Wikipedia:Files for discussion/2022 March 29

< March 28	March 30 >

March 29[edit]

File:London 25th&26th Feb and Lichfield 4th Mar 399.jpg[edit]

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 ⚡ 13:17, 5 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Photograph of an illustration from an almost certainly interior museum display. Photographer is unlikely to be the actual copyright holder of the work. Lord Belbury (talk) 09:21, 29 March 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:Mike Kinsella Hockey Pavillion.jpg[edit]

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. Ixfd64 (talk) 21:22, 5 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Unused crop of File:Hockey Pavillion.jpg on Commons. ✗plicit 13:17, 29 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, redundant to Commons file. Salavat (talk) 03:35, 30 March 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:Camaron Ochs--Heartforward.jpg[edit]

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 ⚡ 16:19, 5 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Was only being used on album article Heartforward which is now deleted due to non-notability, so there's no reason to keep this. QuietHere (talk) 13:46, 29 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, orphaned with no obvious value. @QuietHere: Note that non-free files will automatically be deleted after seven days of being tagged as orphaned, {{subst:Orfud}}. There is no need to nominate at FFD. Salavat (talk) 03:39, 30 March 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:Will Smith slaps Chris Rock.jpg[edit]

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: keep. At the end of the day, NFCC #8 is a highly subjective criterion. Theoretically, Wikipedia could do without non-free images entirely and rely solely on text, so no non-free image is essential to the point that Wikipedia could not function. However, the English Wikipedia has chosen to allow non-free images, and since quantifying things like "significantly" and "detrimental" are impossible, I will defer to the opinion of the overwhelming majority of participants here since I find neither side to be stronger or more policy-based on a per-!vote level.

I will note that there is relatively little discussion on NFCC #2. Therefore, there will be no prejudice against further discussion of which specific image to use, or renomination solely on those grounds if no suitable version can be agreed on. However, the question of NFCC #1 and #8 are considered settled per this discussion. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 06:10, 10 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

WP:NFCCP#8 Non-free content is used only if its presence would significantly increase readers' understanding of the article topic, and its omission would be detrimental to that understanding. The article Will Smith–Chris Rock Oscars altercation doesn't need the image necessarily, to aid the user's understanding of the incident. - hako9 (talk) 15:42, 29 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

9/11 has the image of the twin towers burning to show the viewer what happened during the event. Your statement is completely false and the altercation article needs the image. TheSecondComing10 (talk) 15:44, 29 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

False analogy. (CC) Tbhotch^™ 16:37, 29 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

We don't actually have any non-free images in September 11 attacks.— Diannaa (talk) 20:18, 29 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Diannaa: We do in American Airlines Flight 11 though, not that it matters. --IWI (talk) 01:50, 6 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep If File:Kanye-West-grabs-the-mic-2009-vma.jpg and can stay, so can this. --Nyescum (talk) 15:47, 29 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
12 yr old discussion. Precedent is not established. Are you trying to say, without this image, a rational user of wikipedia will not be able to understand the topic? This is an encyclopedia, not a tabloid. WP:NFCCP is very clear. - hako9 (talk) 15:54, 29 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
How about File:Janet Jackson & Justin Timberlake's wardrobe malfunction.jpg? --Nyescum (talk) 17:02, 29 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
WP:OTHERSTUFF. (CC) Tbhotch^™ 17:56, 29 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
My point still stands. If those incidents are significant enough to keep an image of the exact moment it happened, this one should be no different. --Nyescum (talk) 18:05, 29 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

"OTHERSTUFF" is often misused by Wikipedia editors as a weapon for double standard. 182.1.84.239 (talk) 01:46, 7 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, at the moment I noticed people were asking to put this incident on the main page, I realized people had started to treat it in a tabloidesque manner. Two days later, we have Will Smith assault of Chris Rock at the Oscars, an unnecessary fork of an event that will be remember as anecdotal and related to the ceremony itself. The image doesn't satisfy the NFCC as it is just a male slapping another male and its ommision is not fundamental to understand the concept of slapping. (CC) Tbhotch^™ 16:46, 29 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I understand the impulse to dismiss tabloidesque material, but the article has been kept -- so if we're going to do something, do it right. See Alexis Jazz's comments' below: the picture tells us a LOT about the incident, the nature of the slap, etc. Feoffer (talk) 00:11, 3 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Like the picture in 9/11, the image shows what happened during the incident. TheSecondComing10 (talk) 17:37, 29 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Did you try to click the images and notice that those pictures are not copyrighted? (CC) Tbhotch^™ 17:56, 29 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Tbhotch, why do you think those pictures are not copyrighted? They came from the TV broadcast, right? 73.127.147.187 (talk) 04:40, 8 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Or did I misunderstand? 73.127.147.187 (talk) 04:41, 8 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I'm talking about the 9/11 article. (CC) Tbhotch^™ 10:32, 8 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nomination + Tbhotch's reasoning. QuietHere (talk) 18:25, 29 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. As someone who didn't watch the ceremony and skips the tabloids (I had heard the news but not seen any images), I found it helpful. Did he knock his teeth out? No, doesn't look like it. Did his hand merely huggle his face? No, a bit more than that. They are both wearing a suit, which tells me something about the setting. Their stances give me an idea of who's engaging/anticipating: Chris doesn't appear to have seen it coming: he didn't raise his arms or try to block. This can not be conveyed effectively using just text, and even if you could (and no, my description doesn't convey it effectively), you still couldn't because it would be original research. — Alexis Jazz (talk or ping me) 18:59, 29 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
What you're basing your argument on here is entirely trivial. The focus of the article isn't about what clothes they were wearing or how good Smith is at throwing a punch, it's just meant to tell you that this incident occurred and give context surrounding it. The level of detail you're including is beyond the scope of this website. And just because you don't watch the Oscars broadcast doesn't mean it is unreasonable to find the footage elsewhere. The justification regarding use of copyrighted material is this strict for a reason, and half-baked justifications like this just make it more clear to me why deleting is the right move. QuietHere (talk) 20:09, 29 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
QuietHere, your arguments are half-baked. Settings and details matter. Wikipedia intents to inform and educate. If you want headlines, go to Twitter. If they had been in a more secluded space in casual gear, it would change the perspective. If Rock had been in a defensive stance, it would change the perspective. An image explains the situation better than a thousand words. Your argument that it "doesn't mean it is unreasonable to find the footage elsewhere" is as flawed as it gets: this applies to essentially every single non-free file we have here. Are you planning on nominating all 161,543 of them using this rationale? If you disagree with the existence of the Exemption Doctrine Policy as a whole, voting down individual files is not the answer. — Alexis Jazz (talk or ping me) 01:58, 30 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Also, WP:original research doesn't apply to the description of things: "A primary source may be used on Wikipedia only to make straightforward, descriptive statements of facts that can be verified by any educated person with access to the primary source but without further, specialized knowledge". (CC) Tbhotch^™ 20:31, 29 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Fails NFCC#1 (no free equivalent), as describing the event using words is a reasonable substitute for the non-free image. Everybody knows what a slap looks like. — Diannaa (talk) 20:21, 29 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Everybody knows what a slap looks like Images can become symbols in their own right. As just one example, a Dominican artist has already created a mural on a section of the Berlin Wall that utilizes this Smith-Rock image as an element in a larger piece. This isn't a new phenomenon -- Comprehension of DuChamp's L.H.O.O.Q. is predicated upon visual familiarity with Da Vinci's Mona Lisa, even though "Everybody knows what a lady looks likes". Feoffer (talk) 22:19, 2 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

A gentle slap is very different from a forceful slap. The picture gives a good depiction of the implied force of the slap, and thus avoids endless edit warring about how the describe the force of the slap. We have WP:NFCCP#8 for a good reason. Let's not shoot ourselves in the foot here. 78.19.232.48 (talk) 10:37, 3 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Why couldn't we describe absolutely any subject with words? Everybody knows what a human looks like, and we can get much more detailed than that with words. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 17:07, 8 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: You can't justify this image by insinuating that people cannot transcribe this incident in words, yet they need a copyrighted image owned by the producers of the telecast, the Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences (AMPAS), to have an ounce of understanding of the altercation? mediafanatic17 talk 21:20, 29 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. per Diannaa. ––FormalDude talk 21:31, 29 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: As a note, the parent article has been nominated for deletion. Ixfd64 (talk) 23:31, 29 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. This image lets me know that I've landed on the correct page and is intrinsically tied to the article's subject. If the absence of the image would make me want to go to Google to see what something looks like just to understand what's going on, especially when it's the subject of its own article, I find that enough to satisfy NFCC #8. -BRAINULATOR9 (TALK) 21:28, 30 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The nomination is taking a policy that is already written unnecessarily strictly (compared to what is actually necessary for compliance with the relevant laws), and interpreting it in as strict a manner as possible. This clearly improves understanding of the topic compared to just describing the event in text. Deletion would make our coverage of the event, and therefore Wikipedia, worse -- I have seen no argument here that deletion of the file would improve Wikipedia, nor am I convinced that our policies mandate such an action. Elli (talk | contribs) 05:55, 31 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
It is quite concerning to see editors pull out all the stops, to justify keeping copyrighted images because they think our readers are too stupid to know what a slap is, or maybe they can't bear seeing an article without an image. A policy that is already written unnecessarily strictly?? You can't be serious. You are essentially asking us to not be too unyielding and scrupulous regarding our core policies. Let's just allow ourselves a little leeway. I mean, the old geezers who wrote the policy can't have been too literal, right? You are correct about legal compliance. Using a low res image, allows wikipedia an escape. But indiscriminate usage of non-free images across wikipedia, under the garb of "improves understanding (atleast for me, that is)", makes us no better than tabloids covering celeb gossip. - hako9 (talk) 08:46, 31 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think our readers are are too stupid to know what a slap is; I think this image helps improve comprehension beyond what a simple description in text would do (for example, showing facial expressions and body language which are much easier to see than to describe in writing, especially given the lack of reliable sourcing describing it, since, well, you can just look at the image). NFCC is written unnecessarily restrictively, and I don't accept that because it was written a long time ago, it's a great policy. It isn't, and common sense should, as anywhere on Wikipedia, be applied when determining how it should be interpreted. I wouldn't call this usage "indiscriminate" -- it's one image, of an event, that has no free images available to illustrate it. You've acknowledged that there is no legal issue here. Elli (talk | contribs) 11:53, 31 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: The file was added to 94th Academy Awards#Will Smith-Chris Rock slapping incident earlier today with a corresponding rationale also being added to the file's page. The image was subsequently boldly removed for "WP:Fair use" reasons, but there's a good chance it will be re-added again at some point. So, it might be a good idea to also discuss this alternative use as well and perhaps for everyone to clarify their WP:!VOTEs accordingly if needed. This FFD could actually have multiple "keep" outcomes: use only in the stand-alone article about the incident itself or use in other articles as well. It will be much easier to close this discussion if this distinction is made; otherwise, a simple "keep" close might be interpreted as meaning the file is OK to use in all articles (e.g. Chris Rock and Will Smith) as long as a rationale is provided for the relevant use. Personally, I'm not sure about whether the file should be kept, but I'm almost positive (per item 6 of WP:NFC#UUI) that the only possible justifiable use would be in the stand-alone article about the incident itself. -- Marchjuly (talk) 06:08, 31 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This usage is well within fair-use laws, and as far as enwiki image use policy goes, clearly it does significantly increase readers' understanding of the incident. This kind of interpretation of copyright policy, on the other hand, leads to very poor results for readers' understanding. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 19:58, 31 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
~~Delete~~ Changed to comment(see below) as violating WP:NFCCP #2 ("Respect for commercial opportunities. Non-free content is not used in a manner that is likely to replace the original market role of the original copyrighted material."). Our use of the image for visual depiction in an article about the event is the exact same original market role as the New York Times usage in its article which is identified as the source of the image and that NYT article is active on its website and only a few days old. As of the time I am adding this !vote, I see absolutely no sourced commentary about the image itself in our article. We have added nothing transformative in description or purpose that would suggest this a fair use under U.S. copyright law as interpreted in case law. See m:Wikilegal/Primer_on_U.S._Fair_Use/Copyright_Law_for_Website#Conclusion. 68.189.242.116 (talk) 01:23, 2 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- IP has a point here. NYT photo credit reads "Ruth Fremson/The New York Times". So we can't use that particular image. Nyescum had overwritten it with a similar image, but according to [1] this one is from Reuters. I've just overwritten it once more, with a still from [2] ("Clip courtesy A.M.P.A.S. ©2022"). — Alexis Jazz (talk or ping me) 04:12, 2 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  - And User:Feoffer then partially reverted your changes (diff) reverting the image to the Reuters one while leaving the source description incorrectly attributing it to the video version you uploaded. 68.189.242.116 (talk) 16:07, 2 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  - No longer violates NFCCP #2 if the video still version is not reverted again. 68.189.242.116 (talk) 18:15, 3 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  - The reliably sourced commentary on the Reuters image itself and the correct source information that have both been subsequently added to the article, in my opinion, demonstrates that our usage of the Reuters image is no longer an obvious violation of NFCCP #2. I am agnostic on other editing criteria. 68.189.242.116 (talk) 17:22, 4 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - per Diannaa. - FlightTime (open channel) 07:38, 2 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per ProcrastinatingReader HurricaneEdgar 10:23, 2 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per all the other keeps. The delete arguments are an overly strict interpretation of an overly strict policy. The wiki fair use policy is and always has been nuts. This photo is in countless sources all over the world and is anyone getting sued for using it? NO Seven Pandas (talk) 11:54, 2 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Notable image of notable event, its omission would be detrimental to the readers. NFCC is easily met Feoffer (talk) 20:28, 2 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Alexis Jazz, Elli, and ProcrastinatingReader. A picture is worth a thousand words, and fair use. Huggums537 (talk) 22:57, 2 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I would also like to add that I think the Alexis Jazz version is the best one for legal purposes even though it doesn't look the best, but it can be resized or whatever. Huggums537 (talk) 00:54, 3 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Either we have WP:NFCCP#8 or we don't. The idea that a large article with over 100 good quality RS on the slapping incident doesn't need an actual picture of the slap, which clearly shows the implied force of the slap without edit-warring over a written description, to help readers makes no sense. The copyright restrictions are already onerous in Wikipedia and have held it back (despite the fact that others such as Google can list any image in searches and earn money off them regardless of copyright), lets not shoot ourselves in the other foot as well. 78.19.232.48 (talk) 10:22, 3 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete this file. This image and the article makes me wanna throw up. 202.9.46.198 (talk) 15:53, 3 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Not a good reason to delete this. Can you elaborate further on a better reason? Pyraminxsolver (talk) 23:52, 3 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This reason to delete this. is likely called WP:IDONTLIKEIT HurricaneEdgar 01:44, 4 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The funny thing is, while you quote that, your's and many other keep !votes are just WP:PERX and WP:EVERYONEELSE and WP:ILIKEIT. - hako9 (talk) 09:03, 5 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Alexis Jazz, Elli, and ProcrastinatingReader. Easily fair use. Urbanracer34 (talk) 17:39, 3 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Diannaa's argument. And the reader isn't particularly informed by a still image of a slap. Ovinus (talk) 20:32, 3 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep though it should be replaced with a GIF or video of the slap. An image is most certainly lacking in showing (in full) what happened, but sending it straight to FFD without uploading a GIF/video in it's place is rather lame. Procedural keep and will gladly change to delete if someone uploads a GIF/video in it's place.—Mythdon (talk • contribs) 22:50, 3 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Incident can be described with words. --Jax 0677 (talk) 23:16, 3 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for poor quality in regards to the Manual of Style. The previous image there taken from the New York Times would’ve been perfect, but alas, it’s not free so it was ostensibly deleted and replaced with this blurry mess. Trillfendi (talk) 23:24, 3 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment and Delete This image is of a screenshot from a video, most likely YouTube, but looks like it's set to a very low quality. The same image can be captured in the same way but at a higher quality setting. The blurriness looks really muddy and doesn't capture a lot of the detail of the incident compared to the other picture we had. Pyraminxsolver (talk) 23:50, 3 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- Pyraminxsolver, YouTube is the origin (which is a capture of Seven Network uploaded by The Guardian), but the quality of my captures is among the best. This is all YouTube has to offer and it's 1080p. Even if you had the original broadcast that wouldn't be much better. A 4K broadcast could be a slight improvement (if it even exists, which I doubt, but who knows), but the blur is mostly the result of motion blur, so even that is likely to be barely an improvement. The actual slap happened on a wide shot. — Alexis Jazz (talk or ping me) 08:27, 4 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  - I think Trillfendi and Pyraminxsolver are arguing that the iconic Snyder image should be kept. I don't think they are criticizing screenshot technique. Feoffer (talk) 09:06, 4 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    - Feoffer, Pyraminxsolver said "looks like it's set to a very low quality" and that's just not true. It's a crop from a wide shot, so naturally it's not that sharp. I'm personally unsure exactly what it takes for a press photo to be allowable as non-free. The requirement is "unless the photo itself is the subject of sourced commentary in the article", Reuters is not strictly impartial here, but CNN is legit coverage. If that's enough to keep the Reuters image it's fine by me. — Alexis Jazz (talk or ping me) 09:40, 4 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Another comment Is there any way we can contact the copyright holder of a high-quality image to see if we have permission to use it on the Wiki? Pyraminxsolver (talk) 23:53, 3 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- Pyraminxsolver, press agencies are sometimes willing to give Wikipedia permission to use an image (just contact them, make sure they add permissions-en wikimedia.org to the cc when they reply), but are extremely unlikely to release anything under a free license as that conflicts with their business model. Though, if we conclude that some non-free image should be kept in the article, Wikipedia-only noncommercial permission from a press agency should override WP:GETTY IMHO. Edit: I asked Reuters for Wikipedia-only permission, let's see what happens. — Alexis Jazz (talk or ping me) 10:38, 4 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  - Reuters said no to giving permission. So if we use it, we'll have to rely on fair use alone. — Alexis Jazz (talk or ping me) 17:55, 5 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment -- It's important to note that multiple different images have been used under this same filename. This seems like bad practice, it's harder to know what people are commenting on when the image changes from moment to moment. Originally, this filename referred to the iconic photo by Brian Snyder. Synder and his image have gotten quite a lot of press directly, CNN Reuters with even more extensive coverage in photography circle, with sources already speculating the image will "surely" the win World Press Photo Of The Year. Synder's image is culturally significant, being referenced in an artist's mural painted on a section of the Berlin wall. A second version, under the same filename, is a blurry screenshot from the broadcast. The iconic Synder image is better, NFCCP allows us to include notable photographs that are the subject of public discussion.Feoffer (talk) 00:20, 4 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Restore the image to photo by Brian Snyder and keep The article refers to all of the acclaim that Snyder has received for his photograph. It does not at all make sense to mention the now iconic photo of the incident and not show said photo. JDDJS (talk to me • see what I've done) 02:53, 4 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per others { [ ( jjj 1238 ) ] } 11:40, 4 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This is a case where the image does significantly increase readers' understanding of the article topic, specifically by showing the impact on Rock, which would be difficult to convey in words.-- Pawnkingthree (talk) 16:25, 4 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep the Chris ROck Photo it is neeeded 2600:1702:E10:2A10:9595:328B:8F3:61D5 (talk) 21:08, 4 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Essential to researchers. Per others. niko3818 (talk) 01:34, 5 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep the image - it is mandatory, as it shows the context of the slap. Unskathd (talk) 17:15, 5 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep this is THE iconic image of the incident, so its vital to the article. There probably isnt a strong enough case to use it on the Oscars or Will Smith pages, but certainly for this one. jonas (talk) 21:43, 5 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as long as this subsection exists and the image stays as Brian Snyder's version. I was thinking for a while about this, and I was leaning towards delete for a while, but then an entire subsection was added about the significance of Brian Snyder's image. I'd support moving the image down to that subsection since obviously, text can't describe the image and it would serve a more significant purpose there, namely, showing the worthwhileness of the commentary on Snyder's image. I can't say I don't get why the nominator put this file up for deletion though, before the commentary on the photograph was in the article; if the section gets removed, then I don't think the case for WP:NFCC#8 would be met and I'd support deletion, per Feoffer's comment above. — Coolperson177 (t|c) 00:29, 6 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep because I think it meets the fair use criteria, and its omission would be detrimental to the reader's understanding, especially in the distant future. --IWI (talk) 01:54, 6 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Conditional keep per Coolperson177, if and only if the section discussing the significance of the photograph stays. The other argument for keep (increase reader understanding through better context etc.) is incorrect IMO, especially when it comes to "estimating the strength of the slap", because then a video would be needed rather than a still photograph. Tigraan^{Click here for my talk page ("private" contact)} 09:26, 6 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Perhaps a gif of the slap would be critical, especially to make sure that we don't allow the speculation that it was staged to creep back into the discourse with the sands of time, and to provide direct evidentiary grounds for Rock's not expecting it until moment of impact, and to vindicate him - not letting the sick entitled privilege that bolstered Smith to attack a professional at work then not get kicked out (rather recieve standing ovation for the crazy icing on his batshit cake)... Don't let the elite machine bury this bullying, stand up for the victim - I'm not articulate enough to get across points, but I think removing the 1st hand evidence only serves the perpetrator and anyone uncomfortable with drawing attention to the ugly naked insanity at play — Preceding unsigned comment added by Alt-shifty-ex (talk • contribs) 15:57, 3 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment by Alt-shifty-ex copied from section below. Noting that this is the only edit Alt-shifty-ex ever made. (FfD is not strictly a vote anyway) — Alexis Jazz (talk or ping me) 19:09, 6 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. This article needs an illustration that clearly establishes what actually happened. Auror Andrachome (talk) 01:08, 7 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep -- a slap can mean many different things, and the image is useful in establishing what the slap looked like (and its immediate impact on Chris Rock). Since it enhances the article, it should be kept. -- Rockstone^{Send me a message!} 01:32, 7 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The image does significantly help the reader understand the article in my opinion. No reason to delete. Rhino131 (talk) 04:28, 7 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Current fair use rationale implies that we use it for critical commentary of the image itself. If it's kept, I think it should be moved to Will Smith–Chris Rock slapping incident#Photograph, where the actual critical commentary about the image itself appears. MarioGom (talk) 07:13, 7 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Ticket 2022040510007711 is relevant for anyone with access to WP:VRT. ···日本穣 · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 18:07, 7 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I want to highlight WP:NFCC#2 based on above ticket. Jonatan Svensson Glad (talk) 01:54, 10 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep: It provides primary visual identification to the article's subject matter, the way a film poster or video game cover does to a film/VG article, which is a perfectly acceptable use of fair use in Wikipedia. Gerald WL 16:44, 8 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - For any image which illustrates the subject of a stand-alone article, where it is not realistic to expect a free alternative (I don't consider text-based descriptions a free alternative except insofar as we could do that for any subject), the bar is going to be pretty high to convince me it doesn't add much to the article. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 17:16, 8 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This an iconic picture that captures an event that won't be forgotten, regardless what thoughts you have on the subject, this image perfectly represents the event on what happened and why it was so shocking. No reason to delete. - User:Dragonsblood23 — Preceding undated comment added 19:06, 8 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This image is needed to illustrate the content of the article itself. Will629 (talk) 21:19, 8 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This image is exactly the type of case to which WP:NFCCP#8 applies. —Lowellian (reply) 07:43, 9 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep deleting this image would be a slap in the face for humanity. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 09:58, 9 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: If the Academy tries to go after us for "copyright," why can't we argue that it's a conflict of interest for the institution on whose property this incident occurred; with whose members this incident occurred; gets to take down an image of the incident that happened on their watch? Isn't that like saying BP gets to take down an image of the Deepwater Horizon Oil Spill? Or that Tepco gets to take down an image of the Fukushima nuclear accident? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2607:FEA8:FF01:4970:6C6D:C956:72:EA0A (talk) 13:48, 9 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Clearly iconic image of the event that shows its immediate impact. Bsoyka (talk) 16:35, 9 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I think it meets the fair use standard. Iamreallygoodatcheckers (talk) 17:58, 9 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Are people just marking things for deletion out of boredom? I see literally no good reason not to keep this. --85.165.53.206 (talk) 20:45, 9 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Unclear consensus. For Reuters copyright please see here. This link contains the terms and conditions from Reuters Pictures. — B. L. I. R. 21:02, 9 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Addendum: For Seven Network, which is used by TheGuardian.com for the representation of the incident to the public, Australian courts say that no copyright is allowed in over-the-air digital TV transmission. YouTube's Terms of Service say that distribution of any part of video content is not allowed without prior permission. — B. L. I. R. 21:17, 9 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I agree with user:Rhododendrites. We now have a standalone article about the incident, with a section explicitly discussing the Brian Snyder photograph Will Smith–Chris Rock slapping incident#Photograph. Even if no other articles do, that article needs this image. The suggestion that WP:NFCCP 1 (No free equivalent) is violated because the image could be described in text is not valid. The intent of NFCCP 1 cannot be to include the possibility of text descriptions since by that standard no image would ever qualify for Fair Use. Meters (talk) 21:42, 9 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Absolutely fair use. There is nothing to discuss about it. Victor311 (talk) 02:25 April 10th, 2022 (UTC)
Keep If the image is truly not needed because it can be interpreted using words, then why don't we remove all movie posters? You can still find out its release date, cast, and characters by reading the article, so surely according to this logic it's not needed. Nojus R (talk) 03:25, 10 April 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:A typical road on The Darras Hall Estate.jpg[edit]

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 ⚡ 01:01, 6 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Doubtful own work claim due to low resolution and Facebook string in metadata. Image is not used anywhere. Ixfd64 (talk) 17:16, 29 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nomination. QuietHere (talk) 18:28, 29 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Neutral and comment Low resolution and Facebook string doesn't seem to imply it isn't one's own work. I don't see any reason why this would be falsified, especially if it is not used anywhere.--MY CHEMICAL ROMANCE IS REAL EMO!_{(talk or whatever)} 14:09, 4 April 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:Leigh-Anne Race, Pop and Power screenshot.png[edit]

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 ⚡ 01:01, 6 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The screenshot is used in the synopsis section of Leigh-Anne: Race, Pop & Power in that the section describes the television show and is not critical commentary of the image itself. The fair use rationale states its purpose is "For identification and commentary on the documentary." The image fails WP:NFCC#3a since the title screen already illustrates the article and there is no critical commentary of the image itself in the article, it does nothing to increase the reader's understanding of the film and its exclusion is not detrimental to the understanding of the film, thereby failing WP:NFCC#8. Aspects (talk) 18:52, 29 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nomination. QuietHere (talk) 20:04, 29 March 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:Napster image.pnj.png[edit]

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 ⚡ 01:01, 6 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Unused screenshot of copyrighted website. Ixfd64 (talk) 21:14, 29 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, orphaned with questionable licensing. Salavat (talk) 03:42, 30 March 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:Napoleon mid thumb.png[edit]

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 ⚡ 01:01, 6 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Unused screenshot of non-free [3] software. Graph could be recreated without the program if necessary. Ixfd64 (talk) 21:16, 29 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, orphaned with questionable licensing. Salavat (talk) 03:43, 30 March 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:Nintendoscreen.JPG[edit]

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 ⚡ 01:01, 6 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Unused screenshot of presumably non-free website. Ixfd64 (talk) 21:34, 29 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, orphaned with questionable licensing. Salavat (talk) 03:43, 30 March 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:NissanCedricY31GTModelKit.JPG[edit]

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 ⚡ 01:01, 6 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Unused and low-quality derivative work of copyrighted packaging. Ixfd64 (talk) 21:35, 29 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, orphaned with questionable licensing. Salavat (talk) 03:43, 30 March 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:Kanye-West-grabs-the-mic-2009-vma.jpg[edit]

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: keep. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 05:54, 10 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

As per WP:NFCCP#8, Non-free content is used only if its presence would significantly increase readers' understanding of the article topic, and its omission would be detrimental to that understanding. Inclusion of the image is not fundamental to understand the concept of holding a microphone. Also, as per WP:NFCCP#1, the incident can be described with prose as a reasonable substitute for a non-free image. 9³ (talk) 22:09, 29 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Pinging participants in related discussion above: @Hako9, Tbhotch, Diannaa, Nyescum, TheSecondComing10, QuietHere, Mediafanatic17, FormalDude, Ixfd64, and Alexis Jazz: 9³ (talk) 17:08, 30 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I'm more neutral on this one, weak delete I suppose. Due to the low resolution and high compression you can't even see their faces. And all the details that are relevant to the story can probably be described with text or freely licensed pictures. Side note: an audio file of the actual interruption would IMHO be more informative. — Alexis Jazz (talk or ping me) 21:09, 30 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Should be yeeted from wikipedia, along the lines of File:Will Smith slaps Chris Rock.jpg. The image cannot, in any way, be assumed to significantly increase our readers' understanding of the topic. - hako9 (talk) 08:58, 31 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Nice to see one deletion discussion resulting in the nomination to delete more images mostly along the line of WP:POINT. This is well within fair-use laws, and as far as enwiki image use policy goes, clearly it does significantly increase readers' understanding of the Kanye West/Taylor Swift incident. This kind of interpretation of copyright policy, on the other hand, leads to very poor results for readers' understanding. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 19:55, 31 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- Also see consensus in the widely attended previous FFD here. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 10:47, 1 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, and I don't see the validity of bringing up WP:POINT here at all. This is an open discussion, just like every other XFD. There's no bold deletions or haphazard edits being made, simply a proposal based on existing policy. If 93 (or any other editor) had gone for a speedy delete of either this or the Janet Jackson image while the Smith/Rock discussion is still open, that'd be a different question, but there's nothing illegitimate about asking a question. QuietHere (talk) 21:04, 31 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Notable image, its absence would be detrimental. Per ProcastinatingReader, nomination seemed designed to prove a point about the Smith-Rock Oscars discussion above. Feoffer (talk) 21:31, 2 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Widely commented-upon moment which the image shows. Notable occasion. Binksternet (talk) 22:00, 2 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. per all the others. Seven Pandas (talk) 22:30, 2 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Although consensus can change, none of the arguments for keeping it in 2009 have lost any weight. Nice WP:POINTY nomination, though. (Also, was "yeeting" a thing in 2009?) -- Rockstone^{Send me a message!} 01:34, 7 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per above - Notable, helps illustrate the section significantly, no viable replacement, consensus remains from the 2009 decision. BlackholeWA (talk) 01:59, 9 April 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:Janet Jackson & Justin Timberlake's wardrobe malfunction.jpg[edit]

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: Keep -FASTILY 00:04, 6 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

As per WP:NFCCP#8, Non-free content is used only if its presence would significantly increase readers' understanding of the article topic, and its omission would be detrimental to that understanding. Inclusion of the image is not fundamental to understand the concept of a wardrobe malfunction. Also, as per WP:NFCCP#1, the incident can be described with prose as a reasonable substitute for a non-free image. 9³ (talk) 22:10, 29 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. For the expression on their faces alone this file should be kept. That's difficult to capture in words, and even more difficult to capture in sourced words. If either of them was, for example, grinning, it would put the entire event in another light. Also to show how much of a wardrobe malfunction. While that part can technically be described with text, it isn't an easy thing to visualize based on a text description. — Alexis Jazz (talk or ping me) 21:03, 30 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Alexis Jazz. Elli (talk | contribs) 05:55, 31 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep As above: Nice to see one deletion discussion resulting in the nomination to delete more images mostly along the line of WP:POINT. This is well within fair-use laws, and as far as enwiki image use policy goes, clearly it does significantly increase readers' understanding of the incident. This kind of interpretation of copyright policy, on the other hand, leads to very poor results for readers' understanding. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 19:56, 31 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nomination, and admittedly in part because of the absurdity of the above "facial expressions" argument. This isn't an art piece, we don't need to capture anyone's emotional state. If we wanted to know how any involved party felt about the incident, we'd look for an interview with them where they talk about it and pull quotes from there. QuietHere (talk) 20:59, 31 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Notable image, its absence would be detrimental. Per ProcastinatingReader, nomination seemed designed to prove a point about the Smith-Rock Oscars discussion above. Feoffer (talk) 21:30, 2 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This is a fair use screenshot of the controversy used for identification purposes in the controversy article it is located in. There is no free equivalent image, so it passes WP:NFCC#1. The entire article is enough critical commentary to justify its inclusion in the article, its inclusion helps the readers understanding of the controversy and its removal would be detrimental to the understanding of the controversy, thereby passing WP:NFCC#8. Aspects (talk) 21:36, 2 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Widely discussed in the media, the moment captured by this image is very notable. The image shows aspects that cannot be conveyed easily in prose. Binksternet (talk) 22:02, 2 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. per the other keeps. Seven Pandas (talk) 22:30, 2 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This incident is so notable that we actually have an article about the incident itself, rather than just a mention of the incident in another article, and there is no way to adequately describe the costumes, body positions, and actions such that eliminating this image would not be detrimental to the understanding of the controversy. Meters (talk) 23:42, 2 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Perhaps a gif of the slap would be critical, especially to make sure that we don't allow the speculation that it was staged to creep back into the discourse with the sands of time, and to provide direct evidentiary grounds for Rock's not expecting it until moment of impact, and to vindicate him - not letting the sick entitled privilege that bolstered Smith to attack a professional at work then not get kicked out (rather recieve standing ovation for the crazy icing on his batshit cake)... Don't let the elite machine bury this bullying, stand up for the victim - I'm not articulate enough to get across points, but I think removing the 1st hand evidence only serves the perpetrator and anyone uncomfortable with drawing attention to the ugly naked insanity at play — Preceding unsigned comment added by Alt-shifty-ex (talk • contribs) 15:57, 3 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- Wrong image. This is Janet Jackson and Justin Timberlake, not Chris Rock and Will Smith. Meters (talk) 17:32, 3 April 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:Ship of Ishtar.jpg[edit]

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 ⚡ 01:01, 6 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Low quality (even at original resolution) and no longer used. Replaced with File:The Ship of Ishtar (first edition).jpg from Commons. Ixfd64 (talk) 22:30, 29 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, redundant to Commons file. Salavat (talk) 03:44, 30 March 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.