Eustacius de Yerburgh (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) ( restore | cache | AfD))

This page was speedy deleted without much discussion on the advice of User:Agricolae who has already been approached by another user for rather aggressive behavior towards geneaology articles (see [1]). As far as the reason for this article being deleted, Agricolae claimed it was an unsupported myth article and was non-notable. Nothing can be further from the truth as this person in the article is the founder of two major Enlish noble lines (Deramore and Alvingham) and there is a large amount of material regarding him at the College of Arms in England. He is further more mentioned on the obit page of William P. Yarborough which is an offical government site run by Arlington National Cemetary. [2]. I'll be the first to admit the article need simprovement but here on Wikipedia we should improve weak articles, not just delete them out of hand. Please undelete. OberRanks ( talk) 12:57, 23 December 2008 (UTC) reply

Hemant Punoo (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) ( restore | cache | AfD))

This article was not eligible for A7 deletion. The subject of the article is the captain of the American U19 cricket team, which is a claim for notability if ever I've heard of one. In addition to this, there are numerous sources for this person, including the BBC, Rediff, and others that were cited in the article. The nominator made a note to consult WP:CRIC in the deletion summary, which leads to a Wikiproject notability guideline that as far as I can tell has not been endorsed by the community at large. I contend that he might not meet WP:ATHLETE, but I think he clearly meets the GNG by virtue of the news coverage he has received. In any case, failing to meet a notability guideline is not a valid reason for speedy deletion.

I note that I have not yet attempted to discuss with the deleting admin, as they have a notice on their talkpage that they are on Wikibreak, and they have not edited for several days. I will however leave a note on their talk page directing them to this talk page in case they return. Lankiveil ^{( speak to me)} 10:40, 23 December 2008 (UTC) reply

• Overturn Clear claim of importance so not a candidate for speedy deletion. Article was also well sourced. Article may, or may not, fail the notability guidelines but that is a decision for AFD not speedy deletion. Davewild ( talk) 10:53, 23 December 2008 (UTC) reply
• Overturn - Definitely not a speedy candidate as the article clearly asserts notability - Peripitus (Talk) 11:27, 23 December 2008 (UTC) reply
• Overturn as A7 did not apply. Stifle ( talk) 14:19, 23 December 2008 (UTC) reply
• Comment Well, procedurally, I can see some merit in overturning, but the recreated article should go straight to AfD, where I would argue strongly for deletion. -- Dweller ( talk) 14:22, 23 December 2008 (UTC) reply
• Overturn and list at AFD as a declined A7. HeureusementIci ( talk) 05:59, 24 December 2008 (UTC) reply
• Overturn not speedy candidate. I find it odd that sometimes people delete something for not meeting GNG, and other times for not meeting, WP:CRIC, WP:MUSIC, WP:ENTERTAINER, etc. It is as if people are choosing whatever the subject isn't meeting, even though either would qualify the subject for inclusion. - Mgm| ^(talk) 09:29, 24 December 2008 (UTC) reply

File:Roubini1.jpg ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs) ( restore | cache)

The first image, File:Roubini_photo.jpg, was deleted on 12/20/08 - Wikipedia:Images and media for deletion/2008 December 14.

The replacement image (Roubini1) was tagged deletion per WP:CSD (TW)) by Admin Peripitus. This image was used to replace a stated fair use image (Roubini_photo) based on a publicity photo from his consulting service web site. Since that was rejected, this latest image was taken from a TV screen shot. It is being rejected again without any logical reason, as it seems to meet all criteria for the fair use license used.

Reason cited by admin Skier Dude for first image used (emphasis added):

The image in question File:Roubini_photo.jpg still failed the basic criteria of Wikipedia:Non-free content criteria #1 that states:

"Non-free content is used only where no free equivalent is available, or could be created, that would serve the same encyclopedic purpose. Where possible, non-free content is transformed into free material instead of using a fair-use defense, or replaced with a freer alternative if one of acceptable quality is available; "acceptable quality" means a quality sufficient to serve the encyclopedic purpose. (As a quick test, before adding non-free content requiring a rationale, ask yourself: "Can this non-free content be replaced by a free version that has the same effect?" and "Could the subject be adequately conveyed by text without using the non-free content at all?" If the answer to either is yes, the non-free content probably does not meet this criterion.)"

The salient point here is that a free equivalent could be created by someone at his school or at one of the many places he frequents just taking his picture. An alternative to this is to get the school to "release" this via the WP:OTRS examples here system, as they do clearly state they hold the copyright for all images on their website [1]. IMHO the OTRS may be the easier road to go with at this time, until a free image can be obtained. Skier Dude (talk) 03:04, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

The first image was therefore deleted because it was possible to get someone to find out where he frequents and take a photo. The alternative was to get him to sign an OTRS. This is setting an unreasonable standard, if not practical "impossibility" which seems to be unproductive. Wikiwatcher1 ( talk) 05:03, 23 December 2008 (UTC) reply

• Endorse Deletion - of File:Roubini photo.jpg and the replacement image (once and if it is actually deleted). It is a generally accepted (see Wikipedia:NFC#Unacceptable_use point 12) that, unless there is a compelling reason as to why not, a free photo of a living person is creatable. As I understand it one of the rationale's behind this is to encourage the creation of free images...a laudable goal. I don't see that anyone has tried extensively to get a free image either from the subject, a student where he teaches or any of the photographer's who've captured him to date. By Wikipedia standards the image is replaceable by a free alternate, though it may present some difficulty, so the photo fails NFCC#1 - Peripitus (Talk) 05:31, 23 December 2008 (UTC) reply
• 'Allow - As clearly stated in the Wikipedia:WikiProject Fair use - Goals, #5, (italics added): "It should be noted (if not on the tags, then somewhere else) that it is best to use a free alternative if one is available. This is not strictly a requirement of 'fair use..." You rely on Wiki's desire to "encourage the creation of free images", which you have made into a minimum requirement, and not an option, goes beyond the goals stated. Your other comment, "I don't see that anyone has tried extensively to get a free image..." seems to contradict the goals to use a free alternative: "if one is available." You expect an "extensive" effort first to find one, which seems clearly unreasonable to expect from volunteer editors willing to contribute their time. Wikiwatcher1 ( talk) 06:12, 23 December 2008 (UTC) reply
  • Unfortunately Wikipedia:WikiProject Fair use isn't the policy, has no mandate to overide the policy, and I would guess is being selectively quoted anyway. WP:NFCC Point 1 "Non-free content is used only where no free equivalent is available, or could be created, that would serve the same encyclopedic purpose.". There is an expectation that volunteer editors are here to futher wikipedia's goal of being a free encyclopedia (why would they be here if not). As to it being an unreasonable expectation that they are here to further the goals rather than take a simple option, well... But you miss an option As well as the option of finding a free image, using a fair use image (when within the project policy), option 3 is to use no image, those editors whose commitment to creating a free encyclopedia don't extend to actually finding free content can take option 3. -- 82.7.39.174 ( talk) 07:32, 23 December 2008 (UTC) reply
  • As Xe said Wikipedia:WikiProject Fair use isn't policy, and doesn't reflect policy, either. It is exceedingly outdated. It was written in 2005, and its goals and rationales have remained largely static since then. 2005 was a time when we really didn't take our mandate of generating free content seriously when it came to images, and any rationale given today that is based upon a 2005 view of image policy is deeply and fundamentally flawed. Uncle G ( talk) 15:12, 23 December 2008 (UTC) reply
• Comment (and endorse deletion of second image) - please see the lengthy discussion on my talk page regarding the first image in question. Please note that File:Roubini_photo.jpg is not "based on a publicity photo from his consulting service web site" - File:Roubini1.jpg is not "being rejected again without any logical reason" as the reason has been clearly stated in line with wiki fair use protocols by Peripitus - It is not the case that "The first image was therefore deleted because it was possible [sic -read impossible] to get someone to find out where he frequents and take a photo" as it is disingenuous to claim this since it's only been 8 days since the image was put up for deletion, and there's no indication that any effort was ever made to do obtain a free image. - OTRS granted is difficult but not a "practical "impossibility" which seems to be unproductive.", in fact, if it requested 8 days ago this entire discussion would not have taken place. Skier Dude ( talk) 06:40, 23 December 2008 (UTC) reply
  • There were multiple statements about the rationale depending on the photo being for publicity. Here's just one example: "His company, RGE Monitor, of which he is Chairman, issues Press Releases and his photo accompanies his articles and bio. His web site and content are clearly for "publicity" purposes and seem to meet the basic criteria for promotional fair use. Wikiwatcher1 (talk) 20:41, 21 December 2008 (UTC)"
  • It is likewise "disingenuous" to expect a wiki editor to make an "effort to find out where he frequents and take a photo" of a world renowned economist: Nouriel Roubini. This would undermine and discredit the whole intent and purpose of the fair use doctrine by setting an impractical requirement. Wikiwatcher1 ( talk) 07:02, 23 December 2008 (UTC) reply
    • That assumes that is the only way to get a free image, you are of course free to ask those with images if they'll release one under a free license etc. Again as above it doesn't seem unreasonable to me to expect those contributing to a free encyclopedia, to do so using free material. -- 82.7.39.174 ( talk) 07:32, 23 December 2008 (UTC) reply
    • There is no "fair use doctrine" here at Wikipedia. Our doctrine is free content. Fair use is an exception, that applies to very limited circumstances only. It is not the rule, nor the goal, nor the purpose. Uncle G ( talk) 15:12, 23 December 2008 (UTC) reply
• Endorse deletion. Whether it's hard, easy, disingenuous, impractical, or otherwise, Wikipedia's fair use policy is significantly stricter than US fair use law. This is because Wikipedia aims to be the free encyclopedia. Foundation:Resolution:Licensing policy (which is binding on us) states at item 3 that "almost all portraits of notable, living individuals" cannot be used on Wikimedia projects unless freely-licensed. WP:NFCC#1 states that "Non-free content is used only where no free equivalent is available, or could be created, that would serve the same encyclopedic purpose". Clearly, a photograph of Mr. Roubini could be taken and released under a free license — note that the NFCC makes no reference whatsoever to how hard, impractical, or otherwise it would be to create said free equivalent — and as such, both the images referred to above are not acceptable on Wikipedia. Stifle ( talk) 09:41, 23 December 2008 (UTC) reply

• Reasonable?. Seems like the missing ingredient in all of the "Deletion" endorsements so far is any attempt to define what's "reasonable." Per Wikipedia:Non-free_content#Images
  

"Copyrighted images that reasonably can be replaced by free/libre images are not suitable for Wikipedia."

The suggested alternative of trying to understand, much less explain the OTRS with its myriad of legalistic acronyms, definitons, and massive page links is beyond my abilities - I've tried. Wikiwatcher1 ( talk) 19:10, 23 December 2008 (UTC) reply

• • The question of reasonablness isn't an issue for the policy itself WP:NFCC criteria 1, "Non-free content is used only where no free equivalent is available, or could be created, that would serve the same encyclopedic purpose.", if it could be created no matter how unreasonably it's not permitted by policy. In practice I believe people don't necessarily go that far, but trying to define reasonablness would seem an exercise in futility, it's be so riddled with provisos about x, y and z to be worhtless. The reasonableness comes from understanding the purpose behind the policy, to enable us to create a free encyclopedia, the arguments tend to go if we are lax with the use of non-free content, the motivation for people to create free content is diminished. Another argument would go that not everywhere in the world recognises the concept of fair use or recognises it differently to the US, though that maybe no issue for those merely viewing the content on wikimedia's US hosted servers it prevents the broader use and reuse (such as publishing on DVD), so if the image really is important, then one used under fair use falls short. -- 82.7.39.174 ( talk) 21:07, 23 December 2008 (UTC) reply

• Endorse deletion - See my comment at the Sidney Lumet image review. Garion96 (talk) 15:16, 23 December 2008 (UTC) reply
• Endorse Per Stifle. Non-free images of living persons used solely to illustrate the person in question are used only in exceedingly rare circumstances. This isn't one of them. OTRS is a mess of legalese and what-not, but that difficulty doesn't somehow legitimize not finding a free image. Likewise it being 'difficult' to find Dr. Doom isn't sufficient. He's not J. D. Salinger, whose non-free image is appropriate. Like it or not, the foundation principle of being a "free" encyclopedia drives our non-free content policy. Protonk ( talk) 21:04, 23 December 2008 (UTC) reply
• Endorse Replacable FU image. Spartaz ^Humbug! 08:42, 28 December 2008 (UTC) reply

File:Lumet PR Dartmouth.jpg ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs) ( restore | cache)

My earlier image, LumetPortrait1.jpg, was deleted on 12/21/08 with the reasons stated in quoteblock below. There were more back-and-forth discussions about this on the page below with another admin. After it was deleted, instead of putting to a "Review", I tried to find another image that would again fit all fair use criteria, I uploaded and placed the new image (in heading) on the bio's infobox. This too was immediately removed by the same admin, Peripitus, by pointing to his previous reasons (below). It has as of this time not been deleted but he removed it from the article and I assume it will also be deleted soon.

The first image was from a web page used for clear publicity. I believe it even stated on the image information that it was from their posted Press Release. Yet the only reasons continually given for disallowing both images' fair use was that it was "replaceable" by a free image, even though nothing equivalent is available. Admin Peripitus suggests finding a Wikipedian to just go to a film shoot and snap a photo, and therefore it is indeed replaceable, especially since he is a "public" person. This is an 84-year old movie director, not a "public person." In the alternative, he questions the usefullness of an image of the person for his bio, demanding I explain how the "image significantly increase reader's understanding." This is/was, the only portrait of this person and was for his infobox, and it was expected that I explain why his picture is "useful." I assumed it was the job of admins to assist editors, not the opposite.

The most recent image removed was from a clearly marked "Press Release" page. The demands made by the removing admin are essentially impossible to meet by any reasonable standard and strike me as an abuse of discretion. I am trying to improve a number of Wiki bios by finding useable and allowable images, especially when availabe as "Non-free promotional". But it is becoming impossible. Any feedback would be welcome.

Wikipedia:Images and media for deletion/2008 December 13

The result of the discussion was: - Delete - as failing NFCC#1 (and possibly NFCC#8). There is no argument below, nor on the image page that says this image meets NFCC#1. He is still alive and a free image is clearly possible to take given he is a public person - also there is the image mentioned below. NFCC#8 requires that the image significantly increase reader's understanding and not only is this not addressed below but the image page has the scant mention that it will be used in the lead...not what having the image acheives. NFCC#1 is overriding here...after all he's still directing. Just need a wikipedian to front to a film set and we're there - Peripitus (Talk) 09:02, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

My undertanding from Wikipedia:Administrators: "Administrators are accountable for their actions involving administrator tools, and unexplained administrator actions can demoralize other editors who lack such tools." Wikiwatcher1 ( talk) 04:20, 23 December 2008 (UTC) reply

• Comment - the issue is that any copyrighted image of a living person falls into the same area. It is possible to create a free image of the person and the non-free content criteria are framed such that we do not allow images that can be replaced by free ones, whether or not a free image appears to exist currently. - Peripitus (Talk) 05:31, 23 December 2008 (UTC) reply
  • Reply - As clearly stated in the Wikipedia:WikiProject Fair use - Goals, #5, (italics added):

    "It should be noted (if not on the tags, then somewhere else) that it is best to use a free alternative if one is available. This is not strictly a requirement of 'fair use'..." Your comment goes way beyond the stated intent of Wiki by setting a standard whereby if "It is possible to create a free image of the person," then no fair use image can be used. The obvious problem is that there can be no objective definition of what's "possible" under a "reasonable standard." Your definition would effectively eliminate any Fair Use images for a living person because anyone could simply say it is possible to get a free one. That would open up all Wiki's Fair Use images to immense risk of abuse and defensible vandalism.

  • My understanding is a Fair Use image should be looked at like a valid cited quotation by a living person: no one would demand that they require a Wikipedian to find the person and have them repeat their words. I realize that this sounds like a ridiculous stretch, but your analogous demand for photos, such as going to a movie production set to take your own free photo of a director, is also a bit of a stretch. Wikiwatcher1 ( talk) 06:34, 23 December 2008 (UTC) reply
    • Your understanding is based, as noted above, on a WikiProject page giving a view of image policy from a time when we didn't take our mandate to free content images seriously, and not even on image policy itself, let alone on current image policy. Any such rationale for undeletion is deeply and fundamentally flawed. Uncle G ( talk) 15:16, 23 December 2008 (UTC) reply
• Endorse deletion; see my comment on the DRV immediately above this one. Stifle ( talk) 09:42, 23 December 2008 (UTC) reply
• Endorse deletion, clearly fails wp:nfcc#1. Which btw is policy, the quote you copied from wikiproject fair use is outdated and wrong. Instead of this time consuming deletion review, have you ever tried contacting a copyright holder? Like I said in the IFD debate, there are about 5 images of Sidney Lumet on flickr with a chance of a creative commons release. Garion96 (talk) 15:14, 23 December 2008 (UTC) reply

STIR Future (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

No joy at all from the deleting administrator after 5 days, even though xe has been active in that time. I asked, but there was only silence. An article whose first sentence gave a reasonably coherent explanation of the subject was in no way patent nonsense. Uncle G ( talk) 02:52, 23 December 2008 (UTC) reply

• Overturn deletion and list at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion. I agree that this article was not patent nonsense, but I think it should have a full discussion at AfD to determine its future. -- Metropolitan90 (talk) 03:16, 23 December 2008 (UTC) reply
• Overturn The article is extremely confusing in points and badly written, so I can see how the closing admin could have made the said determination. IMHO if the majority of the ISP User:81.149.250.228 contributions are removed it could be turned into a legit $$ stub. So let it go to AfD & give someone a chance to clean it up. Skier Dude ( talk) 06:56, 23 December 2008 (UTC) reply
• Overturn - Article is a long way from nonsense...was just badly written, but the lead is understandable. Nothing for Afd here - it is a real subject that is exactly what an encyclopaedia should cover. Has good reliable sources that I can see. - Peripitus (Talk) 08:01, 23 December 2008 (UTC) reply
• Overturn, no AFD This clearly wasn't a G1 speedy candidate and it can be stubbified to the point that even an AFD is not needed. - Mgm| ^(talk) 08:39, 23 December 2008 (UTC) reply
• Overturn and trim back. Not patent nonsense, although not an especially good article. Stifle ( talk) 09:43, 23 December 2008 (UTC) reply
• Overturn and give the deleting admin a gentle chiding. "Poorly written" is not the same thing as "patent nonsense", and the article is comprehensible enough that a G1 was unwarranted. Lankiveil ^{( speak to me)} 13:01, 23 December 2008 (UTC). reply