Wikipedia:Files for discussion/2020 February 2



File:Draco Mal.JPG

 * 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: Keep - F ASTILY   00:23, 10 February 2020 (UTC)
 * File:Draco Mal.JPG ([ delete] | talk | [ history] | links | [ logs]) &#x20;– uploaded by AmeliaBlack ( [ notify] | contribs | uploads | upload log).

File:Harry Potter studio tour- Life size Draco Malfoy dummy.jpg (WP:NFCCP:1). — Ирука13 13:24, 2 February 2020 (UTC)

This seems either overkill or pointy to me. The issue is not that the file is to be deleted, but that the nominating editor feels it is inappropriate for the lede, and has proposed some lower-quality replacements. They have done the same over at Rubeus Hagrid as well. All the salient points have been made on the Draco Malfoy talk page, but to summarize - NFC is not prohibited from use, (nor is usage against the law, as implied by Iruka13) and in the cases of the Harry Potter articles they are the best representation of the article subjects. The proposed replacements are all far below quality required for a lede image, and if nothing else were available even then I would be loathe to support their use - but there is something else available. All HP articles use the film characters where possible, and this also lends a level of consistency to the family of articles. Iruka claimed that the Hagrid article did not conform to this, but that's only because he changed the image himself from Coltrane to a sketch at the same time as the Malfoy change.

It is a simple question of what reflects the article best, and in my opinion it's the Tom Felton representation that's been there for over 10 years, barring vandalism and blips. Just image googling "Draco Malfoy" brings back image after image of Felton's portrayal. Chaheel Riens (talk) 15:29, 2 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Comment: Some past relevant discussion related to these images can be found at Wikipedia talk:Non-free content/Archive 67, Wikipedia talk:Non-free content/Archive 11 , but there are quite a few others as well. If the argument is that it is against the law to use this image, i.e. WP:MIGHTSUE, well that's clearly not the case at all as explained in WP:NFC. Wikipedia's non-free content use policy may be more restrictive than the copyright concepts of fair use/fair dealing, but it's precisely because the copyright of many countries does recognize these concepts that the Wikimedia Foundation adopted wmf:Resolution:Licensing policy to give individual Wikipedia projects the option to allow the use of some types of non-free content. English Wikipedia does allow such content as long as it satisfies the Wikipedia non-free content use policy. If the argument if WP:FREER, then it would be helpful if the nominator can clarify why they feel the file fails to meet WP:NFCC. Is there a free equivalent image which already exists which could replace this non-free one or is there something else about the image which makes it replaceable fair use. The fact that this file has been used for 10 years, isn't in and of itself really a justification for keeping the file per se, but it would help to better understand why the nominator has decided that FREER is now an issue. -- Marchjuly (talk) 00:52, 3 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Thank you for the links to the discussions. It is in that direction that my thought is moving. In order not to tear the topic, I will ask here: maybe you know whether other similar replacements (non-free --> fan art) and (non-free --> cosplay) were discussed?It seemed to me that I provided all the necessary information for the administrator to make a decision. However: "Non-free content is used only where no free equivalent is available, or could be created, that would serve the same encyclopedic purpose." — Ирука13 13:50, 3 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Inauthentic fan art, if that is what you're suggesting, would not be a free, in my opinion. – Finnusertop (talk ⋅ contribs) 21:43, 3 February 2020 (UTC)
 * That Commons file you cited above is not clearly a free equivalent per c:COM:CB and c:COM:FOP United Kingdom. Wax figures in general aren't considered to be permantly displayed 3D works of art and therefore not really covered under the UK's freedom of panorama. The photo is probably OK, but the photo is a derivative work and the copyright status of the figure must also be considered. Many similar images have been deleted per c:Category:Wax figure deletion requests and I think this one would end up deleted as well if brought to c:COM:DR. -- Marchjuly (talk) 01:20, 4 February 2020 (UTC)


 * Keep - Given that UK FOP does not apply to the wax figure, and the photo itself is of poor quality and does not really do the job of providing visual identification, the proposed replacement image is not suitable. File:Draco Mal.JPG does meet the non-free content criteria  as used in the Draco Malfoy article -- Whpq (talk) 13:43, 4 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Keep unless a specific replacement is found or demonstrated to be possible to create. – Finnusertop (talk ⋅ contribs) 14:25, 4 February 2020 (UTC)
 * 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.