- 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:
The conclusion of the discussion was delete. This is a contentious issue. But the arguments on one side are strong, and are well grounded in the Wikimedia Foundation's goal of creating free content resources, and the arguments on the other side are weak, vague, and in some respects ignoring that goal merely for editorial convenience.
The arguments for deletion are that the Wikimedia Foundation has the goal of producing content under a free-content copyright licence, and that non-free content must be included under a narrow, limited, and minimal Exemption Doctrine. Wikipedia's doctrine is Wikipedia:Non-free content criteria, and this image does not satisfy those criteria, given that it is possible to substitute a short sentence of GFDL prose, exemplified many times in the discussion, for the image with zero loss of information to the reader.
The arguments for keeping appear to be threefold, and they are either rebutted either directly here or via policy.
The first argument for keeping is, essentially, that every Dr Who episode article has an infobox, {{Infobox Doctor Who episode}}, and all of the infoboxes have space for pictures, so it is silly not to have a picture for this article. People, this argument is an indication that your infoboxes are wrong, not that Foundation and project policy is wrong. (The infobox documentation does not in fact state that an image is mandatory.) The purpose of non-free content is to be the subject of critical commentary and analysis, of the specific image, in the article text, not to be simply illustrative because "other articles have pictures". Ironically, whilst Edokter pointed out this very requirement in the guidelines, xe missed the fact that the caution on item #1 of that list — "only in the context of critical commentary of that item (not for identification without critical commentary)" — applies to the whole list, per the Foundation resolution that underpins those guidelines. Despite requests to do so from Pd_THOR and others, not one editor has provided an explanation of how this specific image, or the drawing in the episode, is the subject of critical commentary, and what that commentary is. Looking at the image, there doesn't seem to be any critical commentary on it to be had. There certainly isn't any in the article as it currently stands. It's a child's drawing, no more.
The second argument for keeping is the argument that every TV screenshot would have to be deleted. This is one of the classic arguments to avoid in deletion discussions, and can be seen to be obviously untrue with a little thought. There exist TV screenshot images where the specific image is the subject of detailed critical commentary. But the onus is, per policy, for every one to have a strong policy-based justification for its use. It is not the case that there is some blanket "all episode articles may have non-free content screenshots" rule with the onus being to justify exceptions to that rule. The burden of proof lies with those who would have the non-free content included in the free-content encyclopaedia, and requires a specific justification for each individual image. The actual rule is that no article (about a TV programme or otherwise) may have a non-free content screenshot unless its use can be strictly justified under our Exemption Doctrine.
The third argument for keeping is that we need a policy discussion, and that policy isn't consistent. We don't and it is. We have an existing policy, imposed both by Foundation resolution and by the initial mandate of the project several years ago, and a project policy that has been discussed over many years. We have no need of waiting until a policy is constructed. Furthermore, contrary to the below, these policies are set in stone, are strictly defined, and are consistent. The commitment to free content is a Foundation issue. The intent that the Exemption Doctrine not be a gaping hole in that commitment, which the Foundation resolution was intended to remind editors of, is very clear. And the rule is a very consistent one: no non-free content in the free-content encyclopaedia unless you can come up with a justification that unequivocally satisfies our deliberately narrow and restrictive exemption criteria.
Yes, this means that one doesn't just blithely capture a still that looks good and upload it. One must think about the critical analysis and commentary being provided in the article, and what, if any, non-free images are inescapably necessary for it.
Uncle G (talk) 18:26, 21 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Image:DW Fear Her.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Edokter (notify | contribs).
- 8. "Significance. Non-free content is used only if its presence would significantly increase readers' understanding of the topic, and its omission would be detrimental to that understanding."
- I cannot see how it's omission would be "detrimental" to understanding. It is clearly unnecessary --Docg 00:43, 15 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete it shows a drawing done by a kid. I don't see it how it is relevant to the text very much and the text still explains the episode very clearly. User:Zscout370 (Return Fire) 00:57, 15 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Yes, it does show a detrimental element to the plot. "Unnecessary" is being used as a blanket reason for deletion now because it is the only reason left unchallanged. Not a single fair use image on Wikipedia is actually "necessary". If this image is deleted, this will set a precedence endangering every TV related article. Fair use does not mean it is not allowed. And this image complies with all criteria set by WP:NFCC. — Edokter • Talk • 09:48, 15 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Violation of fair use criteria 3a and 8, and the as image can be replaced with the free text "The Doctor and the TARDIS in a child's picture", would suggest a violation of criteria 1 too Fasach Nua (talk) 10:41, 15 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep and Comment - I don't see how this breaks number 1, or 3a for that matter. 3a states " As few non-free content uses as possible are included in each article and in Wikipedia as a whole. Multiple items are not used if one will suffice; one is used only if necessary." - well it IS the only one on that page, so it's not breaking that. 1 refers to other images, so it's not breaking that. And how does it meet 8 exactly? The episode is about a girl how can trap things by drawing them - this shows one of the drawings done to trap the doctor and the tardis - do is therefore important. Do you have a better suggestion for the image? StuartDD contributions 11:13, 15 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Criteria 1 states "or adequately conveyed by text without using a picture at all?", You need to prove that the GDL text "the Doctor and the TARDIS in a childs picture" does not convey the same information
- Criteria 3a states "one is used only if necessary", you need to demonstrate that it is necessary, this has not been done
- Criteria 8 states "significantly increase readers' understanding of the topic", it is not there to parallel the text, but to "significantly increase understanding" in a way the text is unable to, and this has not been demonstrated
- Fasach Nua (talk) 15:54, 15 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- That line, without a picture, would not make much sense. StuartDD contributions 16:37, 15 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- As I have stated, it shows a key part of the plot - a child trapping people by drawing them. And one could argue that ALL images are unnecessary. StuartDD contributions 16:37, 15 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Could one argue that this image is necessary? Fasach Nua (talk) 16:57, 15 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- If an image that shows a key plot point of an episode in not necessary, then I don't know what is. StuartDD contributions 17:08, 15 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Would it be conceivable that this article does not necessitate a fair use image, while perhaps an article such as Campbell's Soup Cans does? Fasach Nua (talk) 17:31, 15 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]- Would it be conceivable that this article does not necessitate a fair use image, while perhaps an article such as The Persistence of Memory does? Fasach Nua (talk) 11:40, 16 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Weak keep - the only possible violation of NFCC is actually #8. While I feel it passes this criterion, at the same time, another, more describing, picture could be found to replace it. Will (talk) 12:26, 15 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Please explain how its omission would be "detrimental to that understanding"?--Docg 12:33, 15 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Reply - as I stated above, this episoded deals with a child who can trap people by drawing them. This shows the child drawing the main character of The doctor to trap him - so shows a key aspect of the episode. StuartDD contributions 15:49, 15 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I realise that. But it doesn't answer my question. Your argument would justify any and all screen shots and is contrary to stated policy. We only have such things when not to would be "detrimental to understanding". It clearly isn't. It is illustrative rather than necessary.--Docg 16:48, 15 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Your argument would justify any and all screen shots... Yes it would indeed. See Wikipedia:Non-free content: Acceptable images: 5. Film and television screen shots: For critical commentary and discussion of the cinema and television. This IfD is now quickly become a wiki-lawyering contest. I will say it again; If this results in a delete, it creates a very dangerous precedent where the anti-fair-use deletionists will gain free reighn in having all screenshots deleted. And it won't stop there... — Edokter • Talk • 18:04, 15 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Assuming this image is removed will members of this project continually upload every frame of this episode until either they run out of images, or frutration amongst other editor makes them give up? Between ifd and dr discussions, this is the fifth time a discussion about an inappropriate image in this article has been raised Fasach Nua (talk) 15:32, 15 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- With about 60,000 frames in one episode, I think we won't run out of images anytime soon. As long as this article keeps being targeted to have it's image deleted while other remain uncontested, I will fight to the bitter end until we have a policy that strictly defines what is and is not permitted. It is now my purpose to weed out the root of this inconsistency. I pledge now that either this image remains, or that ALL, yes I mean ALL fair-use images are removed from Wikipedia. Because, let's face it people, none of them are "necessary", and they all are "decorative". — Edokter • Talk • 00:34, 16 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Not seeing a reason for deletion per policy. Also appears to be critical to understanding of the plot or some part of it (the classic picture-tells-a-thousand-words scenario), so falls within fair use criteria. Orderinchaos 18:13, 15 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Sorry but I fail to see how this image can't be replaced by a simple sentence. This is illustrative. -- lucasbfr talk 18:19, 15 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Strong delete it fails Non-free content is used only if its presence would significantly increase readers' understanding of the topic, and its omission would be detrimental to that understanding its clear cut. βcommand 18:25, 15 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Yes it is a nice picture that looks nice in the article, but is it realy needed for the user to understand the subject of the article. As stated above the image does not give us any vital information that text can not. The image fails nfcc #8 and should be deleted. I see above that it is said that the image is mportant, but I fail to see that there is given any reason for that statement. If the only importance is that the image is of a key plot, that is not enough per NFCC. Rettetast (talk) 23:41, 15 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep, to delete a fair use image illustrating a television episode would be an extremely far-reaching precedent which should be preceded by genuine policy discussion, not a WP:IFD nomination. --Stormie (talk) 00:47, 16 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Eh? We have a policy, and this isn't a fair use image. You can't vote to keep a violating image - if you don't want it deleted under IfD, I could speedy delete it.--Docg 00:50, 16 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Correction: You only think it is a violating image. I on the other hand think that the image is specifically allowed under WP:FU. That is the whole problem; we have as many interpretations of policy as we have editors. Oh and, I would defenitely not recommend that you speedy delete the image... — Edokter • Talk • 00:59, 16 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- No, it is violating it. And you are unable show otherwise. "Non-free content is used only if its presence would significantly increase readers' understanding of the topic, and its omission would be detrimental to that understanding". Tell me how it meets that? Remember "significantly" and "detrimental to understanding"--Docg 01:07, 16 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I cannot do that becuase our defenitions differ too much. I can only tell you that it does meet the criteria. Now, when you can tell me the exact definition of "signifcantly" and "detrimental" to the point where no one can disagree, then we can talk. Until then, your statement is a mere opinion, not a fact. — Edokter • Talk • 01:34, 16 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- You are evading my question. Please tell me how, under your definition, it "significantly increases readers' understanding" and its omission is "detrimental". I'd like to understand where you are coming from.--Docg 01:46, 16 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- (deindent) I'm sure you've heard the expression "an images says more then a 1000 words". This holds true for this image, certainly at a level that is significantly enhances the reader's understanding of the setting and plot of the story. As for it being "detrimental" when omitted, I simply cannot objectivly state the it would be "damaging" (literal meaning) to the article, but I certainly am of the opinion that it damages the article. Asking me for an objective analisys is unfair, as the term "detrimental" is by defenition not objective. Also, all policies are given with the understanding that "they are not set in stone". So as long as this image is being attacked by virtue of two words out a 1000 word policy, I will vervently object to it's deletion, and leave no means unutilized (within policy of course) to make sure it will not be deleted. This is policy, not law. Too many people follow it to the letter, but forget that policy is ment to improve Wikipedia, and in doing so, only damage it. That is my train of thought, and I hope it makes you understand where I'm coming from. — Edokter • Talk • 02:05, 16 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Of course policy is spirit not law. But the spirit of the policy is that we are a free encyclopedia and non-free is the exception not the rule. Routine screen shots on episode summaries are clearly not in the spirit and need clear justification in each case. That simply does not exist here. As for your "leave no means unutilized" threat - if that means, as you have threatened above, that you'll keep uploading variation until those who object give up, I'd advise against it. That would be disruption and earn you a swift block.--Docg 02:14, 16 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- One could ask where the disruption comes from... From the uploader that wants an image on a certian article, or the ones that continuously target that specific article and image to have it removed. I still feel this article is unfairly targeted... just check the history and the previous IfD. It has been set up to set an example, and I won't have it. All the argumets for deletion apply just as easily to any other fair use image, but they are not nominated. Can you tell me why? If not, just go to the Policy Village Pump and propose that all fair use images are banned form Wikipedia. If you're not going to do that, then stay the hell out of this discussion and stop trying to set an example to produce a precedent which leaves the entire encyclopedia hanging in doubt. Either way, I vouch for clarity in this policy. Block me for that, and you will find yourself hurled so fast into ArbCom you won't know what hit you. Just so you know... I am truly, TRULY pissed at the moment for the fact I am threatened with a block for having an opinion! — Edokter • Talk • 02:31, 16 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Please stick to the issues. This is not about whether we allow 'fair use' - we do. This is about whether this image meets the already agreed criteria for fairuse - it doesn't. Perhaps many others don't either but that's a pretty poor argument for keeping this one. The question is is this image of such value that it should be an exception to our free-content principle?--Docg 02:43, 16 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. This image is rationaled to "To illustrate a key element of the plot; the Doctor is trapped in a drawing by a child, which is the premise of the episode." It performs the illustration mentioned, but fails to demonstrate its capacity to significantly increase the readers' understanding of the topic, nor how its omission would be detrimental to that understanding. (WP:NFCC#8) — pd_THOR | =/\= | 03:59, 16 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. I've been torn about this, but ultimately I'm convinced by Edokter's arguments. Although I think more out-of-universe info could be added to the article to strengthen the picture's rationale, the arguments for deletion seem too broad to me, and could be used for any fair-use image. I looked at Fasach Nua's example, Campbell's Soup Cans, and I think that you could argue that the picture there isn't necessary - the article's second sentence (It consists of thirty-two canvases, each measuring 20 inches in height × 16 inches in width (50.8 × 40.6 cm) and each consisting of a painting of a Campbell's Soup can—one of each of the canned soup varieties the company offered at the time.) describes it perfectly. A screenshot is even less intrusive of copyright - it reproduces a minute portion of a protected work, as opposed to the work in its entirety. I obviously don't believe the Warhol picture should be deleted; I do believe that if one is kept, so should the other be, regardless of the relative importance of Warhol's painting vs. one episode of Doctor Who. --Brian Olsen (talk) 05:34, 16 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- My knowlede of modern art is somewhat lacking (I knew it was a weak example when I choose it), perhaps The Persistence of Memory would have been a better example Fasach Nua (talk) 11:40, 16 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. By showing the visual style of the key plot element of the story, it does indeed "increase readers' understanding of the topic, in a way that words alone would not". The image directly supports the commentary on the episode in the text. Jheald (talk) 22:39, 16 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- In seeing a specific child's style of drawing the the Doctor and his TARDIS, you better understand the article? How so, and in what capacity? The topic is "Fear Her", and while the plot element of the child's drawings is certainly pertinent, showing how she drew them or what the drawings specifically looked like isn't. — pd_THOR | =/\= | 22:47, 16 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I disagree with you. I think it gives a very informative understanding of the design style of that particular element of the show. Jheald (talk) 23:14, 16 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- But the article makes no mention of the design style of that drawing, nor makes any reference to it whatsoever save for "Chloe [...] is able to cause people to disappear by drawing them." There's nothing there that necessitates a copyrighted image for the readers to better understand, nor without it do you lack any understanding. — pd_THOR | =/\= | 00:56, 17 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- The text establishes that this was a key element of the story, and the image shows what it looked like. Case closed. Jheald (talk) 08:57, 17 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Why does wp need to show what it looks like? What does this image convey that a textual description such as "The Doctor and the TARDIS in a picture drawn by a child" does not? Fasach Nua (talk) 09:12, 17 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- There are many ways that that plot element as scripted could have been realised. But tv is a visual medium, and this picture shows how it actually was achieved. It makes concrete a central thematic image of the story. Jheald (talk) 09:49, 17 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- The fair use rationale makes no mention of the cinematography, it states that the image is there "To illustrate a key element of the plot" Fasach Nua (talk) 11:19, 17 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Which is what it does. It makes concrete a central thematic image of the story. Jheald (talk) 11:59, 17 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I don't understand why my image File:Fear Her.jpg, (see Wikipedia:Images_and_media_for_deletion/2007_November_28#Image:Fear_Her.jpg, was deleted in the first place. It has a fair-use rationale, etc. It was said to be a reupload of a previously deleted image, whereas in fact it was a similar cap of the same scene as far as I remember as I noticed the previous image had vanished. Wolf of Fenric (talk) 01:59, 18 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: Has anyone asked the BBC for an image Wikipedia could use. It would save all this prolonged argument. Brad Potzenik (talk) 17:05, 19 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Well, {{Permission}} isn't enough. The BBC would have to license a screenshot under a free license, such as {{cc-by}}. While not impossible, it's extremely unlikely that a corporation as big as the BBC would be willing to freely license any of their intellectual property without going through armies of lawyers, PR-consultants, etc. – Quadell (talk) (random) 17:28, 19 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep The argument that a twenty-odd word description is an adequate equivalent to a picure - any picture - is fundamentally mistaken. A picture is worth a thousand words, and one could indeed spend 1,000 words describing this picture, but that would be absurd in the context of this article. The picture significantly increases the reader's understanding & should stay. Johnbod (talk) 17:52, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- That seems a flawed argument; why then stop at one picture? Or why write the article, if the picture conveys so much more? Anecdotes are not policy, and while you quote WP:NFCC#8, you don't make any argument as to how it applies. I don't find it does, how specifically do you? — pd_THOR | =/\= | 18:36, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- This image is, we're all agreed, a copyright infringement. Its use on Wikipedia can only be defended if it complies with our Fair use criteria. The main argument for keeping it is that it is necessary--necessary to illustrate that in the episode many people are trapped on paper by a girl with special powers. Well in fact the plot summary of that article goes into great depth about the precise nature of the powers and where she gets them from, and what effects they have (at one point the Doctor and Rose find themselves attacked by what turns out to be a three-dimensional graphite scribble). This photograph isn't very illustrative, and fails the test of necessity. Criterion 8 states that "Non-free content is used only if its presence would significantly increase readers' understanding of the topic, and its omission would be detrimental to that understanding." This picture doesn't enhance that understanding, and omitting it wouldn't significantly impact the reader's understanding. That alone is a reason why we must delete this image. There are other images that could be used (for instance a picture of the graphite scribble, or the Doctor running with the Olympic torch) which would arguably improve the reader's understanding. --Tony Sidaway 16:30, 21 December 2007 (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.
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=delete){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=history){kind=link}
