- File:Columbus Developmental Center.jpg (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (article|XfD|restore)
Improper reasoning to judge there to be no free equivalent of this photograph that would serve the same encyclopedic purpose. No photographs exist where you can discern the level of decay in this building that prompted its demolition. This building has been dramatically altered since its construction; nothing except this single image will show that.
ɱ (talk) 21:30, 6 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- A free version is not available. This does not portray the building in the later years of its history, its decline. ɱ (talk) 22:23, 8 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- Endorse: the file in question appears to have been used in Columbus Developmental Center#History per this and I'm not seeing how any of the concerns raised in the FFD about it were incorrect. If the building's decay made it appear vastly different at some point, then adding sourced critical commentary about those changes to the article might've helped justify a case for the file's non-free use; however, there doesn't appear to be anything close to that in the article that require the reader see such an image when the FFD was closed. Moreover, there's FOP for buildings in the US and the building is still standing (at least as of October 2021) according to File:Columbus Developmental Center 01.jpg (also uploaded by the nominator); so, a comparison to how the building at the time of main infobox photo and present day seems more than possible and additional free images could be taken for further comparison purposes. Although I'm willing to assume this DR was started in good faith, I don't feel the close was improper and should be overturned given the arguments made in the FFD. -- Marchjuly (talk) 22:05, 6 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- Endorse, as others mention, a suitable free image has been presented. Stifle (talk) 08:51, 7 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- Endorse The non-free rule here was clearly correctly applied. SportingFlyer T·C 17:45, 7 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- Endorse simply pointing to differences between the free and the non-free image isn't enough to make the non-free image irreplaceable. Whether it's replaceable or not depends on whether the free image can serve the same purpose in the article. For example the OP pointed to the fact the central tower's roof was removed in the non-free image. If the article had some sourced coverage about the removal of the tower's roof then you could reasonably argue that this makes the non-free version isn't replaceable, but there wasn't. Same goes for all the other points the OP raised. The image was just being used in the article to illustrate what the building looked like, and the free version serves the same purpose. Hut 8.5 12:04, 8 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- It's not clear to me why File:Columbus, Ohio c. 1897 02.jpg cannot replace the deleted file; the only thing missing is colour and maybe a part of the building. And even so, since it's an extant building one could make a new photo of it and thus the non-free one fails WP:NFCC#1 - nobody has explained why one cannot go there and make a free image. So, endorse. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 15:57, 8 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- I don't understand, @Fastily: @Marchjuly: @Stifle: @SportingFlyer: @Hut 8.5: @Jo-Jo Eumerus: how not a single one of you can understand how these are dramatically different photographs? It's like comparing an image of the Roman Forum in 1 AD versus 2020 AD. The building in the deleted photo is a ruin of its once grand structure. It shows how deterioration and deferred maintenance led it to become a good candidate for demolition. I laid out all the specifics in the FfD. These photographs barely even show the same building, nonetheless an equal free version. NFCC 1 says that equivalents need to "serve the same encyclopedic purpose." In no way does a ruin of a building serve the same purpose to the reader as a photograph of a building at its height. ɱ (talk) 22:19, 8 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- (Non-administrator comment) That's why in cases like this sourced critical commentary of the actual image itself is generally needed to help establish and strengthen the context you're referring to above. You look at the image and see one thing, whereas someone else looking at the image may see something else. In order to avoid the non-free use appearing to be more WP:DECORATIVE than not and also to avoid any sort of image-like WP:OR or WP:SYN, non-free content use tends to require a stronger connection connection between image and text per WP:NFC#CS, and I don't think that connection has been established here. A non-free use needs to satisfy all ten non-free content criteria, and I don't see how this use meets NFCC#1 and NFCC#8. To be fair, I'm not an administrator so I'm sort of flying blind a bit in that I can't see the actual deleted image per se and am only going by how it seems to have been used in the article as well as whatever experience I have when it comes to assessing non-free content; so, if you want to through out my WP:!VOTE than that's fine. Fastily, Stifle, Hut8.5 and Jo-Jo Eumerous, however, are administrators who can see the deleted file and who are pretty experienced when it comes to file stuff; so, there opinion might carry more weight than my. If they can be swayed to reopen the FFD discussion for this file, then that's fine. I think though that you're going to need to make a more compelling argument that the above and not basically repeat what the one made in the FFD which led to the file's deletion. -- Marchjuly (talk) 22:41, 8 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- These photographs do show the same building. The only important thing that the non-free image has is that it lacks a few spires, their absence can easily be described in text where they aren't even mentioned. And as folks have said above, if the building still exists you or someone else can go and take a photo, which would make the non-free image (which shows a more recent state than the free one) replaceable. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 09:15, 9 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- As far as I can see the only "encyclopedic purpose" of the image in that article was to give the reader an idea of what the building looked like. There wasn't any commentary on the image in the text or anything like that. The free version also fulfils the same encyclopedic purpose of showing the reader what the building looked like. Yes, the fair use image had differences to the free image, but unless those differences are actually needed for the image's use in the article they aren't relevant to the question of whether the image is replaceable. Hut 8.5 18:41, 9 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- Endorse. The "no free equivalent" criterion is explained at WP:FREER. "Can this non-free content be replaced by a free version that has the same effect?" The answer is yes, so it failed the criterion. ✗plicit 13:29, 9 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- The answer is no. Have you edited the article? I wrote it - the image is irreplaceable, as mentioned. ɱ (talk) 14:12, 9 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- Endorse I think people generally understand that buildings left unmaintained fall into disrepair and decay and what that typically looks like, bits fall off, wildlife moves in, trees grow through etc. Unless there is something specific about the way this manifested (which I'd then expect to be discussed in 3rd party sources) then the existing image and note that it later fell into decay ultimately leading to demolition would seem sufficient. --81.100.164.154 (talk) 17:42, 12 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
|
