Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2024 February 22

File:Wadea al-Fayoume.jpg – This discussion was largely a relitigation of the FFD rather than an assessment of the closure, and largely discussed two overlapping issues:

Whether the image meets WP:NFCC#2. There is no agreement on whether this criterion in fact applies, but the discussion is moot since PARAKANYAA has provided several images that undisputably meet the criterion, and nobody has challenged them that those are preferable.
Whether the image meets WP:NFCC#8. Nobody other than the nominator has explicitly stated that they believe the image passes that criterion, whereas several people have stated that it fails it. But DRV is the wrong venue for this discussion, and neither the original FFD nor a DRV has the authority to prevent an upload of one of PARAKANYAA's alt images since they aren't substantially identical to the image deleted at FFD.

The result is that the original "delete" closure remains in place for lack of consensus to overturn it, without prejudice against the reuploading of one of the alternate images, and its possible renomination at FFD. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 21:21, 18 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it.

I originally approached the deleting admin, but they were uncomfortable with unilaterally undeleting it after a discussion and told me to take it here. I don't think this image should have been deleted.

1) the assertion that it was a press agency image was false, the victim was a child not known before he died and the context and distribution of the image make it clear that it originated from his family, who it is perfectly permissible to use a minimal version from under the project's fair use rules. With cases like these it's often redistributed by agencies, who obviously do not own the copyright. It's also standard to have a picture of the murder victim (see: Murder of Brianna Ghey) on their article if one can be found that isn't a press agency image (which this isn't).

2) It's also particularly relevant to the article in question, as the victim's young age is what made the case notable. Without a picture, a significant aspect of the notability is lost on the reader.

The point over it not being a press agency image was brought up in the discussion, but was not addressed by anyone. There was a single delete vote before this. PARAKANYAA (talk) 22:11, 22 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse I closed the FfD. Re-adding the image to the article in its current state would be an WP:NFCC#8 violation. I also do not believe it is standard practice to automatically insert a non-free image of a person in Killing of ... type articles. Anyways, I'm not opposed to re-evaluating if the article is significantly expanded with sourced critical commentary explicitly discussing this image in-depth. For convenience: image, description page. Courtesy pings for @J Milburn, @Cremastra, @Davest3r08 -Fastily 22:28, 22 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
With regard to the content of the article, it suffers from the common problem where it's under extended confirmed protection so it stops getting edited whenever it stops being interesting to the typical breaking news editors, and later coverage is simply never added. I don't really get why people try to make articles so soon after an event happens, but they do.

I guess that's a different reason (which I disagree with), but it wasn't the reason the FfD was started, and that reason was blatantly incorrect. In my opinion this is as just as contextually significant to the article topic as any other article about the death of a person which uses a non-free image, which to my awareness is most of them (that don't have usable free images) PARAKANYAA (talk) 22:40, 22 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Question - What article was this image being used in? Robert McClenon (talk) 04:24, 23 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Robert McClenon Killing of Wadea al-Fayoume PARAKANYAA (talk) 04:33, 23 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The nom appears to be mistaken in the NFCC#2 argument and that was noted in the discussion. The weak delete isn't backed by anything other than an opinion (which is standard in these cases) but is a reasonable reference to NFCC#8. relist as we don't have consensus (which I know is common in FfD discussions) and the mistaken nom just made it hard for anyone to usefully contribute in defense of the article. I suspect the #8 arguments will win out, but I think folks should be given time to realize that's the actual reason that needs to be discussed. Hobit (talk) 04:39, 23 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
No opposition to this, but honestly I'm quite surprised that there are particular questions when it comes to this article and #8, considering that it seems to be quite accepted in for articles about murders, disappearances and specific killings to have a fair use image of the victim. I don't see how in the Murder of Bianca Devins (a GA) or Disappearance of Natalee Holloway (a FA) or Murder of Cameron Blair (a GA). Of course, other stuff exists and that's not an argument, but it seems to be in every GA/FA on this type of article I could find. I don't the picture of is any less necessary here. Sure, in both cases you could go without it, but that goes for pretty much all images of say, a deceased person as well. The bio of a deceased person is just as comprehensible without a photo of them, and yet it's standard practice to include it on bio articles if one is available.

But yes relist and get consensus that's good. Just wanted to comment because this surprises me and I plan on getting similar articles to an higher quality in the future, and thought this was generally accepted. And if it shouldn't be done then a *lot* of files need to be deleted. PARAKANYAA (talk) 04:57, 23 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn and Relist - I would have preferred to have this appeal less than two months after the FFD, but I don't think it was ready for closure. There wasn't enough participation in the FFD to constitute consensus, with the nom, one Weak Delete, and one comment. I am not an expert on Non-Free Content Criteria and will not say what the proper action should be. If I become more familiar with the criteria while the FFD is relisted, I may participate. There wasn't enough participation to read a consensus based on the input, and a Relist is in order. Robert McClenon (talk) 06:13, 23 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse. I am unclear why Hobit thinks that I was mistaken in my claim that this image was a NFCC#2 violation. No argument or evidence has been provided. It was (in Hobit's words) 'pointed out' in the nom that 'The copyright holder is al-Fayoume's family'; but no evidence was provided for this. On this page, from which the image was sourced, Reuters is selling the image. I'd say this is a pretty obvious shut-and-closed NFCC#2 case. Josh Milburn (talk) 09:38, 23 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- And before anyone points out that the photo was almost certainly taken by a family member, and not a Reuters employee... Of course. But might Reuters be selling this on behalf of the family? Might the family have given it to Reuters? Might Reuters have bought this from the family? I'm not an expert on how these press agencies work. All I know is that Reuters is selling rights to the images. If I'm 'mistaken', are they mistaken, too? Are they lying? What exactly is being claimed here? Josh Milburn (talk) 09:42, 23 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  There are numerous cases where agencies have sold images that they merely redistribute and do not own the copyright of. They in no way own the copyright especially since every other source credits the image to the Central of Islamic Relations of Chicago. PARAKANYAA (talk) 13:34, 23 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Law and Crime cites the image of him to CAIR-Chicago and so does this and The Independent lists the same photo of him as from Cair Chicago, which is the Center of Islamic Relations of Chicago, not Reuters or a press agency. PARAKANYAA (talk) 13:30, 23 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
In fact, of all the sources I see that use this image, I can't find any besides Reuters itself that credit the image to them. Sometimes press agencies do this. PARAKANYAA (talk) 13:44, 23 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, it sounds like we are accusing Reuters of being mistaken/lying. If you're right that Reuters are mistaken/lying, then yes, I'm happy to admit that I was mistaken about NFCC#2. But I wonder if there are other ways we could go about this. Are there any images out there that aren't being claimed by Reuters? They might not overcome NFCC#8 worries (on which I'm neutral), but they'd at least overcome my NFCC#2 worries. Josh Milburn (talk) 14:14, 23 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
There are a few, this one, listed as "Courtesy of Hela Yousef" and this one ("Family Handout/CAIR-Chicago)". The first one is quite a bit better IMO. From searching all of Reuters articles about this case they have never claimed either of those as theirs. Either are listed as from CAIRC or "family handout" (or both) in every source that uses them. PARAKANYAA (talk) 14:52, 23 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Ok. I would not oppose one of those pictures being used on NFCC#2 grounds; if we're going to have an image (again, I'm neutral on the NFCC#8 question) let's make it one of them, and not one claimed (falsely or otherwise) by Reuters. So I think the deletion of this image should stand. Josh Milburn (talk) 15:58, 23 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That's fine, a new image can be uploaded and I'm not bothered, but I would really like to get some consensus on the #8 criterion here because if this is the common interpretation there are probably hundreds of files in this exact kind of article that fail it and should be deleted, including multiple FAs and other GAs. PARAKANYAA (talk) 16:01, 23 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I agree. I fear that may need to be a wider conversation than is possible on this deletion review. I confess I didn't mean to provoke any kind of wider conversation when I nominated the image for deletion; I genuinely thought it a straightforward NFCC#2 violation. Given that you're happy to use a non-agency-claimed image if/when you use another, I'm happy, so I'm going to step back from the conversation. Josh Milburn (talk) 16:06, 23 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse It does appear NFCC#2 and #8 apply here. SportingFlyer T·C 09:54, 23 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
NFCC#2 does not apply (see my rebuttal above) and if this violates NFCC#8 I don't really see what doesn't tbh. PARAKANYAA (talk) 13:46, 23 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I don't agree with you there, sorry. SportingFlyer T·C 15:48, 23 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
What about the usage in this article is any less contextually relevant than other articles of this type? Are they not supposed to have images? PARAKANYAA (talk) 15:58, 23 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think that matters as that quickly becomes an other stuff argument and we need to be focused only on the image at hand. FfDs are hard due to minimal participation, but after reading the discussion here and there I'm convinced NFCC#2 applies because the image is clearly for sale and that NFCC#8 applies because the article does not need the image to convey the necessary information. SportingFlyer T·C 17:18, 23 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The other stuff argument does not apply because FAs and GAs are rigorously reviewed by the community, so I consider the sign that this is present in every high quality article like this a sign that this is an accepted use of a non-free image. With regard to NFCC#2, for sale image agencies often do stuff like that. Getty Images is notorious for selling and claiming the rights to public domain images, this isn't a new practice. PARAKANYAA (talk) 17:29, 23 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Again, I do not agree with you here. SportingFlyer T·C 18:17, 23 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
On which part? PARAKANYAA (talk) 18:28, 23 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
On Wikipedia there's an old and long-standing tension between those who want to build an encyclopaedia using only free content ("free content maximalists") and those who what to build an encyclopaedia by any lawful means ("get-it-done-ists"). FFD as a venue tends to attract free content maximalists, and its decisions tend to disfavour the get-it-done-ists, so here at deletion review we've often seen NFCC#8 overreach. I've often criticised FFD for needlessly and wilfully stopping us from getting stuff done. But in this particular case, I'm not seeing that, and I would endorse this particular example. I note that news sources around the world are using images owned by the victim's family, and I suggest that the family might well be willing to consent to our using an image. And more importantly, I note that for example, the BBC here managed to produce a perfectly clear and accurate article without a single image of the victim.
And, finally, what the heck? We don't need an image of a six year old child to know that six years old is a horribly young age to be murdered at.—S Marshall T/C 15:28, 23 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, but then do the images on all these kinds of articles (Murder of types of articles) need to be deleted? What is the standard for when the article about someone dying needs a picture of them? Because pretty much all of them fail it, then. And I'm not opposed to all of them getting deleted but I would appreciate knowing where the line is so I know what files to request the deletion of, considering this affects Good and Featured articles. PARAKANYAA (talk) 15:54, 23 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Also, 1, 2, 3 PARAKANYAA (talk) 15:55, 23 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I may be missing your point with those links? On my screen, only the first one of those has a picture of Wadea al-Fayoume. We're not making a decision about all the other articles about murder victims. We're making a decision about this specific article about a murder victim. We take these things one at a time because the facts in each case are different.—S Marshall T/C 18:14, 23 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
For me all three of them do. Weird. Fair enough, but what about this case makes this any less contextually relevant? Yes, case by case, but precedent in high quality articles is a picture is included. I can't find any other GA or FA like this that doesn't include it. PARAKANYAA (talk) 18:28, 23 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Wait I think I screwed up the links. Sometimes news sites are really weird about that. Here are the ones I meant. PARAKANYAA (talk) 18:39, 23 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
And again, even today, people make articles like this. This article is two days old and start class and has an image of the victim. Every article I've seen does. If this is inappropriate, then sure, but I don't think otherstuffexists applies when it is every article like this PARAKANYAA (talk) 18:52, 23 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, otherstuffexists applies everywhere in deletion debates. Why would you think it doesn't?

I mean, to be fair to you, otherstuff is part of WP:ATA so it isn't a policy that binds you. It's an essay that you're free to disregard. I tend to say that ATA isn't a rule at all, it's just a laundry list of things some Wikipedians think other Wikipedians shouldn't be allowed to say.

But in content decisions, it's custom and practice that Wikipedia doesn't do precedent. We take each decision separately on its own.—S Marshall T/C 09:37, 24 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I would just say that if other images exist that need to be deleted, then that is an argument for deleting those, not for keeping images that have been properly recognised as ineligible for inclusion. Stifle (talk) 09:58, 29 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse - Non-free content must satisfy all of the non-free content criteria. This image was nominated as failing WP:NFCC#2 and WP:NFCC#8. Press agencies do sometimes claim to own images that they in fact do not own. NFCC#2 was challenged in the discussion, but not NFCC#8. Failing to meet one the two reasons in the nomination is sufficient to establish that non-free content criteria are not met. -- Whpq (talk) 18:03, 25 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn and relist. The FFD appears to have fallen into error by a misapplication of NFCC#2, and did not adequately discuss the NFCC#8 considerations. Given the low attendance (albeit common for FFD) I think it is appropriate to discuss this again with full information. Stifle (talk) 09:58, 29 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse. There was sufficient clarity in the discussion that this failed NFCC#2. One participant sought additional explanation regarding the application of NFCC#2, but non-fulfillment of NFCC#2 was not serious questioned. The image can be captioned as being credited to the family but deals can be made that give other entities exclusive rights to the image, such as to use it commercially. Various arrangements are possible, and saying that the family is the copyright holder and the agency is selling what is not theirs is not a reliable supposition and not a robust approach to this question.—Alalch E. 15:02, 3 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.

22 February 2024[edit]