Wikipedia:Files for discussion/2020 May 29

< May 28	May 30 >

May 29[edit]

File:Perezcoach.jpg[edit]

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; deleted by Fastily (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 03:01, 6 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

May be a copyright violation. See c:Special:PermanentLink/422335731#File:Perezcoach.jpg. Brianjd (talk) 00:35, 29 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I edited the raw file and a higher quality resolution picture has been added to the file page. Let me know if you need additional information. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Football3000 (talk • contribs) 18:56, 30 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Uploader replaced this image on Javier Pérez (soccer coach) with a new image they uploaded to Commons, which has already been nominated for deletion based (in part) on the uploader’s history of copyvios. Brianjd (talk) 11:09, 2 June 2020 (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:George Floyd.png[edit]

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: keep. Consensus is that there is no reasonable prospect of obtaining a free image of this recently deceased person. It follows that this discussion is of the view that an interpretation of the policy WP:NFCC#1 that presumes that free images of recently deceased people are normally available is mistaken, and that the guideline WP:NFCI #10 should be read with the presumption that obtaining a free image of recently deceased people is normally not likely. Sandstein 21:39, 11 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Per NFC, we do not allow non-frees of even the recently deceased as with BLP on the expectation that a free image of them can be obtained in the months after their passing. Masem (t) 06:01, 29 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: How do you expect to get a free image of George Floyd? nobody knew him before his death, it is highly unlikely that we can get a free image. --I Mertex I (talk) 07:06, 1 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Even in a case like this, we expect editors to - after enough time has passed for mourning and other factors - to ask friends and family about licensing such a photo in a free manner. He clearly had several social media photos, so its not like there aren't past photos of him, its just a matter of asking. Wouldn't be asking now for very obvious reasons. --Masem (t) 23:37, 4 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete A non-free image, if a free one can't be found, would only be appropriate in a biography about the person, but not in an article about his death. --Stefan2 (talk) 18:34, 1 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for the reasons given by Stefan2. If it turns out that Floyd's notability goes beyond WP:BLP1E, then it might be possible to use a non-free image of him for primary identification purposes in a stand-alone article about him, but it's not really needed in an article about the event unless there was something about his physical appearance at the time (other than the fact he was a black man) that was discussed in reliable sources and supported by sourced content in the article. The same would apply to any non-free images of any of the police officers or anyone else involved in the incident. -- Marchjuly (talk) 02:20, 2 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Sheesh, just saw this by accident and it is disappointing that you all are rigidly sticking to some arbitrary policy. If you can find a free-image, by all means use it, but come on otherwise. I was looking for an article about this incident and truly felt that the article would be incomplete at best without that picture. If you can include a picture of the police killing that man, you can definitely include a picture of the man itself. Leaderboard (talk) 15:50, 2 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Marchjuly. His race is discussed in reliable sources, so we don't need a picture to prove it. His exact appearance/identification is not enough for NFCC except for an article on him specifically, which we do not have. b uidhe 16:42, 2 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep It is untenable that the only picture that would be in the article of his death would be of him being murdered. There needs to be an image portraying him as person not merely objectified as part of an event. Honestly, this seems to be a violation of BLP (recently deceased) to not show him in a more respectful way than the murder image. Sydney Poore/FloNight User talk:FloNight 00:58, 3 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete If it aint free it aint free.Slatersteven (talk) 06:20, 4 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I'm not convinced by the "it would only be okay if he had an article" argument. The reason he has no article, is because per WP:BIO1E he is "notable only for one event" and that means we should not have a separate article. But whether someone has an article or not is not a relevant factor in deciding whether an image can be used or not. For example, in an article about a band, we would use an image of the band in question depicting some or all of its members even if those members have no separate articles (because their notability hinges completely on that band's notability). Consequently, WP:NFLISTS explicitly allows use of non-free images in list-style articles, i.e. articles - like the one in question - that are not solely about the subject in the image.
Therefore, the only factor should be whether WP:NFCCP is satisfied. The breaking point could be #8 here, does the use of the image significantly increase readers' understanding of the article topic, and [would] its omission [...] be detrimental to that understanding? I think the argument can be made that it does. Many readers might wonder what Floyd looked like after reading about his biography and his appearance might also be helpful to readers who for example want to verify whether this was someone they knew or had seen. Text cannot possibly replace this. As such, WP:NFCI #10 explicitly lists Pictures of deceased persons, in articles about that person, provided that ever obtaining a free close substitute is not reasonably likely. as a potential use case for non-free images. Note, that it says "articles about that person", not "articles exclusively about that person" or "stand-alone articles about that person". Killing of George Floyd is undoubtedly an article that is also about the person of George Floyd (in the "Persons involved" section) and as such the use of the image for this section seems acceptable under NFCC. Regards SoWhy 07:45, 4 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- A non-free image of the band as a unit might be allowed if no free equivalent were available and some of the members were deceased or the band as a unit had long ceased to exist per item 1 of WP:NFC#UUI; it would, however, be a single image of the band as a unit, not a user-created collage of individual images of the members or simply individual photos of the members added throughout the article, even if some of the members (who were deceased) didn’t have stand-alone articles about them as individuals.
  As for NFLISTS, I'm not sure your reading of it is completely correct in that NFLISTS actually is encouraging us to minimize non-free images in list articles whenever possible and use them only for very exceptional cases. In other words, NFLISTS is telling us (at least as I understand it) that we should avoid using individual non-free images for individual entries in favor of using one primary image to represent the entire list as a whole. So, for example, in an article about the fictional characters of some TV show, a group shot of the cast might be allowed at the top of the article, but a non-free image of each character to identify their individual entry wouldn’t automatically be considered OK simply to show what the character looked like. Similarly, with respect to "lists of real people" like alumni, politicians, award winners, etc., a non-free image for each person wouldn't be considered automatically OK just because they were mentioned by name in the list. If the individual has their own stand-alone article where a non-free image was being used, then that file wouldn't automatically be considered OK to add to the list article just to have an image for them in the article; moreover, even if the individual didn't have a stand-alone article about them, uploading a non-free image of them just for the list article would (once again) not automatically be considered acceptable, even if the person was deceased. Those two reasons are pretty much why you don’t see many non-free images being used for individual entries of list articles or articles about elections or other events. People for sure do add them all the time, but they're usually removed by bots or editors checking on non-free content use. Even when a non-free use rationale for the article in question is provided and the discussion of a particular file has ended up at FFD, the consensus (at least of the ones I've seen discussed) tends to cite NFLISTS mainly as an example of why such a non-free use isn't NFCCP compliant, not the other way around.
  There have been a few FFD discussions about using non-free images in "event articles" like this where the images being discussed were ones of the perpetrators, victims or other participants in the event and were used to simply show what the someone looks like, and the closes that I've seen usually have been not in favor of such usage absent any specific sourced critical commentary about the image itself (not the individual) that was somewhere to be found in the article. — Marchjuly (talk) 11:39, 4 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  Both points I made regarding bands and NFLISTS were to address the argument that the use is not justified because it's not in an article specifically about Floyd. NFLISTS presupposes that an image can be used to illustrate a subject that is only mentioned in a list, invalidating the argument some made above that the subject needs to have their own article in order for the image to be usable. Whether this is a case where the image should be used, is only for NFCC to decide, so any arguments should be made based on whether this meets NFCC, not whether it's an article solely about the subject. Regards So Why 12:25, 4 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  The "in articles about the person" in NFCI #10 is a guideline that has been interpreted in similar discussions I've seen about this kind of thing to mean "stand-alone articles about the person" when the purpose of non-free use is simply for identification reasons. It might not explicitly say such a things, but at the same time it also doesn't explicitly say that "in sections about the person in articles about events related to the person". The purpose given for this file's use in it non-free use rationale is "for visual identification of the person in question, at the top of his/her biographical article", which is not the case at all and which is what I believe Cryptic is referring to below when he states that the rationale is inadeqaute. Whether that can be fixed by simply rephrasing things as "for visual identification of the person in question, in a section about the person in an article about his/her death" is not so clear because using a non-free image in a sort of mini-bio about the person in another article about a larger event is a type of non-free use that has yet to be considered NFCCP compliant any FFD or WP:NFCR discussion or any discussion at WT:NFCC as far as I can tell. Moreover, I've yet to see any example at FFD, etc. of any non-free image of this type of use being considered acceptable in any list article simply because NFLISTS suggest that such a use could be possible. There's no automatic entitlement to use any non-free image per the NFCCP, but the NFCCP is not an outright ban on using non-free images and it also presupposes that one can be used all ten of the NFCCP are met.
  If George Floyd is ultimately kept as a stand-alone article, then that's where this file should be used (it will need to have a non-free use rationale provided for that use though); if not, then I don't think it should be used in the article about his death/killing, absent any sourced critical commentary about the particular image itself that goes beyond the fact that Floyd was black for it's use to meet NFCC#8. FWIW, I think the same applies to File:Derek Chauvin.jpg for the same reasons. Now, perhaps that should be added to this FFD so that it can be discussed as well since the same issues are at play unless someone want's to argue one thing for the Floyd image and another for the Chauvin image. The Chauvin image might even be a problem per WP:MUG and WP:NFCC#3a since he can be "identified" from the image currently being used in the main infobox. What about non-free images images of the other officers involved since they too are mentioned in the subsection? They don't exist yet, but perhaps they will and will face the same issues. -- Marchjuly (talk) 23:09, 4 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- It is not that we would allow a non-free if he had an article. It is simply too soon for a non-free to be allowed per NFC policy. We expect editors to make efforts to find free images of recently deceased people before rushing off to include non-free, and given that there's clearly social media images of him, there's a good chance - in months after the current protests have waned, that we can approach friends and family to license an image for free. The lack of effort to do this, even with a case as big as this, is the issue. --Masem (t) 23:34, 4 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: A photo is important for identification of the subject of the article. This image can be cross referenced to the photo of his murder to verify it is the same person. This is clearly a selfie, and it's now impossible to get a free image now the subject is deceased.Rotation4020 (talk) 09:49, 4 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Identification purpose is very important as people need to verify other photos/videos and confirm their subject is indeed George Floyd. They may simply pull up Wikipedia, expecting to find a normal selfie and use it for identification. Chenxiaoqino (talk) 02:41, 5 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The non-free use rationale for Killing of George Floyd is inadequate but correctable. There's no rationale at all for its other three current uses; of them, I very much doubt an acceptable case could be made for Timeline of the 2020 United States presidential election, and I know one for Draft:George Floyd could not. Remove from all but one article, probably George Floyd if that survives unre-redirected. —Cryptic 17:54, 4 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I removed the latter two uses since I agree with you. Regards So Why 18:01, 4 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
If a non-free use rationale is not provided for the file's use in George Floyd, the file will be tagged as such by a bot and eventually removed from that article per WP:NFCC#10c, WP:NFCCE and WP:NFC#Implementation. So, I've gone ahead and added {{Non-free use rationale biog}} for that particular use; however, this doesn't mean I think the file's use in Killing of George Floyd is NFCCP compliant and that the file's use is justified in that article if the stand-alone article about Floyd ends up being merged per Talk:Killing of George Floyd#Proposed merge of George Floyd into Killing of George Floyd. -- Marchjuly (talk) 23:41, 4 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - expecting editors to contact the families or friends of recently deceased people to ask for a photograph is ridiculous, and if that's our usual practice, it should stop. I do not believe there is any basis in US copyright law for doubting that this is "fair use", and in the case of photographs of recently deceased public figures, we needn't go further than fair use. Levivich ^{[dubious – discuss]} 01:56, 5 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- WP:NFCC was intentionally developed to go further than the concept of "fair use" as explained in WP:NFC#Background. I don't think anyone has argued that Floyd's family or friends need to be contacted for a free image and a non-free one would probably be OK per for primary identification in the main infobox George Floyd; the same file, however, doesn't need meet the NFCCP (at it my opinion) in a subsection about an article about his killing. A bit of a segue perhaps, but the fact that someone has just died doesn't automatically mean it's OK to use a non-free image of them right after their death. This have been discussed countless times at WT:NFCC and although no specific number of days after death has ever been agreed upon, there does seem to have general feeling that immediate use of a non-free image right after some has died might have problems with WP:NFCC#1 and the part of item 10 of WP:NFCI that states "provided that ever obtaining a free close substitute is not reasonably likely". -- Marchjuly (talk) 02:53, 5 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  Yeah I know. :-) NFCC appears to be written to protect people's ability to profit from the work of volunteers on Wikipedia, by ensuring that everything on WP is not just free to use, but free to sell. That's why NFC goes beyond fair use, and why, e.g., CC-BY-NC isn't good enough under NFC. And that's a bad thing. A very bad thing. Stepping back, it is nothing less than ridiculous that we would have a policy that says that we shouldn't have a picture of George Floyd on our website. Any policy that says that is directly, and significantly, impeding with the very core purpose of Wikipedia: to be an encyclopedia, to share knowledge. We must have a picture of George Floyd, if we're going to be writing an article about George Floyd. It's literally true that almost a million people are reading our George Floyd articles every day; for us not to have a picture of him, anywhere, because it might be "reasonably likely" that we can obtain a free substitute... is just insane. There's really no other word for it. There is no rational reason to restrict ourselves in this way... except if you want to make sure that anyone who wants to can take one of our articles and sell it for profit. Which I think is antithetical to the mission of Wikipedia. There is just no reason not to put a picture of George Floyd on George Floyd, Killing of George Floyd, George Floyd protests and everywhere else where a picture of George Floyd would help the reader's understanding (which would be like every article about George Floyd). We're an educational non-profit institution, it's a widely-circulated picture, he's a limited purpose public figure... there is nothing illegal about it, at all. We just choose to have a policy that is more restrictive, and that's unfortunate. Sorry, end rant. Levivich ^{[dubious – discuss]} 03:10, 5 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  We can't really change the policy in this discussion; just try and interpret how to apply it to this file's use as it's currently written. I'm not necessarily saying your concerns are totally without merit, but if you think the policy is too restrictive either across the board or just with respect to certain types of non-free use, then you probably will need to bring that up for discussion on the policy's talk page first and then perhaps WP:VPP. Perhaps a time has come to change or clarify some parts of it. Personally, I'm not sure we must have an image about any person written about on Wikipedia, but that's something not really related to any one particular individual or their particular circumstances. The policy wasn't particularly developed (as far as I know) with one specific person in mind; so, trying to see it only as such probably will not help convince others that the changes you feel needed to be made actually need to be made.
  Finally, I just want to clarify the I don't think anyone has argued that Floyd's family or friends need to be contacted for a free image part of my previous post. I didn't notice Masem's two prior comments earlier today about that type of thing. I think the point he's trying to make is that all reasonable efforts have to be made to try a obtain a free image, and one of those efforts could mean to contact someone's family or representatives to see if they can provide one. I don't think Masem was implying that Wikipedia wants us to get on the phone the minute someone has died and start pestering their family, etc. for a free image. It's just one option, and I believe one that in the past some editors have had some success with (sorry I can't remember a particular example at the moment) when enough time has passed and when it was done in a polite and respectful manner. At the same time, I don't believe the current policy allows us to use any non-free images by default until a free equivalent can be found as a replacement. If that was truly the case, pretty much a non-free image could be used in any article (even BLPs) and WP:FREER would be pretty much meaningless. When someone dies, you obviously cannot take any new photographs of them to show as they looked when they were alive, but an older photo taken prior to their death could possibly released under a free license that allows it to be used on Wikipedia, and such a possibility is often quite hard to assess when there's a rush to upload a non-free image immediately upon someone's death on the assumption that the person being dead makes it automatically OK to do so. -- Marchjuly (talk) 04:50, 5 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  If someone locates a freer image, all they have to do is upload it! The old one will then be deleted as a non-free orphan. The only reason for not allowing this for living people is that it might discourage someone from creating a freer image. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 05:11, 5 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  
  You're right, of course, that we can't change policy here. Let me be explicit about my "keep" rationale, based on current policy: it meets all WP:NFCC criteria. NFCC1 says "is available, or could be created"... a free picture of George Floyd can no longer be created, and as far as we know, there is not one "available". Not available to us. Not that we can link to or upload. It meets NFCC3 if we use it just on one article: George Floyd, or if that's merged, then Killing of George Floyd. Nothing in NFCC, or the guidelines WP:FREER or WP:NFCI, AFAICS, says anything about contacting anyone to try and obtain a free image. Personally, I disagree that it is "reasonable" to contact the family or representatives of a deceased person to ask them for an image for their Wikipedia article, even if we wait a while before doing so. In this case in particular, it would be somewhat twisted if we had an image of the man dying or dead, but not of the man while he was alive. That's just an outcome I have a hard time accepting. Levivich ^{[dubious – discuss]} 05:45, 5 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  We know there are plenty of pictures of Floyd out there, likely taken by friends and family or even selfies which would fall to family ownership. Right now, we know those are likely copyrighted (By default) to those people. But in terms of "could be created", means that those existing photos could be made free if those family and friends were willing to do so, if asked. So the possibility that free media can be obtained or created still exists per NFCC because we know no effort has been made. Now is not the time to ask as they are in mourning, but likely in two-three or so months from now would be reasonable, and that's why we don't allow non-free of recently deceased for several months after deaths, especially if we know pictures do exist. And to keep in mind: WP is not a memorial: the reason we have an image of the act of brutality is that it is was sparked the huge amount of protests, and easily serves as an historically relevant photograph, it is not there to illustrate Floyd or the officer as a person (as neither of them need to be visually shown to understand the key parts of these events). --Masem (t) 16:30, 5 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  I'm seeing nothing in NFCC that says we must contact other people and ask them for a free image before we can use a fair use image. I don't think that "can be created" means the same thing as "can be obtained". "Can be obtained" is not the standard written in NFCC. And I don't think a volunteer website should have policies whose goal is to require volunteers to make an effort or not be lazy. It's not like using a fair use image is some kind of privilege or candy we are handing out to editors that they must "earn". Levivich ^{[dubious – discuss]} 17:45, 5 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  The transformation of a copyrighted images to once under a free license is the creation of free media for our purposes. The problem we have had in the past is that people have used the death of non-public figures to immediately add non-free images of them, showing no attempt to look for free content that is possible by asking around that can be possible. This is not assured, and I would guess less than 25% (but well more than 10%) of the time we get free images this way, but significant enough that we cannot deny this route as a means to get free images. Additionally, an image of most people that aren't public figures is not essential to understanding their notability, so while ultimately that image does serve NFCC#8, we need people to respect the goals of the Foundation and seek out free content first. --Masem (t) 19:05, 5 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Per Levivich. While someone is alive it is theoretically possible to create a CC image. Once they are dead, it is not. An image would serve an encyclopaedic purpose in the article about his death. I think it would be much poorer and have much less impact without one. And yes, NFCC is all about protecting the right of corporations to profit from the work Wikipedia volunteers. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 04:21, 5 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- The point of this part of NFCC (no non-free of a recently deceased person) is to avoid editors from being lazy about searching for free image replacements. It is very clear that once a non-free image is on an article, almost no effort is made to find a free one, so the goal is to stop non-free from being added in the first place until some reasonable attempt has been made to show a free is not likely possible. In the case of a recently-deceased person, this would be giving time for a period of mourning before approaching those who would likely have photos to see if they could off them in a free license. They may not want to, which then is fine to turn back to a non-free, but the effect needs to be made first. Otherwise we are being lazy against the WMF's resolution to minimize non-free use. --Masem (t) 16:23, 5 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  Per WP:NOTCOMPULSORY, Wikipedia editors are volunteers who are entitled to be as lazy as they want to be. Following your logic, it is the responsibility of WMF to locate suitable images. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 04:57, 6 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  There are lots of examples where we ask Wikipedia's volunteer editors to do a little more than just be “lazy” (maybe that's not the best word we should be using when discussing this kind of thing since it sort of implies that a person's intentions might be bad); for example, there are things like WP:BURDEN, WP:NFCCE, WP:ONUS where those wanting to do a particular thing on Wikipedia are expected to be a little more than just click “Publish changes” something to Wikipedia. So, asking (expecting?) someone to at least make an effort (I do think that's what Masem meant in his above post and that "effect" is probably an auto-correct typo) to find a free equivalent image to use instead of immediately uploading a non-free one after someone has just died doesn't seem like a totally unreasonable thing to do. There's never been an exact time period as to how much time (or if any time) should pass after someone has died before it's considered OK to use a non-free image for identification purposes; they're been various RFCs, etc., but no agreement seems to be reached. In some cases, the person might have had a Wikipedia article for years and there might have been some effort made to find a free image to use while they were still living; so, when they die, uploading and using a non-free one might seems reasonable. In other cases, its the death of a person which motivates someone to create an article about them, and the assumption is that it's immediately OK to use a non-free image since the person is dead. I'm not sure if that something which should automatically be assumed to be the case for the reasons given by Masem and that a non-free shouldn't automatically be considered to be acceptable by default until a free equivalent is found by someone. In the same way that the I community doesn't really encourage editors to add unsourced content to articles (expecting others to find citations to support said content), I'm not sure it should be encouraging editors to add non-free images to articles (expecting others to either justify it's non-free use by showing a free equivalent cannot be created or found). -- Marchjuly (talk) 00:34, 7 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep provided we change the policy subsequently, to allow non-free to illustrate the subject under discussion, rather than merely the subject of the article. (Frankly we should allow keeping of many non-free images, e.g. low res album covers, as they illustrate themselves.) All the best: Rich Farmbrough 12:38, 5 June 2020 (UTC).[reply]
- You say that like we don't blanket allow album covers. (Which is flatly insane, since they're peripheral marketing material, and how strict we are about allowing audio clips, which are the actual article subjects.) —Cryptic 13:15, 5 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – This is a bad slippery slope. Allowing this will permit an explosion of non-free images everywhere. This photograph should only be permitted at George Floyd, if that page is kept, and even there we should not allow this until after 6 months, after we have waited sometime to see if a free image can be found. --- C&C (Coffeeandcrumbs) 16:48, 5 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, retag as {{Non-free historic image}}, and rewrite rationale and captions accordingly. This photograph has been the model for murals, paintings, posters, and digital art all over the world. It is the very definition of a historic image. Even if a free photograph of Floyd emerges (and I doubt one will), this will likely continue to be the iconic image of him. blameless 00:54, 6 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, If we find a free image it may no longer be appropriate to keep the image. However, with national focus of this image, I doubt people are not looking for a free image just because we have a non-free one. Banak (talk) 10:21, 6 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Levivich. Even if the dedicated article on Floyd is merged to the article on the killing, the image should be kept for use in #People_involved. userdude 21:48, 6 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Masem I have no clue what you're talking about. Where are you getting this at WP:NFCC? There is clear value in having an image of the person in question and no realistic prospect of a non-free equivalent. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 00:17, 7 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Standard practice is to expect this search to happen. This has been discussed before [1] and the wording of WP:NFC#Acceptable use of images #10 is said to imply this search is required Pictures of deceased persons, in articles about that person, provided that ever obtaining a free close substitute is not reasonably likely. (from that linked discussion). --Masem (t) 00:41, 7 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- That is, to stress, if after people have had a chance to ask friends and family and they do not wish to license the images they have as free, then our last likely chance of getting a free image is gone, and we are fine to use a non-free for reasons give by keep votes above, and that's not an issue. But there is no way in the two weeks since that we can assume a reasonable effort to find a free image has been made, and we do not expect editors at this time to be bothering Floyd's family and friends while they're in mourning, but we do still expct this to be done. Until that's done, there remains the possibility of a free image, and non-free cannot be used until then. --Masem (t) 00:45, 7 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  - Masem, Please tell me that as far as you are aware, no one has gone to this man's grieving family and said, "Hi, I'm from Wikipedia--would you take a look at Creative Commons licensing issues for your personal photographs of your dead loved one for me?" I do not think this is a wise solution to the problem of finding free media of the recently deceased. Regardless, this conversation from seven years ago was not codified anywhere and I don't think it's common sense, best practice, or local policy, so I'm still sticking with keep as there is on realistic prospect of a non-free substitute and there is very high value in providing an image for identification. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 20:18, 8 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    - I would not expect anyone to approach the mourning family now to ask about a free image (it would be entirely inappropriate at this time), but that possibility is there within a few months. This has been done many times in the past, even Jimmy Wales has done that. That's the intent of the logic here. Family and friends of the deceased person (particularly with someone that lived in the Western culture) is a known venue that needs to be checked, even though it is months off. Otherwise, we are mindlessly giving up any search for a free image the moment someone dies, which is not appropriate. The image is not required at this point, though obviously I agree that once a reasonable check for a free image has been made and failed to produce one, a non-free is then fine. --Masem (t) 20:49, 8 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as per User:Leaderboard and User:Blameless. Removing this image would be overly pedantic in attempting to enforce a rule this doesn't clearly violate, undermines the historic nature of the graphic, and most importantly is disrespectful to the family and memory of George Floyd, a whom this image is often use at least in part to commemorate him in life and not just in his final moments. --pluma♫ ♯ 02:52, 9 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Abstain as there should be a heuristic overview of policy concerning non-free image use for exceptional cases of historic importance, before any wide-reaching decisions are made. There are reasonable arguments on both sides here, and context must be considered.--~Sıgehelmus♗_(Tøk) 18:10, 9 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. WP:NFCI#8,9,10 and WP:NFCCP#8 should apply. --nafSadh ^{did say} 08:05, 10 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Nafsadh. I would consider deletion if this image is nominated again after 6 months. --Pandakekok9 (talk) 03:01, 11 June 2020 (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:Sueña conmigo intertile.jpg[edit]

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; deleted by Fastily (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 03:01, 6 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The series poster already exists, see File:Sueña conmigo.jpg — Bradford ^💬 06:19, 29 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete both this and File:Sueña conmigo.jpg now that Bradford has uploaded File:Sueña conmigo.png at Commons. Aspects (talk) 06:37, 29 May 2020 (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:On the sets of Kahaani Ghar Ghar Kii1.jpg[edit]

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; deleted by Fastily (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 03:01, 6 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The file has no significant use and no description of the purpose of its usage and not used in any article of Wikipedia, also the person in the file being unknown. Noobie anonymous (talk) 10:09, 29 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, orphaned with no obvious value. Salavat (talk) 05:16, 30 May 2020 (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:On the sets of Kahaani Ghar Ghar Kii.jpg[edit]

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; deleted by Fastily (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 03:01, 6 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

No significant information and no usage in any Wikipedia articles. Also the description and details of the person in it is unknown. Noobie anonymous (talk) 10:20, 29 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, orphaned with no obvious value. Salavat (talk) 05:16, 30 May 2020 (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:FRANCIS-GULICK MILL, LOUDOUN COUNTY, VA.jpg[edit]

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: Wrong forum. The file is on Commons. Please nominate it for deletion there if you still feel it should be deleted. AnomieBOT ⚡ 18:12, 29 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

File:FRANCIS-GULICK MILL, LOUDOUN COUNTY, VA.jpg (delete | talk | history | links | logs)

Unencyclopedic: this is not a photo of Francis Gulick Mill. It is a photo of a spring house on and taken from private property. The spring house is located at 39°02'06.82" N 77°33'09.31" W , over half a mile away from the actual Gulick Mill. Both uses of this file on the "Francis-Gulick Mill" and "National Register of Historic Places listings in Loudoun County, Virginia" have been removed Jfmach (talk) 17:28, 29 May 2020 (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:Arif R Hossain.jpeg[edit]

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; deleted by Fastily (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 03:01, 6 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

possible copyright violation. No exif information with the file. RRRW (talk) 20:42, 29 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, essentially orphaned (not used in the main space) with questionable licensing. Salavat (talk) 05:16, 30 May 2020 (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.