Wikipedia:Files for discussion/2017 June 13

< June 12	June 14 >

June 13

File:Setapak Central.jpg

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: Tagging as "no evidence of permission". Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 09:25, 2 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

promotional image, dubious self-work claim FASTILY 01:03, 13 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete unless there is OTR confirmattion that the uploader is indeed the copyright holder. The image seems to be the full image of what can be found at http://www.setapakcentral.com.my/about.aspx?page=about - Whpq (talk) 00:03, 14 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there I'm from the Marketing Department of Setapak Central Mall and the photo that you found on Setapak Central's Website was also uploaded by me. Hence, I'm the copyright holder of the image. If you need further clarification, please contact me. Thanks. Desmondyap93 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 00:13, 14 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

That you are from the marketing department for the mall does not guarantee that you are the copyright holder. Copyright normally resides with the photographer unless there was a transfer of the copyright as part of an agreement. You would need to provide proof that permission has been provided to release the image under the stated free license. See Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials. -- Whpq (talk) 00:28, 14 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. 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.

File:Salman Ramadan Abedi, suicide attacker in the Manchester Arena bombing.jpg

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. NFCC#8 compliance issues were not addressed it seems like Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 09:26, 2 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I would merely say that it doesn't meet

2017 Manchester Arena bombing without the image of the attacker. Also, the subject of the article is neither an attacker nor the death of an attacker, and the article is mostly not biographic or not written biographically. Rather the person is covered in one section of the article but does not take over the whole article. Also, the image is non-free, and any usage in a non-biographical article may not meet fair use standards. Nonetheless, contacting the family of the perpetrator to obtain permission to freely use the photo isn't easy as they are still in mourning, but there's no deadline.

True, the perpetrator was responsible for the event, but other people can look at such images elsewhere as Wikipedia is not a repository. I previewed the section without the image, and I think most of us, including me, can already understand the event and the perpetrator without this image. Maybe this nomination would be seen as one of the cases of crusade trend against non-free images of perpetrators. Well, I proposed using a free image of the person who killed a singer, but consensus unanimously opposed... though that's mostly off-topic. Still, I don't think an image of this person is necessary as free content has been strongly encouraged and the such would still help readers grasp the details of the event. George Ho (talk) 23:53, 13 June 2017 (UTC)[reply

]

Note as nom: Almost forgot to say that it was previously PRODded, but then shortly it was de-PRODded. --George Ho (talk) 07:39, 16 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

One of the unfortunate aspects of this event is the age of the victims, the photo serves its purpose in highlighting this. Smoments (talk) 11:28, 17 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep (for the time being): as I've said before,
WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS is a guideline, not a rule.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 11:35, 17 June 2017 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete - The only purposeful thing this image has to this place is that we can all use his pretty little face as a dartboard!, That aside we never have attackers images on here and so I don't see why we would here, I personally believe it fails NFCC#8 (which states and I quote "Contextual significance. Non-free content is used only if its presence would significantly increase readers' understanding of the article topic, and its omission would be detrimental to that understanding.") - There are plenty of images of this scum over the internet and feelings aside I don't believe it would or could "increase readers' understanding of the article topic" if that makes sense, But as per nom & #8 Delete. –Davey2010^Talk 13:23, 17 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment some of the previous delete rationale fails
WP:NOTCENSORED. What Abedi did was undoubtedly disgraceful, but it doesn't count as a rationale for deleting an image. Here is a public domain dartboard.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 16:12, 17 June 2017 (UTC)[reply
]

Some being 10% - A good 90% was me thoroughly explaining why I believe it fails NFCC #8 so your comment is rather irrelevant. –Davey2010^Talk 17:22, 27 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete fails NFCC #8, I cannot see how it aids understanding, nor how omission would be detrimental. Notoriety of act is irrelevantPincrete (talk) 09:08, 28 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete We dont usually publish faces anyway and there is alot of "rv" on it. Winsocker (talk) 10:53, 28 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Looks like a random did it for us, I guess the case is closed? Winsocker (talk) 11:12, 28 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Since Ianmacm reversed my edits. I created an account just to say that yes, it needs to be deleted. As stated by other users, it does not meet [WP:NFCC#8]] and, as Davey2010 & Winsocker stated, we actually do not usually publishes faces (unless its for really really well known people which this guy does not fall under). ThatOneSam (talk) 11:23, 28 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Knowing who the perpetrator was, and an image is and important part of this, helps us understand the context of the action. We have attacker images on -
Assassination of Archduke Franz Ferdinand of Austria, Assassination of John F. Kennedy. The vast majority of news items (which is what we have at this point) - including highly reputable sources included an image of Abedi in their reporting.Icewhiz (talk) 11:25, 28 June 2017 (UTC)[reply
]

Comment- The two other images you mention are in the public domain. We're free to use them. That means they are subject to different policies than the one discussed here. The one being discussed here is not free and is being used under a claim of fair use. That means it's subject to the strict policy of having to meet the
non-free media criteria. And I tend to agree with my colleagues that this image does not meet the eighth of those criteria. It simple does not aids understanding of the subject and removing the image is certainly not detrimental to the subject.T v x1 13:55, 28 June 2017 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete Seeing this event unfold, I would like to remind you all how come we cannot have pictures of the British terrorist in the 2017 Finsbury Park Attack? That seems unfair. Is it because he was an arab that we must while this guy was british so we cant? 12SendOPic (talk) 22:44, 28 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The image doesn't add a great deal to the article, but various arguments here are off topic, because they are based on variants of
WP:NFCC status of the image which is up for discussion here.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 05:46, 1 July 2017 (UTC)[reply
]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. 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.