Wikipedia:Files for discussion/2016 February 21

< February 20	February 22 >

February 21

File:Rodger small.png

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.

Many of the keep arguments have been discounted for poor or lack of rationale, and there were also four from unregistered users, which are traditionally given less weight. In particular, "it does no harm" is neither a reason for keeping nor necessarily true, as in the past we have had cases where NFCC#2 has come into play on non-free images; most famously on JD Salinger. We also had an argument that "NFCC says to use non-free photos in one place... this is the one article that discussed the person depicted" and that the picture is "iconic". This is so confused as to policy that I am unable to take it into account either. Nor can I take into account "literally every photo of people on Wikipedia doesn't add anything" nor "people ought to know what police look like without viewing a wiki [sic] page".

On the deletion side, we have a "per nom" which I give lower weight to, but the nominator, User:Stefan2, and User:Marchjuly have made the point that the image does not significantly increase readers' understanding of the article topic (which, remember, is a series of crimes, and not the person depicted in the image) and its omission would not be detrimental to that understanding. This point has been made successfully by the "delete" side and has not been successfully refuted; it therefore follows that deletion is the correct outcome.

As with all my deletion discussion closures, I have carefully considered my position and all the arguments before closing, and if you feel my closure does not follow deletion process, please list directly at Wikipedia:Deletion review. I waive the requirement to consult with me prior to doing so.

Stifle (talk) 10:19, 25 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Per Wikipedia:Files for discussion/2015 November 26#File:Chris Mercer.jpg, an image of a perpetrator does not help readers grasp the killings done by the perpetrator himself. In fact, a reader may understand the killings without this image and search this image outside Wikipedia. Other discussions similar to this resulted in "delete"; this image may share the same fate. George Ho (talk) 18:44, 13 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Parsley Man (talk) 21:53, 13 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Doesn't make any harm at all. Also an image lets the reader fully grasp how the perpetrator looks like, for instance, what's his race like (being not fully white played a big role in his grievances). --87.110.93.102 (talk) 10:06, 15 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I don't see any harm from including the image, and I see possible benefits. The murderer Eliot Rodger said that women did not find him attractive, so I was vaguely curious what he looked like. Since he mentioned his own appearance, I think it is reasonable to include his photograph in an encyclopedia. 146.115.179.89 (talk) 08:34, 16 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: The second 'keep' brings up an interesting point, so additional comments to better evaluate consensus here would be appreciated.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — ξ ^xplicit 07:50, 21 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I fundamentally agree that illustrating/identifying the topic of a section is not a good claim of meeting WP:NFCC#8 seeing as the policy is about the article topic not the topic of a section. Now, I see that the aspect of Rodger's appearance is discussed in a sourced quotation by him and may improve the understanding of the motive part enough to meet NFCC#8. But I'd like a second opinion on this - and the NFUR would need to be changed if accepted since currently it refers to identifying the subject, not his appearance.Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 17:27, 21 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: As suggested in comments above, the picture does no harm and the appearance of the perpetrator is a very important part of his story, because he was concerned about it and felt it was a major part of why he was rejected by others, especially women. This perceived rejection is what eventually drove him to commit the murders. 2001:14BB:110:2BFF:C1BA:B489:4DD2:E614 (talk) 14:00, 15 March 2016 (UTC)— 2001:14BB:110:2BFF:C1BA:B489:4DD2:E614 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
- "Does no harm" is not a valid reason to include non-free content. --Stefan2 (talk) 15:22, 16 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Non-free pictures should normally only be used in an article about the person himself. The article 2014 Isla Vista killings is not an article about the person, and there is no need to see a picture of him to understand the shooting event. --Stefan2 (talk) 15:22, 16 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.59.61.170 (talk) 23:32, 18 March 2016 (UTC) — 24.59.61.170 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Delete: I agree with what others not in favor of keeping this image have written above. As currenlty used, I don't see how this file meets WP:NFCC#8. Rogers is dead, but the article is not really a stand-alone biography about him, so a non-free photo (No. 10 of WP:NFCI) is not really needed for identification purposes. Moreover, the discussion about his appearence seems to be only in general terms and related to his feelings of lonliness and his apparent lack of success in getting girls/women to notice him. All of his feelings were his subjective reading of the situation, so there's no way to ascertain any of that from the screenshot. It's hard (at least for me) to even tell whether he was of mixed race from just looking at that image. If there was something really distinguishing about Rodger's appearance such as a horrible scar or some other kind of physical deformity and this was discussed in reliable sources, then seeing the image might be relevant to understand what caused Rodger to act as he did. That, however, does not seem to be the case here. To me this usage seems more decorative than not and, although it would probably be fine for a stand-alone article about Rodger's "Retirbution" video (if one existed), it does not seem really needed here. -- Marchjuly (talk) 00:44, 19 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: It doesn't add anything, but literally every photo of people on wikipedia doesn't add anything. People ought to know what police look like without viewing a wiki page, and why have a picture of some old King? --- Foia req (talk) 11:29, 24 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It doesn't add anything seems to be the very definition of decorative use which is something not allowed at all for a non-free image such as this per WP:NFCC. There's a difference between the way Wikipedia treats a freely licensed photo of some old king and a non-free photo of some old king. The former can be pretty much used anywhere on Wikipedia if it satisfies WP:IUP and there's a local consensus to use it; the latter, however, must comply with WP:NFCCP for each use, in addition to WP:IUP and there being a local consensus to use it. -- Marchjuly (talk) 22:09, 24 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This image is from a video which was widely shared by journalists in discussing the events in the article. This is an iconic image that has been used to illustrate some of the most unusual aspects of this event. It is only used in one Wikipedia article, which is the rule. WP:NFCC does not say to only use non-free photos of people in articles about them, as some are suggesting. Instead, it says only use non-free photos in one place when discussing the person. Right now, this is the one article that discusses the person depicted. If for some reason this image needed to be in a biography about the person, then the section on this person could be spun off into its own article. Blue Rasberry (talk) 13:36, 26 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The rule is that non-free content must be used in at least one article, but there's no rule that says a no-free file can be used in only one article. All that WP:NFCC#3 requires is that usage may be minimal, and there are cases where a non-free image is being properly used in multiple articles. The arguments against the file usage as I see them are that its current usage does not satisfy WP:NFCC#8. It's not enough that the article discusses Rogers since the the article itself is not only about Rogers. The section about him should discuss the non-free image itself to a such degree that not seeing the screenshot would be detrimental to the reader's understanding of the article. Finally, I disagree that this is an iconic image, and least in the context of Wikipedia (see No. 8 of WP:NFCI). The fact that the screenshot may have been used by various news organziations as part of their reports does not necessarily make it iconic for our purposes. -- Marchjuly (talk) 22:24, 26 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]