- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the media below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the media's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: Delete; deleted by Explicit (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 02:00, 1 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- – uploaded by OpticalBloom241 (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log).
WP:DECORATIVE non-free use in
New South Wales Police Force strip search scandal which fails
WP:NFCC#1 (
WP:FREER) and
WP:NFCC#8 (
WP:NFC#CS). This file is currently not being used, and a bot has tagged it for speedy deletion per
WP:F5 (
WP:NFCC#7). This file has actually been
deleted three times before: once for WP:F5 reasons and twice for
WP:F7 reasons. The first time the file was deleted for F5 reasons, the uploader re-uploaded and added to the article; it was subsequently tagged for NFCC#1 and NFCC#8 reasons and deleted again. It was reuploaded, retagged as NFCC violation and then deleted once again. This time, however, the uploader
asked that the file be restored so that it can be discussed at FFD; so, that's where things are right now. Since the
was being used in
New South Wales Police Force strip search scandal#Male and female strip search statistics before it was last deleted, I'm assuming that's where the uploader wants the file to be used and that's the non-free use that needs to be discussed.
Public official often hold press conferences as part of their official duties and such conferences often receive significant coverage in reliable media sources (either in print form, video form, or a combination of the two). If this press conference is something encyclopedically relevant to the reader, then it probably can be cited per
WP:PRIMARY and interpretations or responses made in secondary sources can also be cited. None of those things, however, really require that the reader see an 11-second non-free excerpt of the press conference, especially if all the same information is also essentially provided as quoted text in the body of the article.
The file's non-free use rationale states that the "inclusion of this file is important as the comments were extraordinary in nature and received significant media coverage at the time." which is probably true, but which is also something that the reader can understand from the text content about the press conference. The non-free rationale also states "The inclusion of the file allows the reader to interpret the comments in the context in which they were delivered." which bascially sounds like the video is being provided so that the reader can do their own
WP:OR. If the police commissioner was being criticized for what he said during the press conference, then I don't believe the reader needs to see him actually saying such things to understand that he said them. The quoted text from the press conference in combination with a citation to the video of the press conference seems like a more than sufficient alternative to actually using a non-free video excerpt of the press conference. --
Marchjuly (
talk) 02:17, 24 August 2022 (UTC)
[reply]
- This file was originally flagged as an WP:NFCC#8 violation. Per WP:NFCC#8, inclusion of non free content is permitted provided that it serves to "significantly increase readers' understanding of the topic, and its omission would be detrimental to that understanding". The file features a video excerpt from a news report featuring comments made by former NSW Police Minister David Elliot. The minister was being questioned about statistics pertaining to strip searches of underage girls by NSW Police and defended the practice by suggesting to reporters that, “I’ve got young children and if I thought the police felt they were at risk of doing something wrong I’d want them strip-searched”. The comments were highly controversial at the time and are frequently brought up when the minister's name is mentioned in online discussions or on social media. The comments are mentioned in the text but the inclusion of the file draws attention to the fact that the remarks were significant, while also allowing the reader to see the comments in the context that they were delivered, which is important given the nature of what was said and Elliot's position as police minister in NSW at the time. This file pertains to a significant event in the context of strip searches being conducted by NSW Police and not having the file in the article diminishes the reader's ability to understand the topic. I'd argue that file is in keeping with WP:NFCC criteria and as such should therefore be allowed to remain in the article. OpticalBloom241 (talk) 18:11, 25 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete textbook WP:NFCC#8 violation. Decorative fair use, lacks substantial critical commentary in the article it is used in. -FASTILY 08:30, 26 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per Fastily. This file itsef lacks substantial amounts of sourced critical commentary. The file also does not comply with the principle of minimal use, since the justification of including the "strip searched" comments does not support the first 40% of the file. Even if substantial amounts of sourced critical commentary exist and are summarized in the article, the file still would need to be cropped. And, I'm not sure that the video itself is necessary if the audio clip (or even a transcript of the audio) would meaningfully convey the exact words that were used. Since the utterances themselves could be easily included in the article as text, the use of video whatsoever seems tenuous at best. — Red-tailed hawk (nest) 16:01, 26 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete There is no need to steal this video from the ABC in lieu of simply referencing the ABC. This is a blatant copyright violation. Nick-D (talk) 23:23, 27 August 2022 (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.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the media below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the media's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: Delete; deleted by Explicit (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 02:00, 1 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- File:Antonio Gava.jpg (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by DonCalo (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log).
No author information, no date, no license can be evaluated as critical information is missing on this file. Does not have the requirements to meet NFCC sourcing or the ability to be moved to Commons. Sennecaster (Chat) 03:29, 24 August 2022 (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.
.jpg){kind=link}
