![]() | This file does not require a rating on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||
|
I am unconvinced that this file is subject to F7. It is not from a commercial source: according to the AP, Benedict's grandmother took the photo. I also contend that it's not likely to replace the original market role, which is a family photo. I believe all 10 points in NFCC are met. SWinxy ( talk) 00:53, 2 March 2024 (UTC)
the subject of sourced commentary in the article, it can also be so
the reader [can] identify an object, style, or behavior, that is a subject of discussion in the article.Nowhere in NFCC does it mandate the first bullet point, which is why we have hundreds of photos of deceased people, or show album art. Benedict's photo is contextually significant on an article about Benedict. SWinxy ( talk) 06:10, 5 March 2024 (UTC)
omission would be detrimental to that understandingof it. SWinxy ( talk) 19:31, 5 March 2024 (UTC)
All the prose. The entire article benefits from the reader seeing Benedict's appearance.So the entire prose of the article becomes, just, indescribably less comprehensible without the copyrighted photo? The NFC is just… 'hand-wavingly necessary' to understand the article? Well, I certainly can't refute such clear-cut and objective arguments. Perhaps Melmann can?
NFCC does not say what you are saying.WP:NFCC#8 requires both that the use of NFC "would significantly increase readers' understanding of the article topic, and its omission would be detrimental to that understanding." I've now read the entire imageless article again, and nothing there was less comprehensible than otherwise. I do now understand that, in December 2023, Benedict had brown hair, a light complexion, and a monochrome fabric outfit—though I don't see how that helps me understand what's written.
You are also wrong in your claim that this isn't a biographical article.I'm pretty sure a biography would be at Nex Benedict. However, per Wikipedia:Notability (people)#People notable for only one event, this seems to be an "article on the incident, especially if the individual is only notable for that incident and it is all that the person is associated with in the source coverage." — Fourthords | =Λ= | 19:51, 5 March 2024 (UTC)
Lacking a photo, like any other biographical article…I've double-checked, and death of Nex Benedict still isn't the biographical article Nex Benedict, IAW the biographical-notability guideline I linked above.
…is detrimental to readers' experiences.Are you perhaps confusing "readers' experiences" (people like shiny colorful things) with "readers' understanding" (needing to see something to comprehend the written article)?
What do or did a person look like?If that were relevant to the Benedict's death (the actual subject of the article), it would be specifically and analytically commented upon by reliable sources, and then be summarized and cited in the article.
Other articles…aren't this article. Every article, its sources, and its needs are different; we're discussing the unnecessariness of File:Nex Benedict.png in understanding what's written at death of Nex Benedict. — Fourthords | =Λ= | 21:30, 5 March 2024 (UTC)
omission [being] detrimental to that understanding. I assert it is, you and Melmann assert is not. The Hodgkinson file from earlier cannot be invoked here if later you say that I'm wrong in invoking other articles, which are closer in nature than the 2017 baseball shooting article is, that back my point. SWinxy ( talk) 03:32, 6 March 2024 (UTC)
![]() | This file does not require a rating on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||
|
I am unconvinced that this file is subject to F7. It is not from a commercial source: according to the AP, Benedict's grandmother took the photo. I also contend that it's not likely to replace the original market role, which is a family photo. I believe all 10 points in NFCC are met. SWinxy ( talk) 00:53, 2 March 2024 (UTC)
the subject of sourced commentary in the article, it can also be so
the reader [can] identify an object, style, or behavior, that is a subject of discussion in the article.Nowhere in NFCC does it mandate the first bullet point, which is why we have hundreds of photos of deceased people, or show album art. Benedict's photo is contextually significant on an article about Benedict. SWinxy ( talk) 06:10, 5 March 2024 (UTC)
omission would be detrimental to that understandingof it. SWinxy ( talk) 19:31, 5 March 2024 (UTC)
All the prose. The entire article benefits from the reader seeing Benedict's appearance.So the entire prose of the article becomes, just, indescribably less comprehensible without the copyrighted photo? The NFC is just… 'hand-wavingly necessary' to understand the article? Well, I certainly can't refute such clear-cut and objective arguments. Perhaps Melmann can?
NFCC does not say what you are saying.WP:NFCC#8 requires both that the use of NFC "would significantly increase readers' understanding of the article topic, and its omission would be detrimental to that understanding." I've now read the entire imageless article again, and nothing there was less comprehensible than otherwise. I do now understand that, in December 2023, Benedict had brown hair, a light complexion, and a monochrome fabric outfit—though I don't see how that helps me understand what's written.
You are also wrong in your claim that this isn't a biographical article.I'm pretty sure a biography would be at Nex Benedict. However, per Wikipedia:Notability (people)#People notable for only one event, this seems to be an "article on the incident, especially if the individual is only notable for that incident and it is all that the person is associated with in the source coverage." — Fourthords | =Λ= | 19:51, 5 March 2024 (UTC)
Lacking a photo, like any other biographical article…I've double-checked, and death of Nex Benedict still isn't the biographical article Nex Benedict, IAW the biographical-notability guideline I linked above.
…is detrimental to readers' experiences.Are you perhaps confusing "readers' experiences" (people like shiny colorful things) with "readers' understanding" (needing to see something to comprehend the written article)?
What do or did a person look like?If that were relevant to the Benedict's death (the actual subject of the article), it would be specifically and analytically commented upon by reliable sources, and then be summarized and cited in the article.
Other articles…aren't this article. Every article, its sources, and its needs are different; we're discussing the unnecessariness of File:Nex Benedict.png in understanding what's written at death of Nex Benedict. — Fourthords | =Λ= | 21:30, 5 March 2024 (UTC)
omission [being] detrimental to that understanding. I assert it is, you and Melmann assert is not. The Hodgkinson file from earlier cannot be invoked here if later you say that I'm wrong in invoking other articles, which are closer in nature than the 2017 baseball shooting article is, that back my point. SWinxy ( talk) 03:32, 6 March 2024 (UTC)