Home • Search • Translate
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< 2009 June 18
2009 June 20 >

19 June 2009

The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
File:Ibn Shaykh al-Libi corpse.png ( talk| | history| logs| links| watch) ( XfD| restore)


Request for undelete. NFCC#1 is the primary reason to undelete. It was in the discussion as acknowledged by User:Peripitus in his/her contradictory statement: "I am surprised that no-one mentioned NFCC#1 here except for the comment 'it is the only image of the article's subject available'". This statement is in error as this rationale to keep was raised more than once. To answer the User:Peripitus suggestion that free images should be available because the prisoner was in U.S. custody, photos of such "detainees" are not available as they are in high security and as stated in the article often secret. Ibn Shaykh al-Libi's location was not publicly known until 2 weeks before his death. The only other rationale, NFCC#2 and NFCC#8 were both a matter of unresolved debate. Two users stated the image "passes NFCC#8".

Quite frankly, using NFCC#2 as the primary reason to delete is a display of pitifully poor ethics. Seriously, we are concerned here as #2 states about "the original market role of the original copyrighted media" of a possibly murdered and definitely tortured U.S. detainee who's whereabouts until close to death were unknown and we have decided the primary rationale is the profitablility of Ibn Shaykh al-Libi's only image? This is a sad matter. If these rationales for deletion are sufficient then every non-free image in wikipedia should probably be deleted. - Steve3849 talk 16:30, 19 June 2009 (UTC) reply

  • The vote was strongly in favour of "Keep" and meeting all Fair Use requirements, the closing admin went against consensus in deleting what seemed to be bordering on a snowball Keep. Sherurcij ( speaker for the dead) 17:02, 19 June 2009 (UTC) reply
  • Comment on nom I think Steve3849 mischaracterises the closing argument. Peripitus, the closing admin, talked first about NFCC#2 and NFCC#8, and argued that both of these criteria, raised in the FfD nom, were not held. Either, if true, would be grounds for deletion. NFCC#1 was mentioned as a possible further copyvio problem, explicitly as a side note. Peripitus wasn't notified of the DRV: I've notified him now. — Charles Stewart (talk) 07:26, 21 June 2009 (UTC) reply
  • As always it isn't a vote, no amount of bolded comments override the NFCC. I'm somewhat confused by the nom, who seems to suggest that NFCC#2 does apply, but we should ignore it on some moral or other grounds, which as a foundation issue we wouldn't be able to do, and would also seem to fall foul of not a soapbox. As to if all non-free images should be deleted, I'm sure you'll get a reasonable amount of support for that. -- 82.7.40.7 ( talk) 18:18, 19 June 2009 (UTC) reply
Regarding the idea of a "soapbox": the argument against NFCC#2 as stated above is neither uncited opinion, nor propaganda. The information in the article referred to is properly cited. Again, the primary reason from my perspective to un-delete the image is NFCC#1. The image itself appears to be a cropped and low resolution still from a video that has been posted on facebook from the news source for over a week. The NFCC#2 rationale to delete continues to appear at most negligible. It might be helpful if someone could translate arabic. My apologies for the confusion. My intent was not to suggest that the NFCC#2 rationale applies for deletion; it does not. - Steve3849 talk 04:36, 20 June 2009 (UTC) reply
An individual NFCC is never a reason to undelete an image, it has to meet all of them, so I'm not sure your position of stating NFCC#1 as a reason. Your statement on NFCC#2 said "...and we have decided the primary rationale is the profitablility..." certainly suggests you believe we should ignore that for some greater good, and that would be politicising our decision and soapboxing. I'm happy to take your word that isn't what you meant and you don't believe NFCC#2 is an issue, however no one has actually countered the NFCC#2 arguement as far as I can see. -- 82.7.40.7 ( talk) 07:19, 20 June 2009 (UTC) reply
WP:NFCC: only where all 10 of the following criteria are met - Failure to meet any criterion is reason to delete. — Charles Stewart (talk) 07:38, 21 June 2009 (UTC) reply
The original nomination for this review was written as a continuation of the discussion prior to its deletion. The link to that discussion is XfD. - Steve3849 talk 07:47, 20 June 2009 (UTC) reply
  • Restore The argument that because he had been is US custody it was going to be possible to get a picture of him is made extremely unlikely by the article: the US was holding him under conditions which they have been extremely unwilling to disclose--much more secret conditions than Guantanamo--, before sending him elsewhere for additional torture. In any event, given the manner of his death, a photograph of him dead is highly relevant. There is no evidence that the image is available for commercial exploitation. DGG ( talk) 19:43, 19 June 2009 (UTC) reply
  • Restore per DGG and consensus of the XfD. Hobit ( talk) 19:50, 19 June 2009 (UTC) reply
  • Comment isn't NFCC#8 just the sort of criteria that FfD's can be expected to settle, and that this FfD did in fact debate? I don't accept Peripetus's closing argument to override the FfD discussion here, although to that conclusion Google Image search returns some other photos of the subject while alive, including one sourced to a rights organisation, who can be presumed not to have a commercial motivation. Concerning the main criterion, the FfD proposer explicitly argues NFCC#2, and only one keep vote even mentions it: I think Peripetus is quite right to think that the FfD did not address this concern. I'd say restore and relist, but I don't like doing that with copyvios, so I think we should settle NFCC#2 here. So two questions: (i) who is the copyright holder for the image?, (ii) where has the image been published? The citation of NFCC #1 is odd: if a free alternative comes along, then that is reason to speedy delete/replace a fair-use image, but in the absence, speculating about possible free alternatives is not constructive. — Charles Stewart (talk) 09:15, 20 June 2009 (UTC) reply
  • Restore and relist — I don't think any of the copyvio concerns are urgent enough that we can't have people look at the image to decide in a second FfD. Per my comment, NFCC#8 was properly discussed in the FfD which argued for the value of the image in the article. NFCC#1 is a silly objection, in the actual absence of alternative free content. The criteria needing discussion is NFCC#2, which was almost completely ignored in favour of discussion of NFCC#8 in that FfD. A more focussed nom should provide a more useful FfD discussion. — Charles Stewart (talk) 07:47, 21 June 2009 (UTC) reply
  • As the instructions on the deletion review page indicate, many issues can be resolved by asking the deleting/closing administrator for an explanation and/or to reconsider his/her decision. While not strictly mandatory, this should normally be done first. Did you try, and if not, was there some special reason? Stifle ( talk) 18:47, 21 June 2009 (UTC) reply
    No special reason. - Steve3849 talk 15:55, 22 June 2009 (UTC) reply
    Okay; please do so next time before listing a DRV. It's basic courtesy. I would tend to endorse the closure but only because it went my way; I don't have a strong opinion besides that so no !vote from me. Stifle ( talk) 08:27, 23 June 2009 (UTC) reply
  • Restore -- I too found the closing admins arguments disturbing, and was considering questioning them about it, because I found the closure statement to imply that the {{ afd}} was a vote -- and {{ afd}}s are not votes. Several of the opinions expressed in the {{ afd}} were variations of "this image doesn't add anything of value to the article". The closing admin seemed to endorse this argument, and ignored the counter-arguments. Of all the captives held in the CIA's secret camps, who subsequently disappeared his is without question the most important. The Bush administrations' two key arguments for the invasion of Iraq -- Saddam Hussein had significant ties to Al Qaeda, and was training Al Qaeda bombers to use weapons from Saddam's still dangerous arsenal of Weapons of Mass Destruction. Colin Powell cited the confessions wrung from Al Libi under torture in his speech before the United Nations. The USA may not have won support for the invasion without the claims wrung from him under torture. If he was finally found that is very important. If he really is dead, that is very important. But given the misinformation and confusions about his real identity, real affiliation, and actual status, a picture, which could help establish that the dead man really was Al Libi. Geo Swan ( talk) 00:07, 22 June 2009 (UTC) reply
  • Comments as closing admin. Per Stifle's comments it is most helpful if those seeking to dispute closures of xFds discuss it with the closing administrator as either they may gain insight into the closure or may convince the closer to overturn-relist or get another outcome. Perhaps my remarks have been misunderstood as I wrote poorly ? Here the main reason for deletion is NFCC#2. We have a recent image taken from a press site that is being hosted here to illustrate an article. The only argument that it passes NFCC#2 was "There's no evidence that the image is being sold or leased for money, unlike AP images, so I don't see a NFCC#2 concern" yet there is no indication of how this was arrived at....did the person here talk to the news agency or supply links that show there is no money involved ? Who is the copyright holder as this is not identified anywhere ... NFCC#10a requires this. - Peripitus (Talk) 02:42, 22 June 2009 (UTC) reply
    • WRT NFCC#2 -- isn't this image a single frame from a broadcast? Doesn't that erode the concern that our use of this image will have a meaningful impact on the value of the broadcasters videostream? Geo Swan ( talk) 22:56, 22 June 2009 (UTC) reply
    • Note that NFCC#10a actually says "Identification of the source of the material, supplemented, where possible, with information about the artist, publisher and copyright holder". The source and publisher are listed. Identifying the copyright holder is not possible and, luckily, is not required. – Quadell ( talk) 23:59, 23 June 2009 (UTC) reply
      • So I guess the source is Facebook. Who was the publisher? If the publisher posted the video to Facebook, we can assume that they were not intending to sell stills to the general public, which would calm my NFCC#2 doubts. — Charles Stewart (talk) 07:42, 24 June 2009 (UTC) reply
  • Restore. I was the editor who the closing admin mentions above, who commented "There's no evidence that the image is being sold or leased for money, unlike AP images, so I don't see a NFCC#2 concern". It's true. There is no evidence that the copyright holder puts a monetary value on this image, or that it was ever sold or leased for money. You may guess that it was, and I may guess that it wasn't. For any image, one could imagine that the copyright holder wants to sell the right to use it for money, but without evidence, it's not a reason to delete. The closing admin seems to be switching concerns, from NFCC#8 to #1 to #2 to now #10. All of these concerns were considered and addressed, and the vast majority of commenters at the FFD debate believe the image passed all requirements and should be kept. – Quadell ( talk) 23:52, 23 June 2009 (UTC) reply
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Terrorism-related deletion discussions. — Geo Swan ( talk) 22:51, 22 June 2009 (UTC) reply
  • Overturn No consensus to delete and the closer seemed too opinionated. Colonel Warden ( talk) 09:21, 26 June 2009 (UTC) reply
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.
Retrieved from " https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Wikipedia:Deletion_review/Log/2009_June_19&oldid=1138435813"
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< 2009 June 18
2009 June 20 >

19 June 2009

The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
File:Ibn Shaykh al-Libi corpse.png ( talk| | history| logs| links| watch) ( XfD| restore)


Request for undelete. NFCC#1 is the primary reason to undelete. It was in the discussion as acknowledged by User:Peripitus in his/her contradictory statement: "I am surprised that no-one mentioned NFCC#1 here except for the comment 'it is the only image of the article's subject available'". This statement is in error as this rationale to keep was raised more than once. To answer the User:Peripitus suggestion that free images should be available because the prisoner was in U.S. custody, photos of such "detainees" are not available as they are in high security and as stated in the article often secret. Ibn Shaykh al-Libi's location was not publicly known until 2 weeks before his death. The only other rationale, NFCC#2 and NFCC#8 were both a matter of unresolved debate. Two users stated the image "passes NFCC#8".

Quite frankly, using NFCC#2 as the primary reason to delete is a display of pitifully poor ethics. Seriously, we are concerned here as #2 states about "the original market role of the original copyrighted media" of a possibly murdered and definitely tortured U.S. detainee who's whereabouts until close to death were unknown and we have decided the primary rationale is the profitablility of Ibn Shaykh al-Libi's only image? This is a sad matter. If these rationales for deletion are sufficient then every non-free image in wikipedia should probably be deleted. - Steve3849 talk 16:30, 19 June 2009 (UTC) reply

  • The vote was strongly in favour of "Keep" and meeting all Fair Use requirements, the closing admin went against consensus in deleting what seemed to be bordering on a snowball Keep. Sherurcij ( speaker for the dead) 17:02, 19 June 2009 (UTC) reply
  • Comment on nom I think Steve3849 mischaracterises the closing argument. Peripitus, the closing admin, talked first about NFCC#2 and NFCC#8, and argued that both of these criteria, raised in the FfD nom, were not held. Either, if true, would be grounds for deletion. NFCC#1 was mentioned as a possible further copyvio problem, explicitly as a side note. Peripitus wasn't notified of the DRV: I've notified him now. — Charles Stewart (talk) 07:26, 21 June 2009 (UTC) reply
  • As always it isn't a vote, no amount of bolded comments override the NFCC. I'm somewhat confused by the nom, who seems to suggest that NFCC#2 does apply, but we should ignore it on some moral or other grounds, which as a foundation issue we wouldn't be able to do, and would also seem to fall foul of not a soapbox. As to if all non-free images should be deleted, I'm sure you'll get a reasonable amount of support for that. -- 82.7.40.7 ( talk) 18:18, 19 June 2009 (UTC) reply
Regarding the idea of a "soapbox": the argument against NFCC#2 as stated above is neither uncited opinion, nor propaganda. The information in the article referred to is properly cited. Again, the primary reason from my perspective to un-delete the image is NFCC#1. The image itself appears to be a cropped and low resolution still from a video that has been posted on facebook from the news source for over a week. The NFCC#2 rationale to delete continues to appear at most negligible. It might be helpful if someone could translate arabic. My apologies for the confusion. My intent was not to suggest that the NFCC#2 rationale applies for deletion; it does not. - Steve3849 talk 04:36, 20 June 2009 (UTC) reply
An individual NFCC is never a reason to undelete an image, it has to meet all of them, so I'm not sure your position of stating NFCC#1 as a reason. Your statement on NFCC#2 said "...and we have decided the primary rationale is the profitablility..." certainly suggests you believe we should ignore that for some greater good, and that would be politicising our decision and soapboxing. I'm happy to take your word that isn't what you meant and you don't believe NFCC#2 is an issue, however no one has actually countered the NFCC#2 arguement as far as I can see. -- 82.7.40.7 ( talk) 07:19, 20 June 2009 (UTC) reply
WP:NFCC: only where all 10 of the following criteria are met - Failure to meet any criterion is reason to delete. — Charles Stewart (talk) 07:38, 21 June 2009 (UTC) reply
The original nomination for this review was written as a continuation of the discussion prior to its deletion. The link to that discussion is XfD. - Steve3849 talk 07:47, 20 June 2009 (UTC) reply
  • Restore The argument that because he had been is US custody it was going to be possible to get a picture of him is made extremely unlikely by the article: the US was holding him under conditions which they have been extremely unwilling to disclose--much more secret conditions than Guantanamo--, before sending him elsewhere for additional torture. In any event, given the manner of his death, a photograph of him dead is highly relevant. There is no evidence that the image is available for commercial exploitation. DGG ( talk) 19:43, 19 June 2009 (UTC) reply
  • Restore per DGG and consensus of the XfD. Hobit ( talk) 19:50, 19 June 2009 (UTC) reply
  • Comment isn't NFCC#8 just the sort of criteria that FfD's can be expected to settle, and that this FfD did in fact debate? I don't accept Peripetus's closing argument to override the FfD discussion here, although to that conclusion Google Image search returns some other photos of the subject while alive, including one sourced to a rights organisation, who can be presumed not to have a commercial motivation. Concerning the main criterion, the FfD proposer explicitly argues NFCC#2, and only one keep vote even mentions it: I think Peripetus is quite right to think that the FfD did not address this concern. I'd say restore and relist, but I don't like doing that with copyvios, so I think we should settle NFCC#2 here. So two questions: (i) who is the copyright holder for the image?, (ii) where has the image been published? The citation of NFCC #1 is odd: if a free alternative comes along, then that is reason to speedy delete/replace a fair-use image, but in the absence, speculating about possible free alternatives is not constructive. — Charles Stewart (talk) 09:15, 20 June 2009 (UTC) reply
  • Restore and relist — I don't think any of the copyvio concerns are urgent enough that we can't have people look at the image to decide in a second FfD. Per my comment, NFCC#8 was properly discussed in the FfD which argued for the value of the image in the article. NFCC#1 is a silly objection, in the actual absence of alternative free content. The criteria needing discussion is NFCC#2, which was almost completely ignored in favour of discussion of NFCC#8 in that FfD. A more focussed nom should provide a more useful FfD discussion. — Charles Stewart (talk) 07:47, 21 June 2009 (UTC) reply
  • As the instructions on the deletion review page indicate, many issues can be resolved by asking the deleting/closing administrator for an explanation and/or to reconsider his/her decision. While not strictly mandatory, this should normally be done first. Did you try, and if not, was there some special reason? Stifle ( talk) 18:47, 21 June 2009 (UTC) reply
    No special reason. - Steve3849 talk 15:55, 22 June 2009 (UTC) reply
    Okay; please do so next time before listing a DRV. It's basic courtesy. I would tend to endorse the closure but only because it went my way; I don't have a strong opinion besides that so no !vote from me. Stifle ( talk) 08:27, 23 June 2009 (UTC) reply
  • Restore -- I too found the closing admins arguments disturbing, and was considering questioning them about it, because I found the closure statement to imply that the {{ afd}} was a vote -- and {{ afd}}s are not votes. Several of the opinions expressed in the {{ afd}} were variations of "this image doesn't add anything of value to the article". The closing admin seemed to endorse this argument, and ignored the counter-arguments. Of all the captives held in the CIA's secret camps, who subsequently disappeared his is without question the most important. The Bush administrations' two key arguments for the invasion of Iraq -- Saddam Hussein had significant ties to Al Qaeda, and was training Al Qaeda bombers to use weapons from Saddam's still dangerous arsenal of Weapons of Mass Destruction. Colin Powell cited the confessions wrung from Al Libi under torture in his speech before the United Nations. The USA may not have won support for the invasion without the claims wrung from him under torture. If he was finally found that is very important. If he really is dead, that is very important. But given the misinformation and confusions about his real identity, real affiliation, and actual status, a picture, which could help establish that the dead man really was Al Libi. Geo Swan ( talk) 00:07, 22 June 2009 (UTC) reply
  • Comments as closing admin. Per Stifle's comments it is most helpful if those seeking to dispute closures of xFds discuss it with the closing administrator as either they may gain insight into the closure or may convince the closer to overturn-relist or get another outcome. Perhaps my remarks have been misunderstood as I wrote poorly ? Here the main reason for deletion is NFCC#2. We have a recent image taken from a press site that is being hosted here to illustrate an article. The only argument that it passes NFCC#2 was "There's no evidence that the image is being sold or leased for money, unlike AP images, so I don't see a NFCC#2 concern" yet there is no indication of how this was arrived at....did the person here talk to the news agency or supply links that show there is no money involved ? Who is the copyright holder as this is not identified anywhere ... NFCC#10a requires this. - Peripitus (Talk) 02:42, 22 June 2009 (UTC) reply
    • WRT NFCC#2 -- isn't this image a single frame from a broadcast? Doesn't that erode the concern that our use of this image will have a meaningful impact on the value of the broadcasters videostream? Geo Swan ( talk) 22:56, 22 June 2009 (UTC) reply
    • Note that NFCC#10a actually says "Identification of the source of the material, supplemented, where possible, with information about the artist, publisher and copyright holder". The source and publisher are listed. Identifying the copyright holder is not possible and, luckily, is not required. – Quadell ( talk) 23:59, 23 June 2009 (UTC) reply
      • So I guess the source is Facebook. Who was the publisher? If the publisher posted the video to Facebook, we can assume that they were not intending to sell stills to the general public, which would calm my NFCC#2 doubts. — Charles Stewart (talk) 07:42, 24 June 2009 (UTC) reply
  • Restore. I was the editor who the closing admin mentions above, who commented "There's no evidence that the image is being sold or leased for money, unlike AP images, so I don't see a NFCC#2 concern". It's true. There is no evidence that the copyright holder puts a monetary value on this image, or that it was ever sold or leased for money. You may guess that it was, and I may guess that it wasn't. For any image, one could imagine that the copyright holder wants to sell the right to use it for money, but without evidence, it's not a reason to delete. The closing admin seems to be switching concerns, from NFCC#8 to #1 to #2 to now #10. All of these concerns were considered and addressed, and the vast majority of commenters at the FFD debate believe the image passed all requirements and should be kept. – Quadell ( talk) 23:52, 23 June 2009 (UTC) reply
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Terrorism-related deletion discussions. — Geo Swan ( talk) 22:51, 22 June 2009 (UTC) reply
  • Overturn No consensus to delete and the closer seemed too opinionated. Colonel Warden ( talk) 09:21, 26 June 2009 (UTC) reply
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.
Retrieved from " https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Wikipedia:Deletion_review/Log/2009_June_19&oldid=1138435813"

Videos

Youtube | Vimeo | Bing

Websites

Google | Yahoo | Bing

Encyclopedia

Google | Yahoo | Bing

Facebook




Top Of Page

Home • Search • Translate

© CSE