Image talk:SombatMetanee.jpg

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of a fair use image as a replaceable image. Please do not modify it.

The result of the debate was to Delete the image.

[edit] Disputed

This image portrays Sombat Metanee at the height of his career back in the 1960s-1970s. It is not possible to recreate such an image today and there are no free-use images known to exist. Therefore, this image is not replaceable and I ask that the tag be removed, please. -Wisekwai 18:02, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

I have moved the image lower on the page into an appropriate section of the article that discusses the actor's career at the time the image was created. It is not being used to merely identify the actor, it is being used to depict him at a notable stage in his career. – WiseKwai | Talk | Contribs 23:05, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, that's not good enough. For the image to be unreplaceable, the article would have to discuss some aspect of his appearance that only this photo shows. It doesn't. The image is replaceable, so I'm deleting it. —Angr 07:14, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

How is it possible to replace this image? This is an promotional image of Thai actor taken more than forty years ago. And how does the use of this image differ from the fair-use images on such articles as John Wayne or James Stewart (actor). – WiseKwai | Talk | Contribs 07:33, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

John Wayne and James Stewart are dead. There's no chance of taking pictures of them now. Sombat Metanee is still alive, and according to his article, still active and making public appearances. —Angr 08:02, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

Okay, I'll admit the Duke and Jimmy Stewart are bad examples, then, because they are dead. How about the images used on Martin Sheen or Peter Fonda? Is death the threshold for images of anyone to become non-replaceable? Sombat Metanee might still be alive, but he doesn't look like he did 40 years ago. The image illustrated him at an earlier phase of his career, and like any good encyclopedia, I'd expect an article about him would show him at those various phases. – WiseKwai | Talk | Contribs 08:37, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

Martin Sheen and Peter Fonda aren't different, and those images should be deleted. Thanks for bringing them to my attention. (Especially Martin Sheen since there is a free photo of him already on the page!) —Angr 08:41, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

But you don't see my point about the image not being replaceable because it depicts Sombat Metanee at a phase of his career mentioned in the section of the article the photo was in? – WiseKwai | Talk | Contribs 08:51, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

I'm not convinced by it. Not unless you describe in detail something about his appearance then that is no longer the case now, that only an image from then can illustrate. —Angr 09:03, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

The image served to illustrate "his handsome looks", which made him sought out as a leading man. He simply doesn't look the same today. I don't know how else to describe it, nor do I believe I could find a free-use image that would adequately convey the same information. With an article about Bob Dylan, there are photos that show how he looks through the phases of his career. It's what I would expect of an encyclopedia. However, the beauty about those photos (some of them anyway) is that they happened to be public domain/free-use, so they'll always be in the article, even if the article doesn't specifically mention what he looked like back then. But by your rationale, then, as I understand it, those photos have no place in the article, license not withstanding, because they don't specifically address his appearance at the time. Sombat Metanee simply has the misfortune of not appearing somewhere in the 1960s with Joan Baez where a public-domain photo could be taken of him and made available in a government archive. I still feel very strongly that this photo should be admitted under the fair-use guidelines by virtue of there being no replacement for it. And, by deleting it, you've made an article that I thought was pretty good now not so great and much less interesting. – WiseKwai | Talk | Contribs 10:01, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

Please have another look at the article, Sombat Metanee. Specific information has been culled from the existing references that comment on his appearance as a leading man in the 1960s and '70s, and his transition from leading, heroic roles to villain parts and smaller roles. In addition, a free-use image has been added. This was one I had in my files from a couple of years ago, but didn't add it initially because I didn't think it was a suitable means of identifying the actor. Now, through this process of images being tagged and interacting (collaborating, really) with other Wikipedians, I have learned more about what's suitable and what's not. So, with a free-use image in place to establish the actor's appearance, I feel it is appropriate to resurrect the deleted image to illustrate his appearance at the beginning of his career as a leading actor. Lastly, I must admit I was using some harsh words above, was not being civil and was not assuming good faith on the actions of Angr. For that I sincerely apologize. Through his actions, he has caused an article to be possibly improved. — WiseKwai 17:46, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

I like the additions you've made to the article, and am now wondering if you couldn't find a different image from the 1960s to illustrate how he looked then. This one has rather odd colors, and doesn't show his "fine-boned body" (did you mean "fine-toned body"?) at all, nor his "sculpted cheekbones" particularly well. —Angr 18:03, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

Yes, I'll admit I'm still struggling a bit to describe the man's physical attractiveness. I feel like a blind man trying to describe an elephant. I do have a few other photos of Sombat. One is here, and I'm coming up with others in a search of some Thai forums. I'm not sure of the licensing if they are used. Possibly {{Non-free fair use in}}? — WiseKwai 18:35, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

The one you linked to above looks more like a painting than a photo to me. —Angr 19:45, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

The Thai cinema industry promo photos from the 60s are all like that, very colorful and stylized. I have found a few more, though not from the 60s era I'm aiming for. Most are from the 70s except for the small one of him holding a statue. It's from 1966. They are here.— WiseKwai 21:00, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Proposed new fair-use rationale

I find that the use I am seeking for this image closely parallels that of one used on the biography for P. P. Arnold. I have copied the fair-use rationale from that image, Image:PPArnold1968Promo-1.jpg.

[edit] Fair use rationale for Sombat Metanee

Fair use rationale:

• The image in question is used in the context of the article to illustrate the actor Sombat Metanee as he appeared in the beginning of his film career.

1. No free equivalent image is known to exist, and as the image is nearly 40 years old, none is likely to be found.
2. The image in question was most likely published by the copyright holder as promotional material for a film. It was made freely available as part of a media hand-out for the 2006 Bangkok International Film Festival for a tribute to the actor, something that is also mentioned in the article.
3. It is used to illustrate a biographical article on wikipedia: Sombat Metanee.
4. The image has been published.
5. The image meets general Wikipedia content requirements (encyclopedic).
6. The image meets the media-specific policy requirements (format).
7. The image is used in at least one article.
8. The image contributes significantly to the article in question.
9. The image is only used in the article namespace.
10. The image contains proper attribution of the source of the material, a fair use tag, and a fair use rationale (this one).

— WiseKwai 12:43, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Comments

This is a borderline case, but in my opinion this would pass our guidelines (if just barely). If his looks 40 years ago were not important to his success, if they were not discussed in the article, or if they were not strikingly different than recent depictions, I wouldn't agree. But in this case, I would personally err on the side of keeping. – Quadell ^{(talk) (random)} 14:51, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

P.S. I would leave out #4,5,6,7,9, and 10, as they are patently obvious, and I'd focus on describing why his looks 40 years ago are important to the article. I'd also expand discussion of his looks 40 years ago in the article. – Quadell ^{(talk) (random)} 14:55, 30 November 2006 (UTC)