Wikipedia:Files for discussion/2024 March 1

 &lt; February 29 March 2 &gt;

File:Self-immolation of Aaron Bushnell.png

 * The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more files. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the file's talk page or in a deletion review).  No further edits should be made to this section. 

The result of the discussion was: keep. (non-admin closure) TarnishedPathtalk 00:25, 2 March 2024 (UTC)
 * File:Self-immolation of Aaron Bushnell.png ([ delete] | talk | [ history] | links | [ logs]) &#x20;– uploaded by RodRabelo7 ( [ notify] | contribs | uploads | upload log).

Image is unambiguous copyright violation and it doesn't meet all 10 criterion for fair use. Tarnis<b style="color:#ffa0a0;">hed</b><b style="color:#420000;">Path</b><b style="color:#bd4004;">talk</b> 14:51, 1 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Keep - because it does indeed meet all 10 criteria for fair use, there is no non-free equivalent, the usage is minimal, the file is downscaled, it has been previously published, the low resolution image is not infringing on any copyright holder's ability to profit, it is used in an article, it is encyclopedic, it is not in a gallery, and the image description page has the valid fair use rationale. Which NFCC does it fail exactly? And for the record, IB Times is not the copyright holder, Bushnell is. He is who recorded and streamed the video. The same fair use that IB Times is claiming in using that image is what Wikipedia is using here.  nableezy  - 14:56, 1 March 2024 (UTC)


 * Inviting, who recently commented on a RfC related to the image. RodRabelo7 (talk) 15:00, 1 March 2024 (UTC)
 * User:TarnishedPath attempted to speedily delete the file before opening this FfD. RodRabelo7 (talk) 15:02, 1 March 2024 (UTC)


 * Keep: I have already said that in the file talk page, but the one uploaded on Wikipedia is clearly not taken from ibtimes.sg as TarnishedPath claimed. Even if it was indeed taken directly from ibtimes.sg, fair use would still permit the usage on Wikipedia, so you point is completely moot. This deletion nomination is filed with a lack of understanding of fair use. -- Sameboat - 同舟 (talk · contri.) 15:02, 1 March 2024 (UTC)


 * Keep - concur with Nableezy on meeting all fair use criteria. Also, this is certainly one of the worse nomination statements I've seen, doesn't even explain how this is supposedly fails to meet any criteria. Separately, the copyright holder, the dead man, clearly wanted this publicized as he literally broadcast it to the world. We are not infringing on his privacy. There is also close to zero possibility of a free equivalent because nobody expected the self-immolation.  starship .paint  (RUN) 15:19, 1 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Keep - As mentioned on talk page of the article for the Self-immolation of Aaron Bushnell here and here, I believed that the image of the self-immolation is the most relevant image for the article. And it absolutely meets all ten criteria listed here.
 * No free equivalent: Self explanatory. There are no non-free images of the event.
 * Respect for commercial opportunities: There is no market role of the original image. It's original creator, Bushnell himself is dead. Something like Son of Sam laws might even have prevented him from profiting from it even if he lived.
 * Minimal usage: The image is used once in the infobox and is very low resolution.
 * Previous publication: The image is taken from a previously published video stream, and has been re-published in numerous publications.
 * Content: The content is encyclopedic because it illustrates the event that the article is about.
 * Media-specific policy: Yes, I believe so.
 * One-article minimum: Yes.
 * Contextual significance: Already explained above.
 * Restrictions on location: Yes, it is only used on a mainspace article.
 * Image description page: Yes, image page has all the correct information filled out.
 * GranCavallo (talk) 16:00, 1 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Keep - image meets the fair use criteria. JimRenge (talk) 17:12, 1 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Keep and recommend snow close. Clearly meets all fair use criteria, with the image being extremely relevant to the article in question. Skyshifter   talk  19:43, 1 March 2024 (UTC)
 * The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. <b style="color:red">Please do not modify it.</b> Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the file's talk page or in a deletion review).  No further edits should be made to this section.

File:Barbie 2023 poster.jpg
<div class="archived boilerplate ffd vfd xfd-closed mw-archivedtalk" style="background-color:#f3f9ff; margin:1em 0 0 0; padding:0 10px 0 10px; border:1px solid #aaa;">
 * The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more files. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the file's talk page or in a deletion review).  No further edits should be made to this section. 

The result of the discussion was: keep. Doczilla Ohhhhhh, no! 21:21, 10 March 2024 (UTC)
 * File:Barbie 2023 poster.jpg ([ delete] | talk | [ history] | links | [ logs]) &#x20;– uploaded by Zingo156 ( [ notify] | contribs | uploads | upload log).

The file is too small to be usable, should be replaced by a larger, but still reduced, more usable file, possibly a png. (Oinkers42) (talk) 16:25, 1 March 2024 (UTC)


 * Comment: I'm pretty sure that this discussion does not belong here, since FfD is for discussing whether an image file should be deleted or not. Nevertheless, the file in question is certainly not too small. WP:IMAGERES states that "images should be rescaled as small as possible to still be useful as identified by their rationale, and no larger." The current image file is set to the standard infobox width (220 pixels) in order to retain its quality and avoid pixelation, as JPEG is a lossy compression format. Unless it's replaced by a PNG equivalent, there's no valid reason to enlarge the current image.  snap snap  (talk) 18:29, 1 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Looking at the archived discussion above it looks like we have been over this image before.
 * I would say the existing is fine.
 * If you feel you would like to find a suitable alternative that you think is an improvement then link it here and anyone interested can have a look. Then a consensus can be found to change or not. Lukewarmbeer (talk) 17:24, 2 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Keep: The image must be low-resolution according to WP:NFCC3b. I disagree with the assessment that it "is too small to be usable". At its current size, it does a decent job of identifying the movie. ⟲ Three Sixty! Talk? Work. 18:53, 2 March 2024 (UTC)


 * +1 for the smaller image. I have reviewed the arguments and am unconvinced there is any real benefit to using a high-resolution version of the poster -<span style="font-family:'Trebuchet MS';color:Indigo;font-weight:bold;font-variant-caps:small-caps;font-size:120%;">Fastily  10:46, 8 March 2024 (UTC)


 * Keep: As per WP:NFCC, "Low-resolution, rather than high-resolution/fidelity/bit rate is used", so replacing the image in question with a higher-quality version would cause it to the fail the aforementioned criterion. -- Fhsig13 (talk) 23:55, 8 March 2024 (UTC)
 * The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. <b style="color:red">Please do not modify it.</b> Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the file's talk page or in a deletion review).  No further edits should be made to this section.