Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2011 August 3

3 August 2011

File:Tin-Pei-Ling-Kate-Spade.jpg

File:Tin-Pei-Ling-Kate-Spade.jpg (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (article|XfD|restore)

Per discussion here, I would like to Overturn or Speedy relist because of concerns over the circumstances of the original nomination. I am the uploader, but I was never informed (which is the standard protocol listed at WP:FFD) by the nominator user:202.156.13.11, a suspected sockpuppet and currently blocked for edit warring and disruptive behaviour.

Problems with the original process.

The IP used by the nominator is part of a wide string of IPs that have been wikihounding me and could possibly be linked to the Singaporean government and/or People's Action Party: see Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Geneva2011, as well as the edit war it attempted to conduct there. The nominator also appeared to making a bad-faith nom out of revenge, because the nomination date coincides with the same date government-copyrighted photos were removed and deleted from the article Vivian Balakrishnan for copyright problems. The licensing given for the photos on the Vivian Balakrishnan article was "own work", but the uploader would not explain how he or she gained the privileged perspectives or high resolutions used in the photos, use the OTRS system, or address any copyright issues beyond blanket reverts, violating the 3RR rule in the process; in the end the user used webmaster privileges to change licencing for the image on a politicians' website (before the incident, copyright on that website was "all rights reserved"), which seems to be strong evidence that "public relations management" was involved. On the same day of the dispute, the nominator listed this image that I uploaded for deletion.

Problems not addressed by the original discussion.

Now, on to the discussion. Ultimately, the image was deleted not because of the original grounds of the nominator, but because of the BLP concern of "recentism", but I was never allowed to respond to that discussion, having never been informed. The perspective was a very famous photo distributed for Tin Pei Ling and shaped the public impression of Tin Pei Ling, to the extent that a nonpolitical, television magazine effectively commented on the image. To the extent that the image was widely-seen and distributed, I believe it deserves to be commented upon in the article. I have temporarily undeleted the image in the meanwhile, so the community can judge its merit.

elle _{vécut heureuse} ^{à jamais} (be free) 01:13, 3 August 2011 (UTC) }}

• Endorse deletion, while acknowledging the concerns about the bad-faith nomination and lack of notification. Being one of the delete voters in the original discussion, I can now state that I would have upheld that vote even in the knowledge of Elle's counterarguments presented above, so I think the outcome should be upheld. Fut.Perf. ☼ 06:02, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

• If the outcome here is to restore there are various other issues which would need to be resolved. Making a collage of images in this way shouldn't be done. In the sense of NFCC requirement of minimal use it would be unlikely that we'd permit three images, we can't get around that by pasting the images together into one image, it is still three separate images. The licensing claim of it being distributed for the publicity use seems false/not evidenced - appearing in a magazine doesn't equal distributed to all manner of press for broad usage. In fact the text states one of the images was "leaked", so hardly something deliberately distributed for publicity. --82.19.4.7 (talk) 06:24, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

• • Well, the magazine is merely the symptom of the fact that the image was already widely known, i.e. the magazine was parodying the pose, which was already well-known to the extent that it almost deserves to be covered on Wikipedia (see Read my lips, no new taxes). In the very least I can go back to the revision of two images, but the topic is that of the famous "pose" (which was widely circulated to support certain claims about Tin Pei Ling's attitude to life -- a quick google search will show this, since it was covered in a wide variety of press sources), and the pose was spoofed in a television magazine. elle _{vécut heureuse} ^{à jamais} (be free) 06:31, 3 August 2011 (UTC)
    • You seem to be missing the point, if you include the images they should be included as separate images, not mashed together. We then decide on each image in it's own right as to appropriateness taking into account the criteria. No one has published the image in that form. --82.19.4.7 (talk) 19:43, 3 August 2011 (UTC)
    • That can be addressed in an FFD. I put them side by side to highlight their similarity. I could have uploaded them separately, but the Wikiformat makes it inconvenient to line up the images side by side. In any case, fair use does not forbid derivative works, especially when I've made separate fair use claims for each of the works. elle _{vécut heureuse} ^{à jamais} (be free) 21:17, 3 August 2011 (UTC)
      • Addressed this in my reply below, I'm amazed you can't see the problems introduced by making such a collage. --82.19.4.7 (talk) 06:22, 4 August 2011 (UTC)
  • Btw, I used "promotional" since it was the freely-seen cover to a magazine that would have been sold on the street and in the stores. The leaked photo is not the promotional image; the spoof is. The leaked photo is a "historic" photo. I argue the photo is sufficiently notable and historic in and of itself, to the extent that the government commented on it repeatedly over the course of two months, such that we can claim fair use. elle _{vécut heureuse} ^{à jamais} (be free) 06:33, 3 August 2011 (UTC)
    • Yes that's my point, you misunderstand what promotional means in the context of that tag. It doesn't mean merely has been used to promote something. Adverts printed in magazines are promotional, they aren't however released as part of a press pack and distributed widely... The idea within that tag is that an image is promotional something along the lines of - "I" send it out to lots of people and say, hey there's this image of my "product"/whatever It's my copyright but you can use it in your magazine/book/tv show etc. to show what my "product"/whatever is like, illustrate a review, etc. If we take your interpretation, it's the cover of a magazine used to attract people to want to buy it, then many many commercial images would suddenly fall under that banner, book covers, album covers, perhaps works of art hung in a gallery to promote the artist...
      That fact that you are claiming a different basis for inclusion of the "leaked" photo, demonstrates the problem of your self constructed collage. They should be included as individual images, with the appropriate claim made for the individual images. --82.19.4.7 (talk) 19:43, 3 August 2011 (UTC)
    • I made an individual fair use claim for each of the images. I merely put them in one image for formatting purposes only. I used that rationale to show why use in this case does not compete with 8 Days' market share and to strengthen the fair use claim (along with critical commentary). elle _{vécut heureuse} ^{à jamais} (be free) 21:13, 3 August 2011 (UTC)
      • Yes and making the individual claims in that way is problematic, I'm not sure how many times I can say that. How can a reuser understand this? Someone automatically scraping will likely look at the templates to decide on inclusion/exclusion of an image. We have discussions on inidividual images, there's often criticism of multiple articles listed in debates, this is forcing that. How does the closing admin read a debate where person 1 says keep the outer 2, remove the middle as it fails NFCC#x, whilst someone else gives a blanket keep rationale, and another a blanket delete, and another wants to keep the left hand 2, yet another delete the right hand 2 etc. As for formatting purposes? You can place the images next to each other on the page without having to do that, you might not understand how to do it (I'm sure there is a template somewhere) but that doesn't make it impossible. However this is a bit of a sideline, if the result here is endorse of the deletion, then it's moot for these images, if the result is to restore then they need to split out into separate images and each given it's own rationale. --82.19.4.7 (talk) 06:16, 4 August 2011 (UTC)
        • I don't think you realise what will happen if each of the images are transcluded separately. The textwrapping will be awful. The pictures aligning themselves will be unpredictable (and be dependent on the width of a user's window). To align them in a single image is trivial, and I believe this is valid, if the individual claims are valid. elle _{vécut heureuse} ^{à jamais} (be free) 15:05, 6 August 2011 (UTC)
          • As said, you not knowing how doesn't make it impossible. A quick google search comes back with Template:Multiple_image with doesn't have your problems. Nicely side step all the other problems, of course looking pretty is a far more important concern than anything else... Collages of differently "licensed" images is always a problem. --82.19.4.7 (talk) 17:25, 6 August 2011 (UTC)
• "Endorse" deletion. La goutte de pluie is engaged in a political campaign against the PAP, a political party in Singapore. Her edit wars, and the uploading of an image which she does not have the copyright for a part of her campaign. She alleges bad faith, but a review of her own edits reveals her own bias. 220.255.1.162 (talk) 07:41, 3 August 2011 (UTC)
  • Note this IP is part of a string of IPs mentioned in Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Geneva2011. elle _{vécut heureuse} ^{à jamais} (be free) 17:01, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

• Our main job at DRV is to see that the deletion process is correctly followed, and in this case it clearly wasn't. Clearly. A tit-for-tat nomination by a sockpuppeteer using an IP address who failed to notify the original uploader and therefore denied them the opportunity to participate in the debate. We can't possibly endorse this. Speedy overturn and restore, but without prejudice to a fresh nomination by a good faith user.—S Marshall T/C 11:09, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

overturn relist if anyone can be bothered. Agathoclea (talk) 14:59, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

Endose deletion. S Marshall's process analysis is convincing, and ordinarily I would agree with it. But the NFCC violation is so clear that I think it would justify summary removal of the collaged image. The copyrighted parody images can so easily be adequately reported in text that there's no basis for including them. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 15:04, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

Can you list the NFCC violation? Because that was discounted in the original deletion debate. elle _{vécut heureuse} ^{à jamais} (be free) 16:50, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

The original image was widely reported in the press; the parody by a popular television newsmagazine was also covered in the press -- see here for an example, which even used the image -- not from 8 Days directly, but via The New Paper, which used it here. Both are government-linked press sources. You also have to note the special political climate in Singapore, which celebrities refrain from touching even with a stick. Simply reporting the parody by text would be insufficient. elle _{vécut heureuse} ^{à jamais} (be free) 17:18, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

• I don't object to it being relisted as a procedural matter since the original uploader wasn't notified, but deleting the thing was clearly the right decision. This BLP reads more like a tabloid than an encyclopedia article. Half of the article is about online controversies ... there is very little biography here. --B (talk) 00:57, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

They are mostly based on government press sources, not tabloids. elle _{vécut heureuse} ^{à jamais} (be free) 01:48, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

• Relist If the NFCC argument for deletion is strong, the FFD is the place to discuss it. I don 't want to judge it myself, partly because I have so little awareness of the events that I can not judge their importance. I do think a set of three pictures would be admissible if there were no other objection than that it was a set, because they certainly do seem related and essential to understand each other. But it is time we stopped ever accepting blatantly bad-faith deletion nominations, just as with articles. An attempt from the same source to delete a political article would have, I hope, been rejected out of hand, & this is just the same. Adding an article for political propaganda is wrong-- it being accepted that a user doing so would be indefinitely blocked, and the article speedied as G11, without prejudice toa n article by a good faith editor if the subject justified it. . The same goes for an attempt to delete for political reason. Reject out of hand, block the editor, and no prejudice to further action for a good faith deletion if the deletion is justified. A sufficient allowance for the possibility that the article, or deletion might be justified is to let it be done over under proper conditions. Deny,Block,Ignore is the standard treatment for vandalism. DGG ( talk ) 02:01, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

• Overturn, relist if neeeded. Excluding those that are more familiar with the subject from the discussion is bad. - Penwhale | ^{dance in the air and follow his steps}

• Endorse. There was a prior FFD on this that I believe closed as no consensus, which I had started and other neutral observers had commented on. We were not notified of the new discussion either (in either way, for/against), and I believe that bad-faith nomination or not, had this had more people "familiar with the subject", to use Penwhale's words, it would probably still have closed as delete. I see no reason to overturn this. Strange Passerby (talk • cont) 06:10, 4 August 2011 (UTC)
• Question: While this discussion is ongoing, shouldn't the image be removed from the article? The Mark of the Beast (talk) 18:03, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

• Endorse. Am the IP editor mentioned. I am not a sockpuppet and I do not see the point of your need to remind of the sockpuppetry investigation which did not conclude anything. I questioned why Elle/La goutte de pluie feels the need to mention it everywhere and insinuate the deletion was due to revenge over Vivian Balakrishnan's copyrighted images when they were not even uploaded or contributed by me. I would like to point out I had questioned the existence of these photoshopped copyrighted photos since the very beginning but did not manage to put a request for deletion through as I do not know how. I had even asked another editor for help on 3 July (under IP 202.156.13.247), shortly after I made edits on Tin Pei Ling's page, which was getting out of hand and look nothing like a biography page (truth be told). It took me a long while before I could figure out the code to put up though I wasn't sure. Not sure of the notification procedures. I had left it at that then. I still don't see why the need for the pictures for her page. And I don't get why it's even placed under fair use.202.156.13.11 (talk) 02:04, 6 August 2011 (UTC)

SPA notice: Likely a related sockpuppet/meatpuppet of User:220.255.1.162.

Perhaps you should try reading fair use, and the circumstances in which it can be used? Can I ask for a clearer grounds on which you object, and the particular claims in which you contest? elle _{vécut heureuse} ^{à jamais} (be free) 15:02, 6 August 2011 (UTC)

• Endorse deletion, the different images should be evaluated on individual basis rather than composited, the magazine images are most likely copyrighted even with the fair use argument (see misconceptions of Fair use: Noncommercial use is invariably fair), and as another above commented, the comparison can easily be reported with a text description, which voids any potential rights issue on the image. DanS76 (talk) 17:51, 6 August 2011 (UTC)

The Uploader seems to have a more than passing understanding of what is and is not allowed with respect to copyright and fair use with respect to images[1] and copyvio content[2], so I don't understand why she is unable to accept her own arguement now.

The issues are different:

• The image I uploaded is commentary on the image itself, and there is no doubt that the image involved played a significant part in the election campaign (the PAP's traditional win-share for that constituency was >70%, but it fell to 55%); for this the image can be used (as with all notable images). Case law supports the use of an image when the work directly comments or criticises the image.
• The uploaded image demonstrates the significance and notability of the image in a way text cannot; many press sources commented upon the image.
• I ask you to take a look at V-J Day in Times Square. Of course, America is a nation of 300 million rather than 5 million, but the fair use issues are similar. Also, take a look at the fair use rationale for File:Vietnam Kim Phúc.jpg.

I do not know why you compare this with the IPs' constant use of government-copyrighted content. This is much different. They were using it verbatim; they were not commenting upon the copyrighted text directly; there were free alternatives (i.e. rewriting the text). elle _{vécut heureuse} ^{à jamais} (be free) 20:32, 6 August 2011 (UTC)

• Endorse deletion, relist as individual images so they and be critiqued separately. Also the suitability of the image for deletion should be judged separately from the rationale for the deletion request action. Elle, you do realize that by your "commentary on the image" point that you are practically admitting that you are attempting to introduce OR into the article via the image. Also in any case there is no hard evidence that the original image affected poll results (feel free to provide a valid reliable source if you feel I am in error), so I don't see how that contributes to the debate. As mentioned above, one can include the fact that the image had been parodied in prose without needing to include a potentially copyrighted image. Zhanzhao (talk) 21:28, 6 August 2011 (UTC)