- File:Friends Characters.png (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (restore)
- File:Friends season one cast.jpg (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (restore)
The non-free cast photo of Friends was deleted on the basis of WP:NFCC#1. A few of editors, including me, disagree on it at Talk:Friends#Characters image, which is closed as advised to review the deletion here. The deleting admin Explicit said that free images of actors would suffice or already convey. The other image File:Friends season one cast.jpg was orphaned and then replaced back in 2015 with the current gallery of actors. If the images are seen at photo agencies, like Getty Images, then they should be considered unacceptable per WP:GETTY. However, I can't figure out without seeing those photos first. Besides that, we would wonder whether that one or those both images should have been taken to the FFD in the first place to review its/their compliance(s) with NFCC. — Preceding unsigned comment added by George Ho (talk • contribs) 09:21, 20 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Courtesy ping to Fastily, who deleted the jpg version for the same issue. ƏXPLICIT 11:04, 20 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- For reference, the deleted photo can be found on this website. The DVD cover of the final season shows what the cast looked like by the end of the series, and larger resolutions can be found online if you reverse Google Image Search it. There's a timeline of a decade at hand. We have freely licensed images of the actors within that range or taken shortly thereafter, which satisfy WP:NFCC#1, "Non-free content is used only where no free equivalent is available, or could be created, that would serve the same encyclopedic purpose." Somehow, a small group of editors argue that readers are incapable of understanding the article with freely licensed images of the actors. Incredible. ƏXPLICIT 11:04, 20 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks for the website, Explicit. I found the photo used at Hello magazine that (partially) matches the one at Getty Images. I would take that the image is unacceptable per NFC guideline and may not comply with WP:NFCC#2. Whether it passes or fails "no free equivalent" criterion would be overtaken by its potential failure to comply with "respect to commercial opportunities" criterion. George Ho (talk) 11:21, 20 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Courtest ping to PhilKnight who deleted File:Friends season one cast.jpg as orphaned.
Any surviving info about the image would help. George Ho (talk) 11:26, 20 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Found the article from the upload log. I could not find the exact photo at Getty Images. NBC is credited, but somehow the NBCUni Photobank locked its search engine from the general public. Well, the season one photo may be taken to FFD somehow. George Ho (talk) 11:54, 20 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- List at FFD there is an argument that this isn't replaceable which is at least plausible, and speedy deletion is intended for obvious cases only. Hut 8.5 12:02, 20 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Overturn Speedy and List at FFD - I was puzzled briefly as to what sort of request this is until I re-read the !vote by User:Hut 8.5, which explains it all. This appears to be an appeal of a speedy deletion, F7, and speedy deletion should be unambiguous, and questions about speedy deletion should go to deletion discussions, in this case Files for Deletion. Robert McClenon (talk) 16:44, 20 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- We have freely licenced photos of the actors who portray these characters. While it would be nice to have one photograph of them all in costume, the argument that we need one is untenable.—S Marshall T/C 17:35, 20 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- It is very common for articles about fictional characters in TV or film to include a non-free image of the character. If an image of a fictional character can always be replaced by a picture of the actor who portrays that character, as the deleting admin is suggesting, then an awful lot of fair use images would have to be deleted. Now quite possibly the situations here are different and the image doesn't add enough to the article to warrant having a fair use image, but that's not a decision which should be taken by a single admin. Hut 8.5 18:28, 20 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Endorse The speedy deletion was unambiguous. The deletion here is clear, correct, and based on a correct interpretation of our NFCC policy. SportingFlyer T·C 02:43, 21 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- list at FFD. There is an argument that this meets our rules and as such there should be a discussion. Speedy deletion shouldn't shortcut reasonable discussion. Hobit (talk) 08:20, 21 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- List at FfD. This will go to a discussion of the details of the image and its use. That discussion is best held at FfD. Any reasonable contest of most speedies should speedily go to XfD for discussion. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 02:56, 22 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- List at FfD. When there is a good faith objection to a CSD then it should almost always be speedily restored and listed at the relevant XfD page. In this case it is plausible that the image might meet the NFCC so it is ineligible for speedy deletion, regardless of whether it turns out the image does or does not meet the criteria. Thryduulf (talk) 14:58, 25 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Endorse. If the images under discussion were ensemble shots taken from episodes of the TV series itself, showing the characters in context, I would probably still favor deletion, but a deletion discussion would clearly be appropriate. Here, however, we have a generic publicity photograph which does not show the characters in context -- indeed, they may never have appeared together on the show appearing in these forms. If the purpose of the nonfree image is to show how the characters appeared on the show, the image must be drawn from the show itself. These images simply do not meet the terms of their use rationales as described, so summary deletion is appropriate. (The analysis could be different, of course, if the characters in distinctive or period costumes, but that situation is not presented here.) The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo). Treated like dirt by many administrators since 2006. Fight for freedom, stand with Hong Kong! (talk) 16:34, 25 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Those are all good arguments to present at an FFD, but are not relevant to whether the speedy deletion was correct - indeed the sheer amount of subjective decisions in that analysis rather proves the point that it was not an objective decision and thus not appropriate for speedy deletion. Thryduulf (talk) 12:49, 26 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- List at FfD per the good points made above. Andrew🐉(talk) 10:06, 27 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
|
