previous free image is basically garbage-quality Basically, and I know this is probably a tough sell, but WP:IAR. I uploaded this after the subject's death, it was a deliberately distributed publicity image sent out to the press by Hezzbollah. I added what I thought was a decent WP:FUR for using this instead of the other image to the right, which is beyond useless. It was nominated for speedy deletion with the following rationale: Not a screenshot of software as claimed in NFCC#1 section, and with a PD (all be it lower quality) image available on commons (see C:Category:Fuad Shukr) I contested that nomination with the following comment: Claim is it is a screenshot of software or a website. The website it was screenshotted from is clearly identified. Previous image was of such a low quality that it was entirely useless in identifying the subject, we'd literally be better off with nothing. This is a publicity image that was deliberately, widely distributed after the subject's death, it is meant to be re-used to show what he looked like. There is no possiblity of creating a new free image as subject is deceased. At the very least this should be discussed as opposed to being speedy deleted. but apparently the deleting admin did not find that compelling, so here we are. (the article in question is currently displaying a third image, that seems to have just been grabbed from a news website and is therefore not a publicity image as this one is, so it's probably going to be deleted soon) If there is absolutley no room for making an exception to the rules for the good of the project, then I guess the deletion will stand, but I'm hoping that's not the case. Just Step Sidewaysfrom this world ..... today22:07, 29 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
{{Non-free web screenshot}} is for images of websites, not anything that happens to be displayed on one. Just read it: it's intended "for identification and critical commentary relating to the website in question" (bolding original; italicization mine). The proper template would be {{non-free biog-pic}}. In that regard, you and Cakelot1 were talking past each other, and it shouldn't have been speedied solely on that basis - not even when we still had speedy deletion criterion F7a, which is the only one that would have applied for that reason; any reasonable admin would've fixed the template instead.The part that made this speedyable under a strict interpretation of F7c is that the Replaceability and Commercial parameters of {{Non-free use rationale 2}} were pasted in from a rationale for an image of a website qua website - "The software or website from which the screenshot is taken is copyrighted and not released under a free license, so creation of a free image is not possible." and "The use of a low resolution screenshot from software or a website will not impact the commercial viability of the software or site." respectively. Those do need fixing; they make Cakelot1's position much more reasonable than if it had just been the wrong non-free-use template; and they're just past what an admin looking at the expired F7c CSD template is expected to deal with himself. So I don't think Explicit acted wrongly.That said, on the merits, I agree that the free image we do have can't reasonably be considered an adequate substitute. Let's undelete this and send it to FFD; the paperwork in the usage rationale can be fixed there, we can all act aghast at the people who claim the eighteen pixels off to the right are sufficient for a biography, and the likely eventual keep result there should immunize it against further attempts at speedy deletion in favor of any of those pixels. —Cryptic00:01, 30 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
(There's a slightly better version of the roughly-18-pixel free image we have here. I'd describe that one as "about seventy-two pixels". I don't think it's a sufficient replacement, either; it could identify at least four people I saw today.) —Cryptic00:41, 30 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Undelete and send to FFD per Cryptic. I see no fault in the deletion, but this would benefit from a discussion. No need to invoke IAR. Owen×☎01:16, 30 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Send to FFD for a full discussion. Whilst it is on the face of it a valid speedy, I think discussing it in more detail would be sensible for the specifics of the situation. Stifle (talk) 08:15, 2 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Undelete and discuss. Minutiae of CSD wording aside, speedy deletion is intended for situations where the outcome is clear and does not warrant discussion, and/or where there is urgency due to chance of harm. That is not the case here, where there is clearly nuance. Let a proper discussion sort it out. Martinp (talk) 20:31, 2 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Undelete and maybe send to FfD. The terrible free image is only technically an image but is not serviceable as illustration, meaning that a suitable non-free image can not be replaced with it, meaning that a non-free image can be used under WP:FREER.—Alalch E.20:34, 5 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.
To your question, a question: what was in the article you wrote - its entire content is visible in the "log" link above - that isn't already in Child? —Cryptic00:27, 29 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Even if entire content is visible in other article, this merging hurt structural relation. We can expand this article if this article is not deleted. Sharouser (talk) 00:34, 29 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse the A10. The second paragraph in the existing article is about the kinship relationship. If there was additional information about the kinship relationship, it can be merged into the article by normal editing. If the author thinks that a separate article is in order, they can submit a draft via AFC. Robert McClenon (talk) 03:31, 30 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse No need for a sub-specified topic when the appropriate content is already covered in the existing article. It doesn't even add anything as a redirect, which is a relatively low bar to clear. Jclemens (talk) 03:34, 30 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse I can see that "child" is a kinship between animals as well as a developmental stage for an animal (in wikiworld generally human). In contrast, "sibling" is only a kinship and not a developmental stage. So, in principle there is more than one topic and so could be more than one article. However, in this case I think one article can suffice at present. I can't wrap my brain around the gender issue. Thincat (talk) 15:17, 30 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse. The alleged gender issue (in response to Thincat) is that the topic of this type of kinship being represented exclusively in articles "Son" and "Daughter" (assuming that it is not represented in the existing article "Child", which is not the case) is non-inclusive because this organization of content imposes or reflects a discourse that does not acknowledge (i.e. is indicative of erasure of; as in intersex erasure) the same type of kinship when the child is neither a son or a daughter because the child is an intersex or a gender diverse person.—Alalch E.20:20, 5 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.
This was a WP:BADNAC closed by an editor who has never closed an Afd in their life. Likely paid to close it as no consensus. I would like it reopened so a qualified admin can take a look at it. scope_creepTalk09:42, 29 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
