Talk:John Gerovich

Non Free image use
The use of the photograph File:JohnGerovich.jpg has been rejected by Hullaballoo Wolfowitz claiming it fails WP:NFCC. This reads: "8. Contextual significance. Non-free content is used only if its presence would significantly increase readers' understanding of the article topic, and its omission would be detrimental to that understanding." The content guideline for this condition reads: Two of the most common circumstances in which an item of non-free content can meet the contextual significance criterion are: The photo is discussed in the the article and the FUR that's on the file page states that it's a "historically significant photograph", which has been made into a statue (which we have a free use photo of in the article) and hence seeing the original photo is important to understand the iconic nature of it. And the photo - not just the player - is discussed in the article.
 * where the item is itself the subject of sourced commentary in the article, or
 * where only by including such non-free content, can the reader identify an object, style, or behavior, that is a subject of discussion in the article.

The other editor has rejected that argument with the comment 'be that as it may, an unsourced claim that a photo is "iconic" doesn't come close to satisfying NFCC requirements, and wouldn't be sufficient even if reliably sourced', but it is sourced.

I don't want to get into a wikilawyering argument or an edit war, but am I missing something or is he? The-Pope (talk) 14:10, 8 March 2017 (UTC)


 * It appears that that's no question that the play itself is critically iconic, but the specific photograph of that play is not, and you don't have sources discussing the image itself, which means that it fails the NFCC#8 test (as it's just one person leaping over another to catch a ball, something that's not too hard to envision) Add that we have a free photo of the statue that recreates the image itself rather well, and that also means that NFCC#1, replaceability, is also not met, since the statue serves as a reasonably fair representation of the play. --M ASEM (t) 15:05, 8 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Thanks, but actually it's the exact opposite. Plenty of similar marks are taken, but very few are captured (especially in the 1956 pre-digital age) so perfectly. I'll expand the text further and search for more refs. The-Pope (talk) 15:34, 8 March 2017 (UTC)


 * Masem is on target. If this were an article about the game itself (or the play itself) the image might pass muster, but certainly not in a BLP. Take a look at Helmet Catch, as "iconic" a play as there's been in US football. A nonfree image is used only in the article about the play itself, not in the biography of David Tyree, who made the catch, or even in the Super Bowl XLII article (and if you look through the file and page histories, you'll see it was removed from the articles for the players involved for failing NFCC#8). Also, the term "iconic" is thrown around pretty loosely in NFCC discussions: here the event is principally described merely as "one of" the subject's "famous" plays, apparently noteworthy primarily because of the statue, and we have a satisfactory free image of that. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo). Treated like dirt by many administrators since 2006.   (talk) 18:32, 8 March 2017 (UTC)