< January 7 January 9 >

January 8

File:Giantsizecomicspreviewsad-jan2014.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; deleted by Stifle (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 19:17, 19 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

File:Giantsizecomicspreviewsad-jan2014.jpg (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Sawyerkaden (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log).

Advertisement poster, fails WP:NFCC#8. Neither the object of analytical commentary nor required for identification. Fut.Perf. ☼ 08:08, 8 January 2014 (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:Moondancersdcu1.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; deleted by Stifle (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 19:17, 19 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

File:Moondancersdcu1.jpg (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Basique (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log).

Invalid FUR--non-free media already identify them. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 08:26, 8 January 2014 (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:LeBron James by Michael O'Brien (2002).jpeg

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 Stifle (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 19:17, 19 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

File:LeBron James by Michael O'Brien (2002).jpeg (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Sabrina Barton (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log).

No discussion of image itself in text, no sourced discussion, fails WP:NFCC#8. Mosmof (talk) 19:44, 8 January 2014 (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:Xbox Home screenshot.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; deleted by Stifle (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 19:17, 19 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

File:Xbox Home screenshot.JPG (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Jericho1337 (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log).

Pre-release screenshot, too many articles of non-free content contained herein (WP:NFCC#3) ViperSnake151  Talk  20:05, 8 January 2014 (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:PlayStationStore-Screenshot.png

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 Stifle (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 19:17, 19 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

File:PlayStationStore-Screenshot.png (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Chimpanzee (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log).

Too many articles of non-free content contained herein (WP:NFCC#3) ViperSnake151  Talk  20:12, 8 January 2014 (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:Jimihendrix1969mug.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: no consensus, if I've ever seen it. --BDD (talk) 18:02, 24 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I'll elaborate, per a talk page request. After such an extensive discussion with evenly divided votes, I only would've found consensus to keep or delete this file if one side was significantly based more in policy. This does not seem to be the case. Some further thoughts:

I hope this settles the matter, though I welcome further discussion on my talk page. --BDD (talk) 18:39, 24 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

File:Jimihendrix1969mug.jpg (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Doc9871 (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log).

Fails WP:NFCC#8 - unneeded to show Hendrix was arrested. Consensus seems to be against including it, but it keeps getting re-added, which is why I have nominated it for deletion. Taylor Trescott - my talk + my edits 20:36, 8 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I was somewhat surprised to see that this article already got to FA status: with this image in place. I thought it was still up for promotion. But it was promoted to FA on January 6,[1] and the deletion nomination was issued two days later.[2] Sour grapes? This is now clearly a frivolous claim of a #8 "violation", likely spurred by my boldness in seeing that the image remains where it has been. Doc talk 09:42, 9 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Could you comment on why this passes NFCC8? Your keep rationale addresses a straw man (relationship of featured articles to nonfree images) but does not explain why the criterion is satisfied. Calliopejen1 (talk) 23:06, 9 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
No, I'm not going to comment on #8 and its interpretation. I will reiterate that the arrest is mentioned in the article and the mug shot certainly illustrates it better than mere text does. The Toronto P.D. is really quite unlikely to have an issue with us using its image, especially with the solid FU rationale in place. I still want to know how the article made it to FA with this image in place, and why the myth that consensus "seems to want it out" (while ignoring the last deletion discussion) was even offered as the reason to remove it after all this time. Doc talk 04:27, 10 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
That was a "no consensus" close, so there's no real reason to try and compare a renomination. I'll go notify the people who commented there of this one, though. Taylor Trescott - my talk + my edits 21:00, 9 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
There was no renomination (until it was forced because it's how we do it). And accordingly no one was under any obligation to inform anyone in the previous deletion discussion; if it had been orphaned and subsequently deleted. Please understand that. Doc talk 04:05, 11 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Actually, there's quite a bit of information conveyed by the image other than that Hendrix was arrested. The slight smile, almost a smirk, is very different from what we see inmost mug shots, and tells us a lot about his attitude towards this arrest. His physical look also places the event in the context of his development as a showman. "Seeing is believing" and "a picture is worth a thousand words" aren't cliches because they're fun to say, they actually mean something, that we can pick up, almost as if by osmosis, things from a picture that are difficult to capture in words. I think almost everyone has been in the situation where something has been described to them, but they're just not "getting" it, despite the best efforts of the person describing it; but a single look at a picture clears it up immediately. That happens because images contain a lot more information than can be easily described, and that is the case here. BMK, Grouchy Realist (talk) 05:05, 10 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • "A picture is worth a thousand words" is an invalid rationale for keeping an image, unless you can show sources that commented directly on the image itself (such as in the manner you describe, that there's an attitude that Hendrix is giving off in that shot that represents the attitude of that period). Otherwise it's original research and inappropriate to use to argue to keep, and represent a duplicate image identifying Hendrix. Again, a good baseline to compare against is the use of the magazine covers to show OJ Simpson's arrest, because the images used in those covers were specifically commented on to reflect racial bias in the media. We need the equivalent here to keep these mug shots of Hendrix. --MASEM (t) 06:24, 10 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Masem, if you can't see what I'm talking about in the Hendrix image, then I'm afraid you're just lacking in the perceptions that are necessary to "see" and understand visual images. Perhaps that is why you want to delete things that shouldn't be deleted? I don't know id that's the case, but I do know that the image is tremendously informative. If you can't see that, I suggest you switch to some other area of Wikipedia, as someone with your lack of perception is a detriment in evaluating images. BMK, Grouchy Realist (talk) 11:03, 10 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • NFC requires the importance of the image to be discussed in text (contextual significance), and not just there to illustrate something because it can be illustrated. If it is readily apparent that that image speaks volumes about the arrest, I'm sure you can find sources that discuss that aspect, but all that is presently there is straightforward facts about the arrest and nothing consequentially on the larger picture. And this is exactly the type of thing NFC is meant to avoid, we've done this for years. --MASEM (t) 15:32, 10 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
As I and others have pointed out many times before, no image or illustration is ever "necessary" to "understand" what it illustrates. The purpose of this mugshot (and every other image or illustration on WP) is to serve as a visual adjunct to enhance and illustrate ("the employment of a graphic, photograph, drawing, picture, painting, or other artwork or rendering intended for enhancement, explanation, elucidation, and/or adornment") the article's context. What a person looks like when arrested -- especially a well know public figure -- is notable and relevant to "understand" the details of the arrest, although like every other illustration on WP it is not really "necessary" as that is an unachievable and therefore false standard. "A picture is worth a thousand words" is not just an empty phrase.
The taking of mugshots are an integral and universally mandated part of the arrest and booking process as practiced in Canada (where this occurred) and the United States, and thus their existence do not need to be separately stated in the text to be understood as having been done. Identifying them as such in the caption is more than adequate. Depending on the crime, such photographs may not be "notable" for the arrest of the average private citizen, but in the case of public figures such as entertainers (especially very widely know ones like Hendrix), politicians, professional athletes, public servants, etc, they most assuredly are notable for virtually any offense. (See, for instance, the TIME and Newsweek covers of O.J. Simpson when he was arrested in 1994 for the murder of his wife and Ronald Goldman.) If the individual is notable, then so to are their mugshots. To consider them otherwise is ignoring the obvious.
The claim of copyrightability of booking photographs (or "mugshots") which are legally required public safety records is extremely dubious. To-wit: "[W]hen the authors in question are legally obligated to perform their creative effort, the Patents and Copyright Clause does not authorize a copyright. This is exactly the situation that exists for the work product of public officials. As long as they are not acting ultra vires, they are performing public duties when collecting and as- sembling information. Even if some of their selection and arrangement would seem to qualify under the Feist originality test, the creative component of their selection and arrangement does not stem from the economic incentive provided by the copyright law because it is legally mandated and therefore fails to qualify under Feist. Whenever a public duty is the cause of the expression, the incentive justification under the copyrights and patent laws is absent, and any construction of the Copyright Act to protect such official work product would be unconstitutional." ("SOURCES OF RIGHTS TO ACCESS PUBLIC INFORMATION" by Henry H. Perritt, Jr., JD) A mug shot is a public record produced by the government, and thus cannot be copyrighted. Not all public records are "made public" or "publicly released" or "published" — for example, an investigator's notes or in some jurisdictions, drivers' license data — but no public record, published or not, can be copyrighted. All public records are non-copyrightable and are automatically in the public domain. Even if it were "non-free", however, I completely disagree with any contention that the Hendrix mugshots "are neither discussed in the article, nor themselves the subject of sourced commentary, nor otherwise significant to understanding that Hendrix was arrested for drugs." For that reason I believe that the images comply with WP:NFCC#8 as well as with WP:NFCC in toto. Centpacrr (talk) 22:25, 9 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
NFCC#8 has two parts that have to be satisfied. The enhancement the article is clear and meets the first part, but the removal of the mugshots does not harm the reader's understanding of the article (that Hendrix was arrested which is well documented by text), and thus fails the second part of NFCC#8. As for the issue of copyrightability, it depends on what the specific level of gov't that took the mugshot has with respect to copyright. In the US, while works made by the Federal government are automatically in the public domain, this does not extend to state and local governments, each are free to determine this themselves. California has adopted such a policy but this is not true for all states. And this all changes when we are talking Canada which has different copyright issues for its government and the various local jurisdictions. So yes, this is very likely a copyrighted photograph, even if you want to try to claim it was made for the public good as part of the policy duties. --MASEM (t) 22:31, 9 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Claiming that the "removal of the mugshots does not harm the reader's understanding of the article" is a completely subjective and personal position about its illustrative value. The purpose of illustrations, however, is to illustrate which means "to furnish drawings, pictures, or other artwork intended to help explain, elucidate, enhance, or adorn" which this mugshot clearly does. A "standard" of forced removal based on "not harming a reader's understanding" is so broad and vague as to essentially be meaningless as it could be argued that any and every illustration on WP fails to meet such a standard. Just imagine how much poorer Wikipedia would be as an encyclopedia then. Centpacrr (talk) 22:56, 9 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
But that's our requirement, and has been for some time. It certainly isn't "just" to illustrate the work; NFC should only be used if the same educational content cannot be achieved by free media alone. So in the case of Hendrix (who is of course dead and thus impossible to get new free imagery of), there's no question that the article would be less helpful if we stripped all images from it, as it is completely within reason to say that seeing a person in a bio article about that person is extremely useful. So the infobox image is fine. Further, the other image of him at a famous performance shows him "in action" for what he was known for - playing the guitar expertly which much of the article is dedicated to, so that's fair to have. But to have mug shots which simply append to the section that says "yes, he ran into trouble with the law" is not a significant help, and thus they fail that test. --MASEM (t) 23:14, 9 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Every editor and viewer is, of course, entitled to their own personal, subjective opinion as to whether or not a particular image either enhances, or its removal does not harm, the reader's understanding of the article, but that's all it is: that individual's own personal, subjective opinion and he/she speaks for nobody else. Centpacrr (talk) 00:49, 10 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • There are subjective areas, yes, but we also have various bright areas where image is allowed or not allowed, and this is a clear case of such - you already have images of Hendrix, and there's no discussion specifically about the booking photo. That's pretty much a standard failure of NFCC#8 and #3a right there. --MASEM (t) 00:52, 10 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
And to comment on a previous thing you mentioned about the OJ pictures, the reason we have those is not to highlight OJ's arrest, but how his picture was portrayed rather differently in at least two different media which tied into claims of racial bias in the media coverage of his arrest. That's a subject of discussion that's hard to understand without seeing the actual images, and thus appropriate there, but again, that's tied to the section about the media coverage, and not present just because he was arrested. --MASEM (t) 23:16, 9 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I offered a book length source explaining the significance of mug shots in portraying the social milieu of the 1960s. If that is inadequate in your view, Masem, then let's agree to disagree. Hendrix was famous and is dead. I am relatively unknown and alive. So we differ. But my unjust incarcerations of roughly four hours of well over 40 years ago resonate so deeply with me that I am simply compelled to express the opinion that use of this mug shot adds so much value to the article that it meets our fair use standards. You are entitled to disagree. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 07:27, 10 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It seems that this mugshot is discussed in two books about mugshots, Under Arrest: A History of the Twentieth Century in Mugshots and Mug Shots: An Archive of the Famous, Infamous, and Most Wanted. I am not sure how significant the coverage is. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 07:48, 11 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Jusdafax, Of course it adds; what image wouldn't add? That's a strawman argument, IMO. The threshold for use of a non-free copyrighted image is not whether it adds, its whether or not the reader would somehow significantly lose comprehension regarding the topic if it were removed; in this case, the topic is the arrest of Hendrix. Do our readers really need to see his mugshot to understand the concept of him being arrested? Could we include a copyrighted shot of the last Beatles photo shoot just to illustrate an important moment in their history? If so, then there are hundreds (if not thousands) of celebrity mugshots that could be uploaded. If you had to choose, would you include this image, or a shot of him at Woodstock, Monterey, or the Isle of Wight? GabeMc (talk|contribs) 02:30, 15 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The two pictures give a sense of calm dignity in one of the most stressful moments a person can have. I admire the photos as a piece of history that enlightens my understanding of who Hendrix actually was. Deleting the photos is, to me, akin to vandalism. Let's keep them, and move on. Jusdafax 02:43, 15 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I hear you, but if I was going to completely ignore the guidance from WMF, those two images would be the last two I would use. GabeMc (talk|contribs) 02:51, 15 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The reason that this thread is so unbelievably long is that has become a lengthy general debate on NFCC (#8 in particular). This is one image, not the entire policy. It really is wasting time and bandwidth. There simply is no consensus to delete this particular image. This fight must be fought elsewhere, and there's no point in continuing it here. Doc talk 03:18, 15 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Agree Doc. There is no consensus to delete. Suggest this be closed. Jusdafax 03:32, 15 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
It would be a shame if this were closed with a deletion by an admin with the rationale that "My judgement tips the balance in the gray area here." The gray area is literally 50/50. It's really a way to check things. King of Hearts is a respected admin working in this area, as is Masem. Both are on opposite sides are of this deletion debate, and both are admins with equal "powers" on the site. So: Is one correct on the policy, while the other is wrong? That's why we rely on consensus (or lack thereof) in cases like this. Purported NFCC violations, or interpretations of violations of the policy, do not trump a clear lack of consensus to delete an image in a FfD. Doc talk 03:50, 15 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
This isn't grey - the image fails to meet any contextual significance required by NFCC#8. It's duplicative of other NFC identifying Hendirx, failing NFCC#3a. It is a historical photograph but lacks any critical commentary in the text, failing NFCI#8. The only reason to keep is argued along the lines: "The two pictures give a sense of calm dignity in one of the most stressful moments a person can have", but there's zero text in the article as well as zero text providing by the additional sources to demonstrate this. I can accept that this is possibly what is happening in the photo, but as with nothing there in the text from sources to show that, it is original research, and not needed to understand the factual aspects of his arrest (also given that run-ins with the law were not uncommon here with Hendrix as stated above). These types of images are routinely deleted, and save for giving time for editors wanting to keep the image to find the appropriate reasons to keep, this would normally be an open and shut case (this was pointed out at FAC Too). To keep this image underminds the free content mission of the encyclopedia. There are possible conditions this photo can be used, but those wanting to keep them have not been able to justify that yet. --MASEM (t) 04:55, 15 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
(and to add, being an admin gives no special weight to mine or any other arguments here. We simply cannot close this discussion in any manner as "involved"). --MASEM (t) 05:03, 15 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
You've really added nothing new to the argument. You may possibly fail to see that your opinion as an admin is of no greater significance than that of any other admin. Admins often fundamentally disagree. Presumedly, you all went to the same "admin school". At any rate: Consensus is a pillar of a policy here. NFCC is not. We do not simply "default" to deletion above consensus, dismissing legitimate claims of Fair use to preserve some lofty goal of free content. Doc talk 05:08, 15 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
NFCC, along with BLP and copyvio, is one of the few areas where consensus does not have more weight than policy, no matter how "IAR" reasoning may be used, due to it being a mandate by the Foundation to maintain the free content mission and minimize non-free. It's long been determined the onus is on those wanting to retain the image to show that the rationale is satisfied to keep the image, but that hasn't been shown yet. No one wanting to retain the image has explained to any degree of how the reader's understanding of the time of Hendrix's arrest - based on the text present in the article and presuming no a priori knowledge of Hendrix - is harmed by the image's remove, the key test of NFCC#8 that would otherwise satsify all the other NFCC issues brought up. This is a standard well-honed test. And as I've said, I've personally looked for sources to try to justify this, but simply can't find any nor see anything even approach that; I'd much rather keep the image but there's no justifyable way to do so without staying true to the non-free resolution. And in addition, we do not work off of Fair Use law. Per the Resolution, we are automatically stricter than fair use, so claim of "well, this is a fair use photo" while true has no weight in image discussions - it's about the stricter NFC line. --MASEM (t) 05:22, 15 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I totally disagree with you on policy on this particular image, as does half of the people discussing it here. Now, there is a backlog of cases being given so little attention before and after this entry, yet's this is still being discussed. Why? This is not a political case, here, folks! Clear up the backlog already. Move the heck on. It is utterly ridiculous to keep this open any further. Especially since it will be appealed if it is not closed properly. Doc talk 05:29, 15 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Not counting this comment, this thread has now reached 17,551 words in less than a week which makes it now over 3,000 words longer' than the Hendrix article itself! Nothing new is likely going to be gained by carrying this on any longer, and so I hope to actually be able to make this whole thing moot. To that end I have contacted a lawyer friend of mine in Toronto for guidance as to the actual copyright status of this particular "public record" which it what it is defined as being ("...any record of information however recorded, whether in printed form, on film, by electronic means or otherwise, and includes, (a) correspondence, a memorandum, a book, a plan, a map, a drawing, a diagram, a pictorial or graphic work, a photograph, a film, a microfilm, a sound recording, a videotape, a machine readable record, any other documentary material, regardless of physical form or characteristics, and any copy thereof, and (b) subject to the regulations, any record that is capable of being produced from a machine readable record under the control of an institution by means of computer hardware and software or any other information storage equipment and technical expertise normally used by the institution") under the provisions of §2 of The Municipal Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act (R.S.O. 1990, CHAPTER M.56). The only remaining issue of its status, therefore, is if this public record is also in the Public Domain, or if it is subject to any restrictions under the Crown Copyright Act. This lawyer believes that the image is most likely in the Public Domain but to be sure he is going to consult with practitioner in Canadian copyright law and get back to me with the answer and any appropriate citations. Centpacrr (talk) 07:25, 15 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
In the very best case scenario this will be proven to be a public domain image. I am also doing off-wiki research to determine the image's provenance as PD (or even licensable by something like this, which is not often mentioned here for various reasons). Doc talk 08:03, 15 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Any claim by Mr. Roby (or anyone else) to ownership of the copyright of a non-unique copy of a Canadian governmental entity produced public record as defined by R.S.O. 1990, Chapter M.56 §2 of which he was clearly not the creator is dubious in the extreme whether or not it is (or has ever been) covered by Crown Copyright or is in the Public Domain. Unless such a private claimant can produce a verifiable document from the original copyright holder (if any) transferring any and all such copyright to him or her, any such a claim would fail. If it is in the Public Domain, however, then it has no copyright protection at all. Centpacrr (talk) 20:04, 15 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Update re copyright status of this image: The question as to whether this public record mugshot is in the Public Domain or is non free under the Crown Copyright Act has been referred by my Toronto lawyer friend to the Intellectual Property Law Institute (IPLI) at the School of Law at Windsor University, Windsor, Ontario for guidance. Centpacrr (talk) 00:05, 16 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • You'd have to get more creative than that, GabeMC. Look how Bill Gates' mug shot from New Mexico was proven to be PD with some creative research.[12] If you're going to run around willy-nilly uploading mug shots to prove some point on the ridiculousness of mug shots being in articles, especially of living people, you should not be surprised by the resistance you encounter along the way. Doc talk 00:29, 16 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • What does living have to do with it? Are you admitting that it casts an aspiration on the person whose mugshot we display? Why can we include a mugshot of Hendrix but not the other 10,000 celebrities and/or politicians who have been arrested? GabeMc (talk|contribs) 00:33, 16 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • You should know by now that FU-claimed images of living people are routinely deleted because a free image of said person "could be created" by someone, somewhere. If you want to go on a crusade to include mug shots everywhere you can, you're wasting your time in a manner that's pointless. It would be like me ripping out every FU-claimed screenshot image in every FA video game article. I'd face heavy resistance for my actions being possibly "pointy". Have fun! Doc talk 00:49, 16 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • This thread is now up to 19,441 words. Can we agree to stop at 20,000? Centpacrr (talk) 00:59, 16 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • IDK, you've posted at least 3,000 of them. GabeMc (talk|contribs) 01:00, 16 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Discussion is good; the only reason you seem to want to close it early is to "protect" your POV instead of actually trying to convince others of why the image should be kept. There's no harm in continuing discussion as new points are brought up. --MASEM (t) 01:02, 16 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • No actually I've made my points fully and don't really have any additional ones to offer. However nobody else seems to be making any new points either and so the thread has drifted off to bloviating side issues that don't seem to me to be advancing the issue. As I didn't originally contribute the image and have never edited the article itself either I don't really have any direct or personal "stake" in it other than expressing my views on what I see as a fatal flaw in NFCC#8 which I have seen misapplied many many times elsewhere in WP and believe has been misapplied here as well. My only further substantive area of contribution now to this discussion it to try to determine the real copyright or Public Domain status of the image itself which I am in the process of doing by consulting a Toronto area lawyer friend of mine who today referred the question to a faculty member at the Intellectual Property Law Institute (IPLI) at the School of Law at Windsor University in Windsor, Ontario for guidance. Centpacrr (talk) 01:31, 16 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • (@GabeMC) No, not every mug shot of every dead celebrity. There's more to it than you think. Incidentally, one of the issues with this image even after it was found to be PD was that we had no decent free image of Morrison for the infobox at the time. One editor thought it better to crop this widely-recognized mug shot for the infobox, ignoring the fact that he was not known primarily as a criminal. But that was more acceptable than having a FU-clamed image of Morrison. Not. At the Phil Spector article, the only free image we currently have of him is this one, and it will never be used in the infobox (several attempts have been made). People assumed the Morrison mugshot was not PD. I was surprised to see the Bill Gates mug is PD. This image very well might be PD, and at least two of us are making active steps to determine if it is or not. Doc talk 01:18, 16 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • How about Michael Jackson? The article does not currently include either of his mugshots from his child molestation arrests. Those arrests made a much greater impact on Jackson's career then Hendrix's bust for a drug he didn't even like. Jackson's mugshots also illustrate his ever-changing appearance in a way that prose alone could not. GabeMc (talk|contribs) 01:25, 16 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • So, like I said earlier in this thread, if someone wrote an article 1969 drug possession charges against Jimi Hendrix then I think the mugshot might be appropriate, but in a summary article its WP:UNDUE, because as I said, there are infinitely better selections of images of Hendrix that would educate our readers more efficiently. GabeMc (talk|contribs) 01:56, 16 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • I don't care if it's put in Jackson's main article, but I bet others would. The UNDUE issue was raised on this image years ago. It was determined that having it in the article in the appropriate section did not give undue weight. Having it in the infobox: undue weight. Again, do you see that the richest man in the world's article (rated as a GA) has his mug shot in it? The only difference at all is that the image was proven to be PD. Is it undue if it's free? I guess not. This image does not give undue weight to the article. Doc talk 04:25, 16 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • GAs do not have the rigorous image checking of FA (GA only require one person to review, to start). It is completely possible for free images to be undue weight in an article - just because we can put it in there doesn't mean it is always appropriate, and particularly considering BLP, a photo that puts the person in a negative light might be considered a problem. --MASEM (t) 04:45, 16 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • (@Masem) Rigorous image checking... like this?[13] Or this?[14][15][16] The first two articles off the video game FA list - and the second one has three FU images. How the heck did that make FA? It's sort of counterintuitive to the goal of free content, especially on the second FA we proudly display on the video game list. I want to hear nothing of "rigorous image checking" when images like this exist in FA's. This is all just a ball of wax on all sides when you get down to it. Doc talk 04:51, 16 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • You are mixing up a lot of points here. First, I said "GA", not "FA". Good Articles only require one person to check, and the NFC requirements there are not as strong. FA require multiple people to review and comment favorable, and NFC image checks are strenuous to make sure they are all valid. (in fact, you can see the FA commentary on the 4X article here [17] where the number of images were cut down from the original number to a number everyone was satisfied with). And screenshots of video games alongside sourced discussion of gameplay so readers can follow along with the UI elements, is inline with NFCC#8. Those are examples of NFC working as expected. (and the fact you are targeting my area of work, video games, is approach person attacks) --MASEM (t) 05:25, 16 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • I had no idea you worked in this area: these are literally the first two games on the list. AGF: there is no bad blood here. Stretching it into a "personal attack" is getting into something beyond assuming bad faith. I find your view that those screenshots pass #8 quite "droll ". Chillax. Doc talk 05:43, 16 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • My view of video game screenshots is backed up by WP:NFCI#5 ("Video screenshots: For critical commentary and discussion of the work in question. (i.e., films, television programs, and music videos)") This mugshot of Hendrix, however, does not fit any of those. --MASEM (t) 05:48, 16 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Such a waste of resources on this one freaking image discussion. As if this were the "poster child" for some greater cause. We're filibustering here. What a waste. I say this image is not eligible for deletion to begin with per the caveat of NFCI#10: "Pictures of deceased persons, in articles about that person, provided that ever obtaining a free close substitute is not reasonably likely." What do you who want this image gone have to say about that? Doc talk 06:44, 16 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • You have 3 other images of Hendrix; a fourth one violates WP:NFCC#3 if it is not presenting anything new and unique from these other images. (And as NFCI states, those are general allowances, but they remain subject to having all 10 NFCC met). The reason this debate is critical is because it is showing a fundamental lack of understanding by a number of users about what the free content mission and our associated NFC policy are supposed to be doing. We don't use images just because they meet fair use claims or that they look good. Non-free images are meant to be exceptions within the work, where free media cannot do the same job. You don't use non-free and then later decide how to justify it (as what this discussion shows), but you find out that if you really need an image to justify the supporting free material for an article, that gives you the proper rationale for why we would include the non-free. --MASEM (t) 16:49, 16 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • And to prove I'm not picking on your realm, let's take "Media" for $1000. This random FU rationale is just a beaut.[18] This shining example of a FA could not possibly do without this "montage" of copyrighted images? Text alone couldn't convey to the reader what the copyrighted image of Mel Gibson next to a copyrighted image of "Chef" does? Does the text even begin to sufficiently discuss that image to justify inclusion? It would be "detrimental" to remove this, and it fully passes #8? Wow. Doc talk 13:39, 16 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • And one point to add - at the Hendrix FAC, the FA commentors did make statements that this specific image would not likely fly under a rigorous review (read: here), so to say that this is not happening and we don't have such reviews is a bogus statement. --MASEM (t) 05:35, 16 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • So you're only verifying the "straw man argument" that the removal of this image would directly affect the FA passage. That it passed FA with it in it was just a glaring oversight. Gotcha. Doc talk 06:54, 16 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • You added it back after several said it wasn't reasonable and even after the FA nominator removed it. Pretty clear that it should not have passed with it in place, but since in that discussion you said to delete it the right way from FFD, here we are, following process. --MASEM (t) 17:20, 16 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Policy calls for substance and detriment - vis a vis the subject. This meets that. -- Alanscottwalker (talk) 18:49, 16 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Policy calls for "contextual significance", and since the image can be removed without harming the reader's understanding of what Jimi looked like or the events of the arrest, it fails the test. If the image is suppose to represent Jimi as a counter-culture hero, there must be non-original research discussion of how that image does that to establish contextual significant, not a handwave "trust me, it shows it". This should not be hard to find if it is believed this specific photo shows this. Except, of course, that others here have looked and come up empty to explain why this photo is so important, suggesting it is not as "important" as has been applied and thus why its removal is the only thing that makes sense, as previously established at the FAC and now here. --MASEM (t) 00:50, 17 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Contextual significance is provided. The context is the subject of the article. That this image also conveys beyond words vis-a-vis the subject means that harm is caused by its omission. Alanscottwalker (talk) 09:56, 17 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The argument that an image's inclusion is supposed by the subject of the article is allowance for one and only one identifying image to help provide visual context for the reader; this is normal for deceased people, commercial publications, and companies (for logos). Any additional identifying images must have discussion to the image itself, otherwise the second identifying image is duplicative and fails NFCC#3 and #8. Here's we're talking about the 5th identifying image when the other 4 (1 free and 3 non-free which all have been demonstrated as appropriate) meaning that the necessary of the need for the image has to be extremely clear. --MASEM (t) 15:28, 17 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
We are not talking about an "identifying image" if you mean by that 'this is this person'. Again, it is like you have no idea what this image is or who Hendrix was. Have you ever read his biography? -- Alanscottwalker (talk) 15:57, 17 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Yes you are; you are showing an image of what he looked like at a specific point in time without comment. That's an identifying image, and why we're begging those that want to keep this to show contextual significance of that image to justify why it is needed when we already have identified what Hendrix looked like. There is nothing that is said that the reader is to take away from the image for understanding. --MASEM (t) 16:02, 17 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
No. We are not. It is not there for identifying him. Your apparent ignorance of the article subject and the photo is embarassing for Wikipedia. Alanscottwalker (talk) 16:31, 17 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
There is nothing in the article that tells me why I need to see that image. That means it is unessential for the article, and thus failing NFCC#8. You cannot just say "it's needed" and not explain why, to be a valid ratioanale to use. --MASEM (t) 16:36, 17 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Of course, the article tells us why we need to see the image -- the fact that you apparently do not understand the subject is moreover, an additional good reason to not rely on your editorial reccomendations. Alanscottwalker (talk) 16:48, 17 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
No it doesn't. NFC requires the reason for the image to be explicitly obvious via disucssion of the image itself in text, and that is not the case here. --MASEM (t) 16:51, 17 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The reason is obvious to anyone actually trying to understand the subject, and it is explicitly so. And, yes it meets the NFCC. Alanscottwalker (talk) 17:17, 17 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
"It" is not established here at all, if by "it" you mean consensus to delete. I think what you're getting at in general is that the overall project consensus on NFC by default automatically backs up the claim that it fails #8 no matter who disagrees with the interpretation of it actually failing #8. We therefore must delete no matter the outcome of the discussion. You are incorrect if that's what you believe. I seriously do not see how you can arrive at the conclusion that there is clear/true/strong/"any" consensus to delete here. There is no consensus to delete the image according to what consensus is defined as. Doc talk 03:00, 17 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Agree with Doc. No consensus has been established, as I understand the definition. I again suggest this be closed as such. Jusdafax 05:04, 17 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Consensus is based on the weight of the policy arguments. It has been repeated demonstrated how NFCC#3 and #8 are not met by this image. The onus is on those wanting to keep it to show by policy how it does meet it, and the only way this can be done is to clearly show how contextual significance is met and how this image performs a different function than the other images of Hendrix already in the article. That requires sources to make sure it is not original research (as otherwise, I can justify nearly any piece of non-free across WP by hand-waving at its importance without backing that up if it is not obvious). This hasn't been shown. This is a normal textbook case for removal of an image after an FFD discussion. --MASEM (t) 05:22, 17 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
In your opinion it hasn't been shown. It's hardly unanimous that you are correct. A normal textbook case would be to close this as "No consensus to delete". Doc talk 06:15, 17 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
But there's clearly majority support (noting we are !voting) for removal backed by strong statements of policy. Again, to show a policy-based reason to keep, exactly what harm will come to the reader's understand if this image was had never been in the article in the first place? --MASEM (t) 15:28, 17 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
At this point I am just going to disengage from this debate since I have commented here way too many times already. No hard feelings towards anyone, and hopefully vice-versa. Cheers. Doc talk 02:04, 18 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
No the article is not about Hendrix as you, apparently in your blinkered manner claim, as just some physical blob of tissue that looked like that. It is about the life of Hendrix - his biography - what his life meant, to him, to them of that day, and to us. So, reread the policy you quote. Your gloss on it is perposterous and plainly not there. Significantly increase understanding of the life of Hendrix and detrimental to understanding the life of Hendrix - have vitually nothing to do with the number of photographs of him, and certainly has nothing to do with the abstract and editorially absurd idea that one image is just the same educationally as another. -- Alanscottwalker (talk) 19:09, 17 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, I'll play along. Is this arrest as important to the life of Hendrix as his other four arrests? Its not even the only time he was arrested in Toronto! Is this even more important then Woodstock? Because I doubt that it is, and we do not include and image of Hendrix at Woodstock. Are you arguing that 'every important event in the life of Hendrix needs to be represented by a copyrighted image? Can we request this be closed so that we can end this limitless regurgitation of non-arguments? GabeMc (talk|contribs) 19:26, 17 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Irrelevant - we are not here to discuss other unused images because no editor can possibly analyze them for this discussion and our purposes in this article; we are not here to discuss undue weight as there are other forums for that (and your observation about other arrests would likely not make one image undue, if we were here to discuss that, which we are not); as you have been told, we are here to have a limited criteria examination of this image, in this use, on a case by case basis. Alanscottwalker (talk) 09:03, 18 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Since NFCC includes minimizing non-free use on a given page and the potential replacement by free(r) media, we have to consider all the existing information and images used on the page in evaluating this image. We're considering all the other non-free content on the Hendrix article to be appropriate so they are not up to be judged, but we have to consider this image in the light that those other images exist. This isn't a vacuum on just this image. --MASEM (t) 15:01, 18 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
This is the only use of this image, and the only use of NFCC [images]content on that page, so it is minimal. Moreover, my comment was about the speculation concerning unused images, so your comment is non-responsive. Alanscottwalker (talk) 15:33, 18 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
There are 3 non-free sound samples on the page, so yes, we have to consider that.--MASEM (t) 15:45, 18 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Corrected to images, but that does not affect the issue. Alanscottwalker (talk) 15:55, 18 January 2014 (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:Run Run Shaw.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; deleted by Stifle (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 19:17, 19 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

File:Run Run Shaw.jpg (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Lmmnhn (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log).

An earlier photo of him exists. Since he is not famous for what he looked like in later life, that photo serves as a suitable replacement. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 21:32, 8 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

He is much more famous for what he looks like in later life, as the picture was released to the public from TVB in 2007, when he was still the chairman of TVB, the dominant television station in Hong Kong and all over the Chinese communities worldwide. He showed up at the annual TVB anniversary until his retirement in 2012 and the annual Shaw Prize ceremony. Therefore he is absolutely famous for what he looked like in his later life. On the contrary, he was not yet a tycoon in his earlier life in 1930.--Lmmnhn (talk) 21:47, 8 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The point is, he isn't famous for what he looked like at any point in time; he is famous for what he did. I'm talking about people like child stars, or perhaps someone who modeled in their 20s, retired from modeling at 30, and is now 70. For them, a large part of their notability stems from their appearance, which is not the case here. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 22:02, 8 January 2014 (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.
More