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 image is asserted to be PD due to age, but there is no information about the origins of this painting to verify the PD status. Whpq (talk) 13:38, 1 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. We don't know the author, if they're alive, the date of creation, the jurisdiction it was created in. It know it's a pain, but these things get snagged by image searches and bots, and you can get somebody sued. GMGtalk 11:43, 2 July 2023 (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:Killing of Nael M. Video.ogv
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.
Originally nominated at MFD which is the wrong venue. Moving the nomination here. The original nomination statement is:
I don't think that a video can be considered minimal use per WP:NFCC#3. Hddty (talk) 07:49, 1 July 2023 (UTC) Whpq (talk) 20:42, 1 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. A text description can suffice as a replacement for this non-free media. SWinxy (talk) 22:18, 1 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom, although copyright concerns are nowhere near this file's biggest issues. The kid was shot in the head only four days ago. His funeral was today. And yet the lead image in the first link in the Main Page's In the News section is video footage of him being killed. I'm well aware of WP:NOTCENSORED, but, come on, this is exceptionally poor taste, and just not a good look for Wikipedia. A Thousand Doors (talk | contribs) 00:26, 2 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Why is this an issue? The video has already been widely distributed across the world; I highly object to the prospect that Wikipedia is somehow looking bad for showcasing the same video that most media outlets are showcasing. I haven't heard any of Nahel's family denounce this; so should we delete the lead images showcasing the Killing of Tyre Nichols or Murder of George Floyd because it's in "poor taste?" - Knightoftheswords (Talk·Contribs) 01:32, 2 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - minimal usage (less than a quarter of the full video used; if needed, it can be trimmed more). Videos are allowed as NFC (see WP:NFCP - Other non-free content—including all copyrighted images, audio and video clips, and other media files that lack a free content license—may be used on the English Wikipedia...; in addition to that, parts of WP:NFC specifically address non-free videos). - Knightoftheswords (Talk·Contribs) 01:26, 2 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Knightoftheswords281. The fair use template says that “The sample is short in relation to the duration of the recorded track and is of an inferior quality to the original recording.” (Which it does meet.) SBS6577P (talk) 03:37, 2 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Minimal use. 11 seconds would be more minimal than 12, 10 more minimal than 11. The only way you terminate that reasoning is with a still image. We have pretty painfully detailed guidance that even with a still image, it needs to be fairly low resolution. So it's a hard sell to argue that even a high resolution image would violate the minimal standard, but a video instead of an image wouldn't.And anyway, the video isn't the subject of the article as a creative work in-and-of-itself. The event is the subject of the article. Most of that heavy lifting can and should be done with prose and free media. GMGtalk 11:26, 2 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete If we used non-free use rationale for any file we consider important enough at any given time, then seemingly anyone could upload a non-free use file with justification that it is “significant” simply because one or some feel that way at a given time. That time usually being shortly after an event or news story. There are already enough pages on Wikipedia with non-free images, the rationale for some less questionable than others. Considering this event occurred extremely recently, we as readers and editors right now have no idea how significant it will be in the next 1, 5, or even 10 years. Unlike fictional characters or historical figures, the file depicting this event or person may not have significant historical value. Not to mention the necessity for the video; most people can probably imagine someone being shot in a car. Also this could set a precedent that every time someone or anyone gets shot, and the shooting is caught on camera, such a video could/should be added to its respective Wikipedia article. The video is in poor taste, violates copyright, and is unnecessary. I suggest instead using a still from the video, pictures of the location where the event occurred, or the subsequent protest instead. Bobertrobert0709 (talk) 14:49, 2 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per GreenMeansGo's rationale. Prose and free media can do the job, and the video doesn't met minimal use per nomination. Abzeronow (talk) 19:11, 2 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: although I find GreenMeansGo's rationale persuasive in the abstract, discussion of this particular video and its impact does make up a significant part of Killing of Nahel Merzouk. I wonder if perhaps reducing the resolution and placing the video in the "contradicted by video" section of the article would address some of the concerns here? Otherwise, I think File:George Floyd neck knelt on by police officer.png (single frame with reduced resolution) probably represents best practice. -- Visviva (talk) 22:58, 2 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete we almost never use unfree video media because a still image is more than sufficient in most contexts. Dronebogus (talk) 04:11, 3 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, according to the uploader this is a trimmed sequence from the original source which was significantly longer. Many editors above are not basing their !vote on any specific WP:PAG, but rather their own personal opinion around non-free media. Could this video clip be shortened further? Perhaps, if NFCC requirements are determined to demand it, but deletion? Absolutely not. The clip (not a still) is relevant and important to readers as the initial defense presented by the police was that an officer was about to be ran over (which is clearly debunked in this clip, as noted in sources that have seen this clip). For NFCC stills we reduce resolution to minimize use. For NFCC audio, we limit the length of clips to no more than 30 seconds or a certain percentage of the overall work (whichever is shorter). For NFCC video, I suspect it will be a combination of these two: lower resolution than the original source (unless it's already low as this really is, and even if reduction is necessary, not to the point that it's impossible to make out any important details); a temporal reduction (shorter clip) that doesn't take away from the rights of the copyright owner. Of course, in the alternative, @Knightoftheswords281: could attempt to reach out to the uploader to ask if they would be willing to release a shortened/reduced (or ideally, the original clip) as under a CC-BY-SA license (never hurts to ask). —Locke Cole • t • c 21:25, 3 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: I added an archive URL to the file description (since the Twitter source is now unavailable). The original file is 40s in length. This clip is 12s in length, so about 30% of the original clip is used here. I do think it could be trimmed further, perhaps to as little as 5s (which would get us down to 12-13% of the original file; likely the bare minimum to still give readers a frame of reference before the incident occurs). —Locke Cole • t • c 06:19, 5 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Mmm - the policy is quite clear IMO - WP:NFCC#3 (3b to be precise) - "Minimal extent of use - an entire work is not used if a portion will suffice". For this media, the minimal amount is a screenshot, exactly as we have done in the other articles mentioned above. Black Kite (talk) 07:24, 5 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
A screenshot doesn't show that the officer was never in any danger of being ran over, which is precisely what the police claimed initially. the minimal amount is a screenshot The policy does not state that. We have non-free audio and there's little reason to avoid non-free video especially for things for which there will never be a free version (as is this case). I'll reiterate my concession that a shortened clip is possible at a lower resolution (either by cropping in or reducing overall resolution, or some combination of the two). —Locke Cole • t • c 05:42, 6 July 2023 (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.
