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.
This non-free logo is not needed at TNBC in addition to the one used from 2000–2002 (File:TNBC (2000-2002) logo.png), per WP:NFCC#3a and WP:IINFO. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 03:36, 12 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NFC#cite_note-4. Former non-free logos can sometimes be used, but generally only when they themselves are the subject of sourced critical commentary in the article and not simply WP:DECORATIVE non-free use. -- Marchjuly (talk) 12:56, 18 January 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.
File:Demethylation Mechanism.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 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.
Remove from List of fraternities and sororities at the University of Minnesota per WP:NFCC#8. You don't need an image to convey that "Bronco Nagurski was a prominent athlete from the University of Minnesota, who was also a member of a fraternity on the campus." The is no sourced critical commentary about the image itself in the list article. Inclusion does not significantly increase the reader's understanding of the subject of the article (which is not Nagurski) and omission of the image is not detrimental to the reader's understanding of the subject of the list article. Also, see WP:NFC#UUI #6. — JJMC89 (T·C) 18:17, 12 January 2022 (UTC) Addendum: In light of the free images Whpq found on Commons, the file should be deleted per WP:NFCC#1. — JJMC89 (T·C) 01:24, 19 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Remove from the list article per nominator as well as per WP:NFLISTS and item 6 of WP:NFC#UUI. Non-free images are pretty much never used for illustrating individual entires or sections in list articles and there nothing about Nagurski in List of fraternities and sororities at the University of Minnesota#Sports that justifies any exception to that. The reader doesn't need to see a non-free image of Nagurski to understand the four mentions (five if you want to include the file's caption) of Nagurski in that section and there's no specific sourced critical commentary about the photo itself (not simply mentioning that it's being displayed somewhere, but actual critical commentary about the photo) to otherwise meet WP:NFC#CS. There are a number of other individuals mentioned by name in that section as well and there are no images of them displayed; there seems to be no significant loss in understanding to the reader by not displaying them (some of the images are freely-licensed and could be used) much in the same way that there's no siginifcant loss of understanding to same reader by not displaying an image of Nagurski.Finally, FWIW, if this photo was taken in 1929 per the caption provided for it, then it may actually fall within the public domain in a few years (probably on 1 Janaury 2025). It would then no longer be non-free use and would thus not be subject to WP:NFCC; this would be much easier to justify its use in articles other than "Bronco Nagurski" or even outside the article namespace altogether. Moreover, if an image of Nagurski taken before in 1927 can be found, it may already be within in the public domain and therefore would make pretty much any non-free image of Nagurski fail WP:FREER. Any images of Nagurski published in 1927 or 1928 would fall into the public domain in 2023 or 2024 respectively. -- Marchjuly (talk) 22:33, 12 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I disagree with this unwarranted deletion. I thank JJMC89 for prodding some interesting research. Rising to his/her challenge I added a couple of additional references and lines of body text pertaining specifically to Nagurski, his fraternity experience, and the fraternity's response to him. I also realized Wikipedia requires a separate rationale for each usage in the metadata for the file, which I have added. Those immediate concerns covered, several points support inclusion:
The picture helps readers understand how intertwined "big time college athletics" were with the fraternities, especially on this campus. These two factors, as stated in the body text, were twin fonts of school spirit, making a substantial impact for many decades.
When adding that photo, I had looked for a small image (18K) already uploaded to Wikipedia. This existing photo was a good one for that purpose. I thought that using it would be easiest.
That photo is iconic: While I could have used a shot of another athlete, none have remained as captivating as Nagurski. No other collegiate athlete from any school of that half Century, except for perhaps Knute Rockne, is as well known. Hence, including him as the representative iconic image for the section seemed appropriate.
The photo, its placement and usage are graphically interesting, helping move readers through the page.
For those unfamiliar with the 1920s, a photo of that era helps frame an understanding of how athletes looked. These organizations have a 145-year history, so the photo clarifies how far back this man played. Jax MN (talk) 23:25, 12 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
None of those things seem relevant to WP:NFC#CS and this file's use in the list article and none of them explain why a link to the Nagurski (where the same image can be seen) is not sufficient per item 6 of WP:NFC#UUI. There's nothing in the photo itself to indicate that Nagurski belong to a fraternity and a photo of Nagurski is not need for the reader to understand that he belong to a fraternity. The only real information the photo provides to the reader (assuming they have some knowledge of American football) is that it is of a football player, probably from a long time ago. They know it's Nagurski because that's what the caption in the article and description on the file's page tells them, but none of the 5 points you listed above requires that this particular photo be seen by readers for them to understand what's written about Nagurski in the list article. -- Marchjuly (talk) 06:03, 13 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - would be fine for an article on Nagurski, but I fail to see what it adds to this article. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski(talk • contribs) 13:56, 13 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Remove from the list article. It's stated purpose for the list article fails WP:NFCC#1 as text conveys that information adequately. Other justifications don't overcome WP:NFCC#8. -- Whpq (talk) 02:09, 14 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Actually on further review, Delete as c:Category:Bronko Nagurski has freely licensed images that can serve as visual identification in the infobox on the Bronko Nagurski article. -- Whpq (talk) 02:14, 14 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I saw those, thank you. But the free images on Commons reflect the man's later career as a wrestler. His collegiate football career is more germane, and as I stated in my comment above, is an iconic representation of the importance of these athletes to the organizations to which they belonged. I see no copyvio, as there is a separate rationale and full citation, and the source welcomes its use. We should encourage helpful graphics like this, to make Wikipedia a richer source. Jax MN (talk) 04:08, 14 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
File:Bronko Nagurski - 15 May 1950 Minneapolis Audit. Wrestling Program.jpg is fine (assuming it's licensing is valid) for the main infobox of Bronko Nagurski; so, no non-free one (including the one discussed here) is needed there. The wrestling program photo is, after all, being used in Minnesota Golden Gophers football which basically has to do with his "college football career"; so, there's no reason why it can be used in the article about Nagurski or any other article where an image of him is needed. The other wrestling photos would be fine for the main infobox as well if that's all there were to choose from, as would any other free or PD photos of Nagurski that could be found. As for the use of the non-free in the list article, it's only an iconic representation (at least for Wikipedia purposes) when there's critical commentary about the photo itself found in reliable sources that define it as such as explained in WP:HISTORIC or WP:SCENE. Whether you want to use any of the freely available images of Nagurski in the list article is more of a matter of editorial judgement than anything else per WP:IUP#Adding images to articles, but non-free images require a much stronger justificiation than you've provided so far or what the source may welcome (whatever that might mean). What's being discussed here isn't necessarily that the way this file is being used is a copyvio per se (most likely it isn't), but whether the use in question and the file itself satisfies relevant Wikipedia policy. This policy is quite restrictive by design and non-free use isn't automatic just because someone adds a non-free use rationale to a file's page. -- Marchjuly (talk) 10:16, 15 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I've asked historians at Sigma Chi if they have an original source that discusses that photo, per your suggestion. The shot of a middle-aged Nagurski in a suit isn't as compelling, but indeed it may have to suffice until the gridiron shot become public domain. As to canvassing, my mentioning it to a project group, some of whom may disagree with usage of this image seems allowable under that policy. I don't believe my post was canvassing, but if it was, it was the most negligible form; the policy itself is written to require discernment of four aspects relating to Appropriate and Inappropriate forms.
Something else came up which you may find interesting, and certainly have a more informed opinion on vis-a-vis copyright: Now, I'm certain that photo wasn't taken prior to 1925. It's a fairly standard player pose for all new recruits. But when I tracked it down at the Getty archive, they date it only to January 1, 1900. It remains rights-managed by Getty. See the Getty archive page and metadata. In this case, what are the rules? The helpful HIRTLE chart asserts it rolls into PD at the 95 year mark. When the source doesn't know, or doesn't claim later publication, what rule applies for us? Jax MN (talk) 22:25, 15 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
In principle, Getty images aren't allowed as non-free content per WP:NFCC#2 and item 8 of WP:NFCI and such images are almost immediately subject to speedy deletion per WP:F7. Getty, however, has been known to claim (or at least try claim) ownership over PD content and there's a little about this in Getty Images#Copyright enforcement and controversy and also Copyfraud. The best place to ask about this particular Getty image is probably over at c:COM:VPC because that's where such a file most likely should be uploaded if it's really PD. (If you search "Getty Images" in the COM:VPC archives, you'll find this question is asked quite a lot). Anyway, generally, what matters the most is the date of first publication and country of origin (usually they're the same, but not always) when it comes to original copyright status (no new copyright is typically considered established by any subsequent digitalization or otherwise slavish 2D reproductions per c:COM:L#Scope of licensing), but laws may vary among different countries. For reference, there are some Getty Images uploaded to Commmons in c:Category:Getty Images and there may even be more that not categorized as such. Generally, Commons will accept anything that is clearly within its c:COM:SCOPE and is clearly within the c:COM:Public domain; it's not too concerned about non-copyright restrictions. Since the September 1, 1900, date seems obviously wrong in this case (perhaps a Getty typo), something better is going to be needed to verify the date of intial publication of this photo.Finally, as for the canvassing thing, once again a ((Please see)) template is all that's really needed. Any comments which imply improper action by another editor, using ALLCAPS for emphasis, restating comments already made in the XFD discussion, or even that something is being randomly deleted (which was not the case here at all) are most likely going to be seen as canvassing/campaigning (at least in my opinion). If you want to ask for the opinion of a neutral admin because you believe I'm reading too much into things, then that's fine. I'm not claiming there was any bad intent on your part, only suggesting that you might want to be careful about this type of thing in the future. -- Marchjuly (talk) 23:17, 15 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment copied from related discussion at c:Commons:Village pump/Copyright:[1] "Getty claims the image is owned by Chicago Sun-Times/Chicago Daily News.[2] A quick check of the Chicago Sun-Times collection at Chicago History Museum finds the image you are describing at https://images.chicagohistory.org/search/?searchQuery=Bronko+Nagurski. This specific image is stated as being created in 1929. We would need to do some further digging to confirm the image was published in 1929 and wasn't just an unused spare. If it was published in 1929, you could upload the image [at Commons] on 1 January 2025." From Hill To Shore (talk) 01:31, 16 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
...if this photo was taken in 1929 per the caption provided for it, then it may actually fall within the public domain in a few years (probably on 1 Janaury 2025)...
That statement seems so irresponsible coming from someone who spends so much time on this particular aspect of the project. Commons is already chock full of content which blatantly confuses "taken before January 1 of X year" with "published or registered with the U.S. Copyright Office before January 1 of X year" and its regulars appear mostly afraid to acknowledge the extent of the problem. RadioKAOS / Talk to me, Billy / Transmissions 11:17, 18 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
No blantant confusion or attempt to mislead on my part, and I did post may actually fall within the public domain and not that it will actually fall. Even so, you're correct that I should've been more careful with my choice of words and used "published" instead of "taken"; so, my apologies for that and any confusion it may have caused. -- Marchjuly (talk) 12:29, 18 January 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 subject is now reported by RS to be alive. He's under arrest and apparently in a hospital. But given his status of "alive" and publicity (Nicholas Alahverdian has 26 refs and been consensus-keep at AFD) and likelihood of being in court, I don't think he meets NFC#1. User:Praxidicae stated that he's a "non-public" person and would not be out in public for an unknown length of time, so that there would still be a fair-use basis. Looking for others' input. DMacks (talk) 22:25, 12 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Mis-read the history...it's User:SnowFire who now/still thinks it's fair-use (Praxidicae was original uploader--subject was deceased at the time, which is a valid non-replaceability basis). DMacks (talk) 22:26, 12 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I think the file should be kept, since at this point there's no way to create a free image. Similar to say Jennifer Pan for example. (sidenote: we already do have a free image of Alahverdian, but since the WMF is willing to action bogus DMCA requests, we can't use them unless someone makes a counter-claim) Elli (talk | contribs) 22:30, 12 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, at least for now. Note that Praxidicae is the original uploader, but I'm the one who updated the file description to say "non-public" person (unless Praxidiciae said this to you in some other forum?) (edit: okay, that confusion was resolved.). And, well, that's still true. The spirit of the "no alive people" guideline is that fair use is acceptable when it would require something implausible or onerous, like someone happening to have old photographs and spontaneously deciding to re-license them. It also applies to people who are not publicly accessible. What is an enterprising Wikimedian supposed to do, break into the hospital and sneak past the nurses to take his picture? That would probably cause a lawsuit. As long as he's not accessible to the public, the spirit of the guideline is in effect: it's hard-to-impossible to take a new freely licensed photograph, so a guideline whose purpose is explicitly to encourage taking such new freely licensed works is inoperative when that goal can't be reasonably achieved. SnowFire (talk) 22:31, 12 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict) Keep - subject is indeed alive, but I doubt it's going to be possible to get a freely licensed image of him for the foreseeable future (given that he is presumably going to be in the hospital, followed by jail). Since it's very unlikely that anyone will be in a position to photograph him under a free license, so NFCC 1 is still met. GeneralNotability (talk) 22:37, 12 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment:Fair use and non-free use aren't really the same as explained in WP:NFC#Background; so, it's probably a good idea to try and not mix the terms up since WP:FREER has nothing really to do with fair use. This is interesting discussion because now that Alahverdian has been found alive, a free image of being created certainly does seem possible given that he may appear in court in the future. The article says the FBI was looking for him; so, maybe there's already a ((PD-USGov)) photo of him put out by the FBI that could be used instead of any non-free. I understand the argument about free photos being hard to get and policy certainly makes exceptions for non-free use in cases where the only way to procure a free photo is by doing something illegal; so, no we don't want people to sneak into hospitals to take his photo. However, being alive as opposed to be dead does make it more reasonable for a free image to be newly taken, and Wikipedia has waited years in some cases for such a photo to be found. It seems as if the Alahverdian case is going be resolved through a highly public (even possibly federal) trial, and it also seems like a photo could be taken at such a time. It also seems that he's going to end up being extradited which creates more opportunities for such a photo. How reasonable it is to expect such things is what, I guess, is going to be resolved here in this discussion, but I'm leaning in the direction of applying FREER here and saying this non-free no longer meets it. Afterall, there are plenty of BLPs without images and non-free aren't simply allowed just because no free images currently exist.Finally, since this also sort of involves image use, I think the infobox in the article should be removed per WP:DISINFOBOX since it has pretty much zero encyclopedic value at the moment. The date of birth is currently unsourced and also not mentioned in the body of the article; so, the infobox is basically serving as nothing more that a "picture frame". Even if the image is kept per this discussion, the infobox would not be needed unless there's more relevant encyclopedic information to add to it. -- Marchjuly (talk) 23:12, 12 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
If a freely licensed court photograph is uploaded in the future, then this can be relitigated (although "mug shots" have their own issues...). That has not happened yet however and won't happen for some time, and to my knowledge Rhode Island Corrections doesn't released its photos to the public domain - so it really would have to be a federal prosecution, which is in no way guaranteed. As discussed earlier, it's really not reasonable to suggest that a Wikimedian should essentially commit trespass to take unauthorized pictures at a hospital during a pandemic (and if such a picture WAS taken, it would in no way be representative - a picture of a subject in a hospital bed? No.). The argument is not "no free images currently exist", the argument is that "new free images cannot exist without demanding something unreasonable". SnowFire (talk) 23:58, 12 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The default is not to use a non-free image until it can be replaced by a free one because if it were then there would be no BLPs without at least an infobox image. The default is also not use a non-free image of someone who has been arrested or charged with a crime just because they might eventually end up long-term incarcerated; once the person has been tried, convicted and sentenced, then perhaps it could be argued that a non-free image is justified for that reason. Trying to justify a non-free use for such a reason before a person has been formally sentenced could in a way be problematic per WP:BLPCRIME. Once again, I don't think anyone is suggesting that anybody should tresspass or do anything else which might be illegal to take such a picture; however, at the same time, it's not totally unreasonable to think that there may be opportunities at some point for a free equivalent image to be created given the circumstances of the situation (wanted by the FBI and currently under arrest in Scotland) because at some point he's likely going to end up back in the US and be part of what looks like is going to be a fairly public trial. -- Marchjuly (talk) 05:55, 13 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Looking over this article, it's a textbook example of a "biography" which uses an individual as cover to create an article which is really about regurgitating a news story. Dickering over the presence or absence of a particular source is a red herring in light of the overall low biographical value of the article. As for what others have said, he "was deceased" but is "now alive"? I didn't see anything in the article about him going to the hospital to be revived from clinical death. This illustrates another problem: editors should view "the sum total of human knowledge" as a coherent story, not a semi-connected series of curious snapshots in time. Given the direction the encyclopedia's been headed in recent years, I have to wonder whether some folks actually realize this or not. RadioKAOS / Talk to me, Billy / Transmissions 11:44, 18 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@RadioKAOS: your comment has apparently nothing to do with the Nicholas Alahverdian article. For example on 29 December 2020 the article very much said he was dead. This remained the case until an article by the Providence Journal in late January 2021, which raised question marks about whether Nicholas Alahverdian was still alive. Things were cleared up when he was found alive in Scotland. No article was created as a result of the current publicity around him being found, the article pre-dates that publicity. In fact, we'd probably have been a lot better off without this article, given the difficulties we've had with it such as legal threats, even to the extent of news stories being removed not only from live websites but also from the Wayback Archive, that resulted in the oversighting of a Rfc about whether we could even include one thing he was convicted of. FDW777 (talk) 16:11, 19 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note Other images of Alahverdian were deleted by the office as a result of this DCMA takedown order [3]. I've spoken with the back office and they have indicated that in light of recent events the request is considered fraudulent and will be disregarded, we can expect the images to be restored next week. Beeblebrox (talk) 00:36, 15 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Commons admin@Beeblebrox: Mind sharing who you spoke with the office of the general council or the WMF legal (I'd love to follow up)? This would be interesting, because then in essence WMF would file a counter notice on behalf of themselves, which I don't think has publicly happened before. Unless another editor filed the counter notice already. Jonatan Svensson Glad (talk) 02:27, 15 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I asked and they said it was ok to say it was coming next week, but I did not ask if it was ok to say exactly who said as much. I prefer to be careful when it comes to email communication with lawyers, and now it's Friday night and I'm not inclined to bug them about it on the weekend. My understanding is that the legal department advises Trust and Safety about such things, but T&S usually take the actual actions, as you can see from the deletion logs of the two files. My impression is that the office was highly skeptical of this all along, but it is the legal department's job to be cautious so they advised honoring the request, which they now consider invalid on its face, because it claims they were acting on behalf the "late Mr. Alhahverdian", when he was alive all along. Beeblebrox (talk) 04:56, 15 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
If those were Commons files and they’re restored, then that would make any further discussion of this non-free image pointless because it would almost certainly fail WP:FREER. — Marchjuly (talk) 05:34, 15 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
That is if the files are kept on Commons; DMCA or not, they look to me to be suspiciously not the uploader's own work anyways and might get deleted quickly by the community regardless. Jonatan Svensson Glad (talk) 05:40, 15 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, that's correct. I meant to add that bit to my last post, but left it out by mistake. Thanks for clarifying that. -- Marchjuly (talk) 09:23, 15 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
And so it has come to pass that two different images (and presumably various derivatives thereof) are now restored to commons. DMacks (talk) 21:28, 17 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete Fair use is not valid for images of living people. There was reasonable grounds for fair use prior to his arrest when he was purported to be deceased, but now he is known to be alive and the other images we have of him have been undeleted, there is no excuse for keeping a commercial (and now unused) image. Hemiauchenia (talk) 23:25, 18 January 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.
_logo.png&action=delete&wpReason=%5B%5BWikipedia%3AFiles+for+discussion%2F2022+January+12%23File%3ATNBC+%281993-2000%29+logo.png%5D%5D){kind=link}
_logo.png&action=history){kind=link}
_logo.png){kind=link}
.jpg&action=delete&wpReason=%5B%5BWikipedia%3AFiles+for+discussion%2F2022+January+12%23File%3ANicholas+Alahverdian+%28Proivdence+Journal%29.jpg%5D%5D){kind=link}
.jpg&action=history){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
