source for it. Since the subject is of extremely high profile and current interest, I suggest that it should not be deleted even if no specific source can be identified. Ming the Merciless 14:31, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

• Question Why was this image removed from the articles? If we have not finished the debate why must it be eliminated from the articles prior to reaching consensus? In fact it is necessary to remain in the article(s) so that more users can see it is proposed for deletion and therefore have a chance to voice their opinion and participate in the discussion. As it stands only by chance you can become aware of this discussion. Dr.K. 23:56, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
  • Non-free images have to separate rationales for each use. This image has only one, very generally written rationale that doesn't even say which article it's intended to be used in, so it was removed from all articles except Than Shwe, where its rationale is most obvious. —Angr 06:20, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

I see. Thanks Angr. Dr.K. 19:27, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

Image deleted. Violates WP:NFCC #1, which historically has been upheld for deletion whether it is possible to ever get an image of the person or not. -Nv8200p talk 00:11, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

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.