- Lnlwedding.jpg (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (article|XfD|restore)
Feel that deletion was unreasonable.
I contacted the closing administrator, Stifle, about reconsidering this image's deletion before I brought it here, but he declined. As I stated in the deletion debate and to Stifle on his talk page: "...[This image] is not decorative in the Supercouple article, in which it is used as the main image. This is the couple who started the term supercouple, which is very much sourced and commented on within the article. There is no free alternative image to use for this couple at their wedding (which started the initial supercouple era), and using any other couple as the lead (intro) image in the article simply because that image is free would be ludicrous. A free image of a celebrity supercouple as the lead image will not do, when taken into consideration that celebrity supercouples did not define the term and came after soap opera supercouples (at least when referencing the term supercouple)."
In addition to that first argument of mine about this, I must also state what I stated on my talk page and Stifle's: "I do not see at all how it is against Wikipedia's image policies by being used as the main image in the Supercouple article, considering that it is displaying the appearance of a fictional couple who 'created' the term and the event at which the term was coined, as noted in the lead and discussed within the article. Its use is more valid within that article than any other fair-use image there."
Newer arguments: I must also note that Damiens.rf, who nominated this image for deletion, did not seem to feel that this image was decorative in the Supercouple article. He nominated the image more so due to it being decorative in the Luke Spencer and Laura Webber article. Thus, I argue that it simply being decorative there does not discount its validity in the Supercouple article, which is why I removed it from the Luke Spencer and Laura Webber article during the debate. In addition, one of the administrator's (Quadell) in the deletion debate for this image voted a "Weak delete" and in a way that seemed to suggest I do something with the lead to better validate this image's use there. In Stifle's closing decision for this image, he also did not seem to feel that this image necessarily fails Wikipedia's image policies. All of this tells me that there is some validity in keeping this image as the lead image for the Supercouple article. Further, Stifle also voted "Delete" regarding images Famous Luke and Noah kiss.jpg and Angie crying on Jesse's chest upon his death.jpg, while Quadell (who closed those two image discussions as "Not deleted") stated that they clearly pass Wikipedia's image policies. This makes me wonder how fair these image deletion debates are if they are more about opinion than policy.
Basically, I do not feel the Lnlwedding.jpg was simply decorative in the Supercouple article, any more than a non-free image of a fictional character used as the lead (intro) image of that character's article. Sure, the Supercouple article is not solely or even mostly about Luke and Laura, but they are the couple who started the term/"gave birth" to the term and the article is based on that/on them. More critical commentary about their groundbreaking wedding, which started the supercouple era, can also be added to the Legends section of the article. This imagery was seen by 30 million viewers and can clearly be significantly commented on further down within the article (in the Legends section). Flyer22 (talk) 22:57, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks to this nomination, I had to navigate through the 11,458 clicks necessary to find Stifle's talk page and read it. :(
Using non-free images is always a bit tricky, and I think admins have a duty to err on the side of caution, so my starting point is sympathetic to Stifle, but having said that: does the non-free image in question appear anywhere else on the web, where I might be able to look at it?—S Marshall Talk/Cont 23:39, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment/Reply. I apologize for your having to search for the discussion I had with Stifle. Stifle does not have a table of contents on his talk page, and I subsequently did not think to link to it. For others, you can find the discussion I had with Stifle about this topic on his talk page in this link under the title Lnlwedding.jpg.
- While I am sure that this non-free image can be found elsewhere on the web, as can the images Famous Luke and Noah kiss.jpg and Angie crying on Jesse's chest upon his death.jpg, I feel that this image falls into the fair-use category partly for the same reasons that Famous Luke and Noah kiss.jpg and Angie crying on Jesse's chest upon his death.jpg do...and for the reasons I explained above. Also, there is no free alternative that can display this same event/this same fictional couple. Flyer22 (talk) 23:53, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Endorse - The "kiss" and the "dying character" images we're kept due to a bad judgment by Admin Quadell, that seems to believe that once plot passages are discussed by other sources, their discussion on Wikipedia get magically more complicated, and so, in the need of an image to illustrate. Quadell's decision shouldn't be used as a precedent, since I'm planing to put them for review in a while. As for this couple's image, I don't have to see the characters to understand a paragraph stating they were the first supercouple ever. And we have no obligation to illustrate the Supercouple ever with and image of the first supercouple. Any supercouple can do the job. --Damiens.rf 00:14, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. Disagree with Damiens.rf's comments about Quadell's decision regarding the other two images and this one. Quadell was following policy, as other editors also felt that he was. It is just that some editors and administrators here at Wikipedia interpret Wikipedia's image policies differently. Saying that we do not need an image of Luke and Laura to understand that "they were the first supercouple ever" is like saying that we do not need an image of a fictional character to understand that fictional character and what is noted about them. What a character looks like is arguably significant to understanding that character. The same goes for a fictional couple, in which an article is about -- or, in this case based on -- them. In the same way that an image of a fictional character is perfectly allowed for the lead (intro) image of his or her (or its) article on Wikipedia due to it being the subject of that article, so is an image of Luke and Laura who are being discussed within the article and "created" the term after which the article is named. Anyone reading the lead of this article or the Legends section of it will want to know who Luke and Laura are/what they look like. But it is also not merely about what they look like (or rather looked like back then); it is also about the fact that this image does significantly increase the reader's understanding of this topic, is noted within the article, and can be provided with significant critical commentary in the Legends section about the further importance of this imagery/couple. From what I have read of Wikipedia's image policies, the other two images pass and so does this one. It is not about precedent (what Quadell did was not even precedent, considering that closing decisions similar to those have been done many times here at Wikipedia before); it is about what is right. Flyer22 (talk) 01:00, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Endorse own deletion. As per the usual protocol, I discounted the !votes of 71.234... as an IP editor, and those of NeutralHomer, Silvestris, and Allstarecho as lacking any reason in policy. That left the nomination and two other delete !votes and a single valid keep !vote, which is a delete on number counting. The arguments to keep and delete were balanced, but I found the delete arguments more persuasive — there is surely a supercouple still alive of whom a free photograph could be taken, and the use in the other article was merely decorative. Stifle (talk) 08:11, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. While Stifle makes a sound argument, the point is not about whether there is a fictional supercouple still alive. I assume he means fictional, as in their real-life portrayers. If we were to use an image of Luke and Laura's portrayers as the lead image of the article (such as them posing as themselves, not as their characters, together), that image would be an image of those portrayers. The image would not be about fictional supercouple Luke and Laura, no matter it being a free image. And any other fictional supercouple or their real-life portrayers would not serve as much purpose as the lead image. If Stifle means using a free image of one of the celebrity supercouples as the lead image, I already explained about that above. Furthermore, the fact that this image was decorative in the Luke Spencer and Laura Webber article is beside the point, considering that I had already removed it from that article before Stifle made his closing decision on this image (as noted by me above). This image's validity in the Supercouple article should not be based on whether it was valid in another article and on persuasive delete votes. It should be based on policy more than anything else, and I feel that my arguments for this image remaining as the lead image in the article, or at least in the Legends section of it upon further critical commentary of the importance of the moment the image is displaying, is far stronger than the two delete votes for it (one of which was/is a "Weak delete" vote, as noted by me above). Flyer22 (talk) 23:48, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Overturn to no consensus I suspect Stifle is right and a different picture could be used here. But A) I don't think anyone suggested that in the discussion B) there were arguments that this is the "first one" and so might be "better". So I don't see how the closer can reach that conclusion from the discussion. Further, I don't think that the IP or Allstarecho's !votes should have been discounted. If this is based on strength of argument, the IP's well-reasoned comments should be considered. If it is nose count, those without arguments should be considered. Discounting both seems, well, wrong here. And Allstarecho does echo a policy-based reason for keeping, so I'm loath to accept that the fact he didn't bother to directly cut-and-paste the arguments he supported should mean his opinion should be discounted. Hobit (talk) 16:58, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- If you suspect that Stifle is correct, then that by WP:NFCC rules out having the image (criteria 1), so your !vote is contradictory. To suggest we ignore those criteria on the basis of no one making such an obvious suggestion would seem to be bureacracy at it's best. Your point (b) is also covered by NFCC#1 there is no real concept of better if it conveys the same encyclopedic information/purpose the free image wins each and every time, same way that a grainy shot of some dead popstar submitted as a free image would make a high quality (better) agency shot fail NFCC#1. --82.7.40.7 (talk) 21:18, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- No? I suspect that is the case. As it wasn't brought up at the IfD, no one had a chance to respond to the notion. I certainly don't know enough about the context and just how relevant this "first" couple is or if that "first" notion is sourceable. As no one objected to it during the close, I think the closer needs to assume it's true unless it is factually incorrect. In other words, the closer doesn't get to replace the results of the discussion with his own views. Hobit (talk) 18:58, 30 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Actually WP:NFCC is fairly clear that the burden of proof is required on the side of the keep, there isn't a burden to rpboe the other way. i.e. if there is no sensible supporting argument beyond "I say so", the burden is not met and the deleting admin is quite correct to ignore it. --82.7.40.7 (talk) 19:16, 30 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- "X was the first and therefor an important image to have a picture of" is more than "I say so". Hobit (talk) 21:24, 30 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Yes, the term Supercouple was coined due to Luke Spencer and Laura Webber. It is sourceable, is sourced within the article...and can be sourced with plenty of other valid references as well. Flyer22 (talk) 01:19, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: The file is at File:Lnlwedding.jpg. The deletion debate is at Wikipedia:Files for deletion/2009 May 18#Lnlwedding.jpg. I don't believe Flyer22 characterized my comments accurately above, and I think it's worth reading the debate.
- Endorse deletion. The deletion was thoroughly discussed, and the closing admin clearly understands policy and took all arguments into account. – Quadell (talk) 03:29, 30 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. The deletion debate is linked to above at the very top of this section. Surely, very experienced editors/and editors here who read the directions on how to list these articles at this particular Wikipedia project know that. And I do not see where in that debate this topic was thoroughly discussed, nor where I significantly misinterpreted your comment there. I stated a long and valid argument, with clear understanding of Wikipedia's image policies, and only got a copy and paste answer of delete from one editor and then a "Weak delete" from another editor (you). The decision for delete of this image does not seem to have been weighed more so in policy at all, from Stifle's own comment in the closing debate and from his one in this. If it was more so about policy, then delete arguments being "more persuasive" would not have been an issue. This whole thing seems more like an opinion of how a few editors feel about this harmless non-free image which has been in the Supercouple article as the lead image for the longest now remaining in that article, and not wanting to admit that they are likely wrong about this decision. If it was more about policy, there would not be any need for you to have voted "Weak delete." Right now, it only seems that if my argument of "Keep" had been "more persuasive" to two editors in that deletion debate, this image would have been kept. Not exactly a decision based more so in policy. In fact, as pointed out by me above, this image was mainly nominated for deletion due to it being decorative in a different article (an article it was removed from before the deletion debate of this image was closed). Flyer22 (talk) 01:08, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Endorse deletion - correctly closed based on strength of
numbers arguments instead of counting votes. PhilKnight (talk) 16:22, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. How was this correctly closed based on strength of numbers instead of counting votes? There was no strength of numbers; there was just a copy and paste vote of delete that does not even make sense in response to some (if not most) of the images and a weak vote of delete. And does policy even matter here? This image does significantly enhance readers' understanding of the topic, seeing as it is showing imagery of the couple who "started" the term and the event at which it happened. This is imagery that cannot be conveyed through text, and thus passes Wikipedia's image policies. Deleting this one image, as if it is a problem in the Supercouple article, as opposed to any other non-free image within it, and when the problem with this image was not even its use in the Supercouple article, is ridiculous. And Hobit likely has a point above about discounting an IP's vote simply to further "validate" the outcome one wants. Flyer22 (talk) 00:11, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Fixed. PhilKnight (talk) 13:44, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- LOL. And still disagree, per what I stated above. I saw no strength of numbers or strength of arguments for deletion of this image. Flyer22 (talk) 03:11, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The use in Supercouple is replaceable, and the use in Luke Spencer and Laura Webber doesn't significantly add the reader's understanding in the context on the other image. PhilKnight (talk) 13:18, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Replaceable? This particular image has no free alternative that can demonstrate the same visual. From what I know of Wikipedia's fair-use rationale policy, it is about whether there is a free alternative of the same image or free image that can produce basically the same thing. A free image of a celebrity supercouple is not the same thing as an image displaying the fictional supercouple who started the term, nor does it convey the same thing. Wikipedia allows non-free images...as long as those images significantly enhance the readers' understanding of the article or are backed up by significant critical commentary (preferably both), such as the image of Janet Jackson's "wardrobe malfunction" in the article Super Bowl XXXVIII halftime show controversy. If you mean that this Luke and Laura image can be replaced by another image of the same thing found on the Internet, well the same can be said of the image of Janet Jackson's wardrobe malfunction.
- This Luke and Laura image does significantly enhance the readers' understanding of the article Supercouple for the reasons I stated above, and it can be backed up by significant critical commentary on the event it is displaying. But as for the article Luke Spencer and Laura Webber, I do not see how that is still currently an issue for this image, considering that, as I stated above more than once now, it has been removed from that article and was removed from that article before the closing decision for this image was made. Furthermore, considering that the Luke Spencer and Laura Webber article will be significantly fixed up by me and editor Rocksey, to reflect articles such as JR Chandler and Babe Carey and Reese Williams and Bianca Montgomery (except for the fact that the Luke Spencer and Laura Webber article will no doubt be much bigger eventually and even better written), this couple's 1980s wedding will no doubt be significantly commented on within the article at that point and this image will be perfectly allowed within the section it is significantly discussed. Therefore, deleting this image is also a waste on that front. To have to upload this image again but possibly go through complications with it due to it being deleted before (without much validity) is not something that I feel is best (particularly for myself and any other hard-working editor here). Flyer22 (talk) 00:33, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Overturn and restore. if an image or scene in a film is discussed in a substantial way in an article, it should generally be illustrated by a photograph, which is generally necessary to make the discussion sufficiently meaningful. This is not a policy change--it has always been out policy, and it is fully protected by basic copyright law. We have not always interpreted it as liberally as we ought to. DGG (talk) 21:51, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- From your above comment, I don't think you understand the non-free policy. PhilKnight (talk) 18:10, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Hi Phil, I'm curious what you feel he's missing. Hobit (talk) 01:42, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
|
