File talk:Kim Sung-hwan 1950 Near Donam Bridge.jpg

Disputing speedy delete
This disputed image of a sketch by Korean artist Kim Seong-hwan has three distinct fair use rationales, one for each of the articles in which the image was posted. In reviewing Criteria for Speedy Deletion, I find good cause for refuting Labattblueboy's rejection of two of these rationales: (a) the one justifying use in Korean War, and (b) the one justifying use in War Artist. Neither are clearly invalid. In each, the image itself is the subject of sourced commentary.


 * The reasoning of Labattblueboy is based entirely here where the acceptable use of "paintings and other works of visual art" is explained:
 * Wikipedia:Non-free content Acceptable use#Images: "For critical commentary, including images illustrative of a particular technique or school."
 * It appears that Labattblueboy construes these words as exclusive. In other words, artwork can only be used to illustrate a particular technique or school.


 * In contrast, my reasoning for retaining this image and using it in the two additional articles is based on the next line in the same section. The acceptable use of "images with historical importance" is explained:
 * Wikipedia:Non-free content Acceptable use#Images: "Subjects of commentary."
 * I notice that this is restated and amplified at Wikipedia:Criteria for Speedy Deletion#F7 where the words "subject of sourced commentary" are emphasized with a hyperlink to Non-free content

This image should not be deleted.

This artwork depicts the 1950 invasion of Seoul, which is an historical event. The rationales are similarly worded, but the emphasis in the complex sentence is different. Perhaps the addition of underline and bold will be be helpful, e.g.,


 * Rationale for File:Kim Sung-hwan 1950 Near Donam Bridge.jpg for use in War artist
 * The purpose of the image is to help the reader identify war artist who is depicting historical events on June 27, 1950 in near-contemporaneous artwork . The significance of the image is to assure the readers that they have reached the right article containing critical commentary about the artist and an event in the early days of the Korean War, and to illustrate that context in a way that words alone could not convey . In other words, this image shows what a war artist does and it shows the kind of art a war artist creates . In other words, the historic occupation or job title is a subject of public interest and the subject of sourced commentary here. The historical sketch helps the readers identify the function or work output of this historic occupation or job title, assure the readers that they have reached the right article about the historic occupation or job title, and illustrate the function or message of the historic occupation or job title in a way that words alone could not convey.


 * Rationale for File:Kim Sung-hwan 1950 Near Donam Bridge.jpg for use in Korean War
 * The purpose of the image is to help the reader identify a seminal event in the Korean War as seen first-hand by a war artist who is depicting historical events June 27, 1950 in near-contemporaneous artwork . The significance of the image is to assure the readers that they have reached the right article containing critical commentary about the artist and an event in the early days of the Korean War, and to illustrate that context in a way that words alone could not convey . In other words, this image shows an event in the Korean War and the first-hand impression of one of those who lived through it . In other words, this image of an historical event is a subject of public interest and the subject of sourced commentary here. The sketch helps the readers identify the event, assure the readers that they have reached the right article about the event, and illustrate the event's intended message in a way that words alone could not convey.

Can someone suggest ways to make this better? clearer? shorter? --Tenmei (talk) 18:14, 6 May 2011 (UTC)


 * I think you're taking a very broad view of "historical importance". This case is almost exactly as specified in #5 of WP:NFC, with regards to the rational for Korean War and #6 with regards to the rational for war artist. The image is not of iconic status to merit such liberal use. I can see there being some merit for the rational for Kim Seong-hwan, but that's it. There is a healthy enough supply of images relating to the Korean War for me to question whether the use of a non-free image is necessary at all on the Korean War article. There must be at least 100 war artist works on the commons right now, so the same point applies in that instance as well.--Labattblueboy (talk) 19:26, 6 May 2011 (UTC)


 * Labattblueboy -- Your cumulative reasoning is persuasive. I was  especially struck by your citing #5 of WP:NFC. I relied on the same sentence, but I construed it expanisvely. In resolving the differences between your reading and mine, I was moved by your balancing argument.  In other words, any liberal interpretation of our "fair use" guidelines is married to an image's arguable status as an "icon". Please accept my thanks for the time you invested in helping me perceive a difficult mistake.  I apologize for the inconvenience this may have involved. --Tenmei (talk) 21:21, 6 May 2011 (UTC)