Knowledge:Arguments to avoid in file deletion discussions

2354: 1348:, is just one of these. To be kept, a file must satisfy all ten criteria, not just some of them. It is not a multiple choice process, in which checking off just one of the options is sufficient. An editor nominating a file for deletion is generally expected to name, specifically, which criteria the file is believed not to meet. When responding to such a nomination, it is important to pay attention to what the nominator said. Pointing out, for example, that an image satisfies fair use requirements does not constitute a persuasive argument when the deletion nomination is based on something unrelated to fair use. To make the best argument for keeping a file, always address your argument to the specific criterion or criteria that were raised by the nominator or by other editors who have argued for deletion. 1803: 2556:. It is entirely reasonable for an editor proposing deletion to frame the nomination succinctly, for example: "Fails NFCC#2". Often, there will be no disagreement with such a nomination, and the closing administrator will conclude that the file should be deleted. In such a case, the nominating editor has no further burden. However, if another editor comes along and argues that the file should, in fact, be kept, then there must be discussion to determine who is correct. If the editor arguing for "keep" has made an unconvincing argument that you want to rebut, do not hide behind "burden of proof". Instead, try to explain politely why that argument is flawed. If the argument for keeping is, instead, valid, then the burden effectively shifts to those who still want to delete. 2461: 2211:), and thus is very likely to satisfy criterion 8, and a non-notable image that illustrates an historic event, in which case passage of criterion 8 is a matter of editorial judgment and consensus. There are plenty of conceivable images that show something historic, but which would not "significantly increase readers' understanding of the topic" on a given page, which is what criterion 8 requires. Therefore, do not simply point out that an image shows something historic. To make the most persuasive argument, go on to explain how this historic image increases the reader's understanding of what the article discusses. 1613:. In part, this is because there is a consensus that non-free material should not be used here when free content is available that could serve the purpose just as well. Also, an important aspect of being a 💕 is that other entities should be able to freely reuse content that they find on Knowledge. We even permit commercial entities to freely reuse content from Knowledge in bulk, and they should be able to do so without sharing Knowledge's status as an online service provider that is non-profit, charitable, and educational. Thus, satisfying fair use law is not sufficient to satisfy the requirements at Knowledge. 971: 3435: 2705: 3642: 1229:, without speculating on other editors' motives. For example, one should avoid arguing that an editor simply added text to an article as a "pretext" for including an image. Most editors participating in deletion discussions really do mean well, even if they appear not to understand NFCC, or appear not to understand how the image is valuable to an article. Editors sometimes care deeply about whether or not a file will be deleted, and it is important not to cause unnecessary conflict. If there is really a conduct problem, raise it instead through 1740:, that "non-free content is not used in a manner that is likely to replace the original market role of the original copyrighted media," is often discussed in this regard. The fact that an image can be obtained for free at some websites often turns out to be trumped by the same image being offered for sale at another location. Knowledge does not have the right to infringe on someone's market just because others are doing so. If anyone is offering the image for sale, anywhere, it is likely that the image fails criterion two and must be deleted. 3188: 3560: 4050:, which states that "Knowledge is neither a mirror nor a repository of links, images, or media files." However, that policy concerns the use of image files in article space, and prohibits "mere collections of photographs or media files with no text to go with the articles." It does not apply to storage of free files on servers, where there is no shortage of capacity. It is entirely possible that a completely unused free image ought to be deleted if it lacks any potential encyclopedic use, as described at 2000: 3842: 1516: 1287: 3066: 3592:

not helpful to assign blame. Other editors, who consider the image to be beneficial to the page, may not have independently looked into whether the file page description is correct, but that does not mean that they have bad intentions. If you find that a file is being used improperly, it is sufficient for you to show that it lacks proper licensing. Making the argument personal will only inflame the discussion and get in the way of consensus.

1507: 1842:

any media that appears on a government website is in the public domain. Sometimes, the government will republish copyrighted work on their websites or in publications, but this does not change the copyright of the original work. In these cases, there will often be a credit indicating who the original copyright holder is. When making this argument, make sure first that the content really is in the public domain, and do not just assume it.

3277: 2910: 3788:

comments, as this approach tends to polarize the debate instead. Saying that we would have to delete all images on Knowledge falls prey to the fallacies that it matters for a deletion discussion whether other files would also be deleted, and that one can predict, crystal ball fashion, what decisions would be made in the future. Instead, simply point out how the other editor is incorrectly applying the criteria at

1116: 4092: 2261: 2139: 2599: 1386: 3995: 1658: 3739: 35: 3002:

discussions. There is no mathematical formula for drawing the line between being merely decorative, and being something that adds significantly to understanding. This distinction is a subjective one that can only be made through editorial discussion. Instead of stating baldly that the image is purely decorative, explain how it fails to help our readers understand the page.

116: 2082:

the overall topic of the page. It is not enough for the image to provide some additional information beyond what the text covers. Secondly, the image must make it significantly easier for the reader to understand what the page discusses, beyond what the text, alone, can convey. The most effective arguments recognize and explicitly address these requirements.

1744:

this point can be contentious. It is generally unhelpful to lay blame on another editor for not having adequately considered that a file may or may not still have a commercial value. Instead, try to listen to what other editors are saying, and consider whether they might have put forth arguments that would require you to change your position.

2830:. Sometimes, it can be frustrating to get another editor to see what is obvious to you, but telling them that it is obvious is unlikely to persuade them, no matter how much it may feel good to say it. Stay calm, and try to explain what you mean, specifically. You can always console yourself in the knowledge of your superior understanding. 1071:. Thus, the most persuasive arguments are those that focus on whether or not the file satisfies all of those criteria, and which actually explain their reasoning. Sometimes, it is appropriate to agree with what another editor has already said, but it is better to explain why you agree, or with what, specifically, you agree. 868:, also allows the use of non-free content, subject to some specific—and important—restrictions. Such content cannot be kept at Commons, but may be uploaded locally. Many deletion discussions of image files at the English Knowledge, therefore, involve policies pertaining to the use, locally, of non-free content. 4126:

An image whose encyclopedic purpose cannot be determined is an appropriate deletion candidate. However, the file page is not the only place to look to find information about an image. Has the nominator checked the uploader's contributions immediately following the upload? Often, the next thing a user

3696:

In all deletion discussions on Knowledge, not just those that are about files, it is never a convincing argument to point to other pages. Each deletion discussion for an image is a discussion of that image only. Correct use of other images elsewhere, or the absence of images elsewhere, has no bearing

3126:

The opposite argument is just as weak. The fact that you, personally, are capable of understanding the text without seeing the image proves very little. The standard, instead, is whether our readers, the general public, will, as a group, tend to understand the content of the page significantly better

912:

Please remember that a reason that arguably could be classified as an "argument to avoid" can still have some valid points in it. This essay suggests ways to make such arguments stronger. Also please remember that most editors who participate in deletion discussions, whether advocating for keeping or

844:

rest upon some criteria that are particular to those media, sometimes in ways that are unfamiliar to editors who do not frequently participate in such discussions. As a result, there are some special considerations that go into making an effective argument. Understanding these considerations can make

3937:

images and other files that are kept, for various reasons, at the English Knowledge, instead of or in addition to being kept at Commons. Consequently, there can also be deletion discussions of such files at Knowledge, whether or not they are being discussed for deletion at other projects. Such files

3915:

is nominated for deletion. Such nominations can, understandably, be frustrating for editors who have worked hard to bring those articles to that level of quality, and editors arguing for deletion are advised to recognize that fact. However, simply pointing to the article's status is unlikely to be a

3519:

that use of non-free content on the English language Knowledge must be limited to exceptional, not routine, use. In that regard, then, the statement that usage must be "exceptional" is factually true. However, such a statement should not be used in deletion discussions as a rhetorical trick to argue

2410:

requires that the non-free image "significantly increase readers' understanding of the topic". Therefore, simply stating that the image is climactic, important, or iconic, is not sufficient by itself. Instead, the most persuasive arguments will refer to what the text of the article says, and explain

1732:

can be found somewhere on the web, where it is possible to copy and save them for free (like "free beer"). This fact, by itself, does not prove that the owner of the copyright has relinquished their legal rights under that copyright. Affirmative evidence that the material has been freely licensed is

1463:

on its file page. Therefore, simply arguing that a file must be deleted because it is copyrighted is not a sufficient argument for deletion, even though that might seem counterintuitive. Instead, the appropriate issue is whether or not there is a satisfactory non-free rationale for its use. If there

3500:

You may believe in good faith that the copyright holder would not object to Knowledge's use of their property, but can you prove it? Saying that they would never enforce their copyright is very unlikely to be persuasive in a deletion discussion. Instead, showing that the file has been appropriately

2296:

Knowledge is an encyclopedia, not a repository for rare objects. Thus, it is not Knowledge's role to be a place to keep unique and irreplaceable images. Arguing that an image is irreplaceable is unlikely to carry much weight in a deletion discussion. Instead, if you can show that the non-free image

2081:

satisfy, requires that the image not merely be educational, but "significantly increase readers' understanding of the topic". This means, first, that the image must either address something that is discussed in the text of the page, or add in a meaningful and substantive way to the understanding of

1747:

It should also be noted that an image that exists elsewhere on the Internet can sometimes, but not always, be linked to, as an alternative to actually placing the image on Knowledge. If the other website is operated or licensed by the copyright owner, it is entirely appropriate to provide a link in

3591:

The editor who uploads a file is responsible for correctly filling out the information on the file page, including the information about its licensing status. However, it is possible for an editor who acts in good faith to make an error. By the time a deletion discussion has gotten underway, it is

3369:

Famous last words! Even if the holder of a copyright has not defended that copyright, or appears not to have defended that copyright, they still retain the right to enforce it when they choose. Perhaps they simply have not yet noticed its use on Knowledge. No editor here has the ability to predict

1841:

Many national and state governments have copyright clauses that put work performed by their own employees while performing a work function into the public domain. Thus, there are many free images available from government sources. Editors often do not realize, however, that this does not mean that

3787:

Sometimes, editors who want to delete an image make arguments that would, in effect, justify removal of all images from this project. Some such arguments are, in fact, listed here as arguments to avoid. However, it is usually not helpful in trying to reach a consensus to belittle another editor's

3384:

Similarly, even if an image has been used on a page for a long time with no editor objecting to its use, that is not a valid argument for keeping. Some pages are viewed infrequently, so this may simply be a case in which the failure to satisfy the NFCC requirements was not noticed until recently.

1954:

Conversely, it is unreasonable to require that an image be of excellent resolution when we are actually requiring low resolution. If an image is of very low quality (like the one at the right), however, that may reduce its ability to add meaningfully to readers' understanding of the article. This

1743:

On the other hand, widespread availability of an image may, in some circumstances, be evidence that criterion 2 is satisfied, if it can be clearly established that there is no danger of infringing on the original market role. Clearly establishing that, however, is difficult, and discussions about

1236:

However, there may be times when it is unavoidable to raise issues of bad conduct during a deletion discussion. In these cases, it is best to be certain that your accusations are well-founded and directly relevant to the discussion, and to state them in a polite and unemotional manner. Most

3001:

requires that all non-free images add significantly to "readers' understanding of the topic" of the page. A common shorthand for this idea is that images must not merely be "decorative". However, the imprecision of this word often gets in the way of making a persuasive argument in deletion

2652:

that it wasn't clear to the other editors and explain it again. If the other editors, instead, have demonstrated that there was an error in your deletion nomination, then you should either explain why deletion is, nonetheless, required, or you should acknowledge that they were correct.

1887: 2532:

Each deletion discussion is a discussion about an individual file. Whether or not there might exist a free image that could serve the same purpose as the image under discussion, the only issue at hand is whether the non-free image under discussion satisfies all ten criteria at

879:(NFCC) carry the most weight, whereas arguments unrelated to that policy are likely to carry little weight, and should be avoided. Not surprisingly, editors often have strongly held opinions about whether or not an image should be deleted. Consequently, arguments that focus on 3009:

to understand the subject matter of the page by relying upon text alone, without the use of the image. Criterion 8 requires that the absence of the image "would be detrimental" to understanding the text. Thus, the issue is not whether the text alone can explain the concept

2545:. If you can, you will then be able to return to the deletion discussion and explain that the criticism of the file is no longer applicable. On the other hand, an editor who is considering whether to nominate a file for deletion based on missing or faulty file information ( 3950:, apply to those deletion discussions. In addition, it is useful to recognize that some of the "arguments to avoid" that are listed above should also be avoided when discussing free material, with the only difference being that the non-free content criteria do not apply. 2537:. If the image fails, then it must be deleted now, without waiting to find a replacement. If you believe that the file should be kept, and you cannot find a free replacement, you will have a better argument if you explain, instead, why you believe the file passes NFCC. 3916:

persuasive argument. Perhaps the image was added after the page was audited. Even if the image was, in fact, carefully scrutinized during the review of the page, it may not be obvious to the editors arguing for deletion that every one of the ten criteria at

1712:

The English word "free" can mean either "for zero price" (like beer being given away for free) or "with few or no restrictions" (like a free license for a file). To be considered "free content" on Knowledge, a file must satisfy one of the licenses listed at

3920:

was already determined to have been met. A much better argument is to provide a link to the actual discussion that occurred when the page was audited, and show that, in fact, the image is already known to meet the specific concern raised in the nomination.

2540:

It is generally not helpful to achieving consensus to tell another editor what they should have done. Doing so tends to escalate tension, instead of finding a solution. If another editor points out something that is lacking in the file information, try to

3118:

Arguing to keep a non-free image on the basis that "any image can be described by words" is unlikely to be persuasive. The deletion discussion is about only one image, and whether it adds significantly to readers' understanding of what the page says

6699: 4127:

will do is insert the image into an article. And even if the image was never itself inserted, the uploader's contributions generally will provide clues about what an image is. In sum, the lack of a description on the image page is not fatal.

3385:

Also, a file may previously have had a valid rationale for use on an article, but has subsequently been moved to a different page, where the rationale is no longer valid, or revisions to the original page have made the rationale obsolete.

4739: 5900: 1247: 4289: 717: 1224:

advises users to "Comment on the content, not on the contributor." That remains just as true when that content is a non-free image or other file, rather than text. Normally, it is best to focus on the ten criteria at

938: 5304: 4186: 2825:

In any deletion discussion, an argument that simply asserts that its position is the correct one is likely to carry little weight. Always base your argument, as specifically as possible, on the ten criteria at

188: 4769: 1758:

template, with a mention in the text that the image can be found there. On the other hand, if another website hosts an image in violation of the copyright, Knowledge should never provide such a link.

1455:

is taken very seriously. However, copyrighted non-text material such as image files or other files may be used here under certain strict conditions. The file must satisfy all ten criteria listed at

6035: 1834:

A special case of the "It's free!" argument occurs with respect to images from government websites. This case can also be true for any website that nominally allows its own work to be put into the

6586: 3026: 3706: 6466: 5638: 3018:, without the image. An editor who refuses to "drop the stick" of saying that the page can be understood using text alone may eventually come to be seen by other editors as being disruptive. 5995: 4305: 3524:. There is a well-established consensus that those ten criteria are appropriate and sufficient to establish that usage satisfies the Foundation's requirements. Nothing further is required. 1312: 768: 1002: 5804: 5399: 3697:

on the encyclopedic value of the image under discussion. Instead, focus on whether or not the non-free image is useful on the page(s) where it appears, and whether or not the criteria at

2607: 1955:

latter point must be resolved by the consensus of editors evaluating how well or poorly the image contributes to the content of the page, and not by an arbitrary threshold of resolution.

3223:" is an old adage, but in deletion discussions, it is nothing more than an empty cliché. A far better way to make your case is to explain, specifically, how the non-free image satisfies 6839: 3021:

Conversely, simply saying that an image looks good can be tantamount to admitting that it is, in fact, only decorative. Remember instead to explain why the image satisfies criterion 8.

2411:

clearly how the image helps the reader understand the subject in ways that cannot be achieved by text alone, and how the article text would be inadequate without this particular image.

3508:

have been very carefully vetted, and it is entirely sufficient to demonstrate that the ten criteria have all been satisfied. It is never necessary to set a higher standard than that.

3095: 6849: 6147: 4784: 3764: 3381:

on Knowledge is not enough. If you are in a position to ask permission from the copyright holder, do not simply ask for permission for use on Knowledge, but request free licensing.

7115: 7110: 6779: 6401: 5106: 6526: 4451: 4259: 3127:

when the image is included, and whether it would be detrimental to their understanding to omit it. Thus, the threshold is not whether someone can possibly understand the text

702: 1451:

Any file that has an active copyright by someone else, or even appears likely to be copyrighted, must be deleted at Wikimedia Commons. And here at the English Knowledge, the

6904: 6591: 5204: 4360: 727: 6889: 3901: 3884: 3781: 3690: 3494: 3477: 3363: 3346: 3329: 3112: 2802: 2768: 2509: 2400: 2187: 2059: 6639: 5179: 2992: 2859: 2819: 2785: 2751: 2526: 2042: 1929: 1706: 1599: 1582: 1565: 1445: 1428: 1334: 1215: 1198: 1181: 1164: 1053: 444: 5703: 2003:

Images are very helpful in the classroom. They can be helpful on Knowledge too, but they need to help the reader understand the article, not simply provide information.

5234: 4931: 2975: 2958: 2941: 1036: 1019: 650: 3373:

Even if we have a communication from the copyright owner, saying that the work may be used on Knowledge, that is not the same thing as a communication that agrees to

1939:

of these points are likely to carry little weight. As noted above, fair use is not, by itself, a sufficient argument for keeping a file. A non-free file must satisfy

7207: 6909: 6316: 5502: 4956: 4879: 4461: 320: 310: 2630: 6356: 6336: 5299: 5269: 363: 353: 259: 249: 3795:

It is essentially the same argument to complain that the criteria are too subjective. Some of them are indeed subjective, but how they are applied is a matter of

902:, which contains many other arguments that should generally be avoided; most of the arguments listed here represent special cases pertaining to non-free content. 4581: 4315: 2197:. Being historic or one-of-a-kind is not, by itself, sufficient. Being of historical importance can, however, be part of a good argument that an image satisfies 1806:

Although works that are actually created by the US government are generally in the public domain, make sure first that the work is not copyrighted and reprinted.

763: 2549:), ought to consider first whether, in fact, it is practical to fix the information oneself, instead of creating the trouble of a disputed deletion discussion. 5593: 5319: 5081: 4669: 4596: 4536: 4511: 4501: 4059: 3312: 2734: 2492: 1240: 2559: 7054: 6361: 5001: 4254: 4201: 4120: 3213: 1697:– Since this image is readily available from many websites, our use is not making a difference in the copyright holder's ability to profit from the image. – 697: 590: 226: 209: 1609:, not just some of them, even if it is only used a single time. Knowledge, as a 💕, has decided to make these criteria more strict than what is required by 7212: 6441: 6396: 6306: 6256: 5522: 5249: 5224: 4274: 3947: 979: 899: 833: 687: 543: 3143:

way, then explain why that is insignificant, instead of resorting to hyperbole. Doing so will then make it easier for other editors to come to consensus.

2205:(no free equivalent). It is also important to distinguish between an image that is, itself, historic and notable in its own right (such as the photograph 1828: 6949: 5239: 4874: 4859: 4310: 4269: 3673: 2658: 1147: 758: 712: 3585: 3460: 1763: 6276: 4839: 4136: 3924: 789: 558: 553: 335: 3867: 3504:

Just as it is unsubstantiated speculation to claim that someone would not sue us, it is just as speculative to worry that they would. The criteria at

2383: 7163: 6431: 6346: 5462: 5314: 5219: 4834: 4794: 4649: 1912: 931: 2421: 2290: 7059: 6152: 6065: 5663: 5404: 5229: 5154: 4889: 4864: 4789: 4571: 4401: 4279: 4249: 732: 692: 481: 292: 282: 4020: 2025: 1063:

is achieved through discussion, rather than simply voting. In a disputed non-free file deletion discussion, it is necessary that the file satisfy

6486: 6436: 6291: 6040: 5985: 5970: 5583: 4921: 4804: 4684: 1689: 1076: 784: 548: 264: 3148: 2314: 1411: 7019: 5648: 5394: 5131: 5056: 4626: 4160: 2170: 2085:

Arguing that an image enhances a reader's understanding of the page gets closer to being a persuasive argument, but a better argument explains

1548: 1847: 6914: 6566: 6411: 6331: 6000: 5749: 5678: 5532: 4829: 3946:. Below, there are "arguments to avoid" concerning such files. Beyond that, many of the general principles of "arguments to avoid", given at 905:

Although this essay focuses on arguments concerning non-free media, there are also "arguments to avoid" that apply to free images, discussed

2214: 6959: 6516: 5723: 5214: 5101: 5091: 4981: 4884: 4869: 4228: 1618: 568: 3237: 6501: 6471: 6281: 6030: 6025: 5562: 5011: 4966: 4896: 4155: 4043: 3955: 3943: 3374: 1714: 432: 330: 3602: 2353: 1960: 386: 6814: 5259: 4634: 4348: 4145: 608: 507: 325: 5613: 6769: 6644: 6531: 6246: 5643: 5329: 5111: 5096: 4941: 4854: 4664: 4471: 4456: 4264: 3285: 707: 391: 54:

It contains the advice or opinions of one or more Knowledge contributors. This page is not an encyclopedia article, nor is it one of

1353: 7197: 7120: 7039: 6421: 6381: 6095: 5764: 5718: 5708: 5628: 5144: 5046: 4976: 4764: 3595: 2852: 2414: 2092: 1469: 396: 146: 6899: 6261: 5698: 5444: 5432: 4936: 4616: 4476: 414: 287: 836:

provides advice about how to frame effective explanations of your views in deletion discussions in general, and particularly in

6729: 6649: 6060: 6005: 5975: 5512: 5389: 4606: 4446: 4373: 3370:

the future. Instead, try to find affirmative evidence that the file has been licensed in such a way that Knowledge may use it.

1802: 613: 405: 368: 7044: 7014: 7009: 6804: 6784: 6581: 6341: 6010: 5965: 5960: 5769: 5653: 5557: 5294: 5006: 4951: 4926: 4906: 4844: 4814: 4719: 4709: 4481: 3527: 3395: 6979: 6854: 6704: 6426: 6326: 6122: 5930: 5809: 5658: 5254: 5076: 5026: 4566: 2849:: how does the image succeed or fail at significantly increasing readers' understanding of what the text of the page says? 1819:– This image came from a U.S. Government website, which puts all work out in the public domain, and therefore it's free. – 742: 657: 17: 2406:

This is another case of an argument that is weak by itself, but potentially stronger when made as part of a larger point.

6994: 6934: 6859: 6351: 6321: 6241: 6070: 5041: 5031: 4996: 4809: 4714: 4436: 3220: 2648:

is listening to other editors' arguments. If, in fact, you already showed why the arguments for keep are incorrect, then

2245: 876: 815: 301: 231: 128: 4150: 3516: 2483:– I couldn't find a free replacement. You should first go and find a free image, then delete this once you found one. – 7004: 6869: 6844: 6824: 6724: 6619: 6496: 5955: 5864: 5824: 5728: 5384: 5369: 5244: 4849: 4699: 4654: 4611: 4586: 4546: 4396: 4196: 344: 315: 240: 3377:

the work as Knowledge requires. Any file used on Knowledge may be re-used elsewhere, so an agreement to use the image

7146: 6974: 6954: 6879: 6874: 6446: 5935: 5578: 5487: 5349: 5284: 5194: 5184: 5159: 5121: 5116: 5051: 4819: 4779: 4724: 4165: 3845:

Don't try to pull rank. Link to the earlier discussion, and show how the file was already shown to pass the criteria.

3438:

Well, let's hope it never comes to this, but the issue here is whether the file passes the non-free content criteria.

3289: 622: 472: 377: 358: 254: 163: 55: 2309:(contextual significance), by being a particularly useful image to help readers understand the subject of the page. 7168: 7034: 6571: 6050: 5980: 5859: 5844: 5759: 5542: 5334: 4679: 4426: 4421: 4221: 578: 7082: 1890:

Do not adjust your computer monitor. Do remember that non-free content must satisfy all non-free content criteria.

6964: 6774: 6744: 6709: 6536: 6015: 5925: 5839: 5482: 5452: 5324: 4506: 837: 737: 200: 6226: 2142:

What do the history books say? No matter what they say, the non-free content criteria set specific requirements.

974:

In the military, it is appropriate to follow the leader. At Knowledge, consensus is achieved through discussion.

7130: 6999: 6829: 6556: 6456: 6266: 6142: 6055: 6020: 5945: 5915: 5779: 5603: 5552: 5379: 5364: 5289: 5061: 4911: 4754: 4541: 4486: 4411: 4341: 4051: 3230: 841: 599: 500: 273: 5713: 2147: 7217: 7105: 6919: 6834: 6596: 6541: 6461: 6416: 6371: 6366: 6251: 6085: 6045: 5940: 5905: 5880: 5588: 5409: 5189: 5164: 5071: 5066: 4946: 4734: 4659: 4576: 4491: 4406: 4171: 1221: 631: 59: 4046:. Perhaps an article making good use of the image will be created in the future. Editors sometimes point to 7156: 6929: 6809: 6689: 6664: 6491: 6127: 6090: 6080: 5683: 5623: 5477: 4774: 4749: 4704: 4601: 4556: 4531: 4521: 4496: 2919:, this image helps readers understand what the text says. Here at this essay, it really is just decorative. 2207: 563: 2460: 7049: 6864: 6749: 6674: 6561: 6481: 6451: 6301: 5920: 5890: 5854: 5744: 5608: 5527: 5309: 5174: 5139: 4986: 4744: 4694: 4689: 4416: 4214: 2517:– I don't have to show that the file fails NFCC. The burden of proof is on you to show that it passes. – 1436:– The file page says that it is in the public domain, but there is no proof that it isn't copyrighted. – 1124: 468: 437: 423: 2122:"WP:HISTORIC" redirects here. For the list of large-scale disputes that have occurred on Knowledge, see 7151: 7100: 6739: 6734: 6694: 6679: 6669: 6546: 6391: 6296: 5799: 5789: 5688: 5497: 5472: 5359: 4644: 4516: 4191: 4034:

content be used in at least one article in order to be kept. However, there is no such requirement for

3939: 2123: 872: 853: 463: 219: 7202: 7125: 6894: 6759: 6659: 6576: 6521: 6511: 6476: 6311: 6286: 6271: 6112: 5834: 5774: 5507: 5344: 5279: 5274: 5264: 5016: 4639: 4391: 4334: 4054:, but in such cases it is better to argue based on the content of the image, rather than on its use. 530: 493: 458: 174: 47: 6506: 3251: 6799: 6754: 6117: 5990: 5950: 5754: 5492: 5021: 4466: 3131:

without the image, but whether the image significantly improves that understanding. Does the image

4073: 3169: 2880: 1981: 1261: 7029: 6969: 6944: 6884: 6794: 6789: 6376: 6193: 5895: 5885: 5673: 5668: 5086: 4759: 4729: 4561: 3802: 3162: 3047: 2228: 1752: 808: 3388:

A variation of this argument, in which the featured status of the page is invoked, is discussed

6989: 6939: 6719: 6714: 6684: 6173: 6137: 6132: 5829: 5633: 5467: 4991: 4824: 4799: 4674: 3337:– We have a letter from the copyright owner, saying that we may use this image on Knowledge. – 2641: 2580: 2553: 2235: 2113: 1974: 3616: 3354:– This article has used this image for ages and editors never raised this objection before. – 2873: 2679: 2442: 1777: 1483: 6984: 6551: 6406: 5910: 5819: 5814: 5598: 5517: 5374: 5036: 3998:

With proper licensing, we don't necessarily need to sweep out all the corners of the project.

3720: 3623: 3258: 2838: 2686: 2672: 1784: 1090: 970: 3416: 3409: 3040: 2106: 1460: 1419:– The file page says that it is in the public domain, but it is actually under copyright. – 6924: 6386: 6183: 6107: 4971: 4916: 4901: 4441: 4431: 4176: 3650: 3541: 3512: 3485:– We are required by the Wikimedia Foundation to limit use to exceptional circumstances. – 2435: 2065:

Being educational is, of course, a good thing for an encyclopedia. However the criteria at

1632: 1367: 1268: 898:, or at least, supplemented with some more arguments. This essay should be read along with 875:. In deletion discussions concerning non-free media, arguments that are based upon the ten 865: 673: 214: 134:

The strongest arguments are those that explain clearly how they are based upon that policy.

3976: 3969: 3303:– This article has used this image for ages and nobody complained to us about using it. – 2573: 2328: 1861: 1639: 1340:

Deletion discussions for non-free files are usually decided by the ten criteria listed at

1237:

importantly, it is best to raise them only as part of your argument, not as its entirety.

1097: 952: 8: 7024: 6634: 6203: 6178: 6157: 5537: 5169: 4961: 4526: 3892:– This image was thoroughly evaluated when the page was reviewed for Featured Article. – 3823: 3816: 3796: 3515:, which owns all the servers for Knowledge and its sister projects, has indeed stated in 3434: 2704: 2645: 2500:– If there's something wrong with the file information, you should have just fixed it. – 2335: 1666: 1389:

Copyrighted images may be used if and only if they satisfy our criteria for non-free use.

1060: 846: 643: 158: 98: 91: 84: 77: 2602:

Rather than just repeating yourself, be sure you listened to what the other person said.

1868: 6198: 6188: 6102: 6075: 5339: 4591: 4065: 4047: 3961: 3808: 3712: 3664:– This other article uses an image like this in the same manner, so should this one. – 3641: 3608: 3533: 3401: 3243: 3154: 3032: 2890: 2865: 2664: 2565: 2427: 2320: 2220: 2098: 1966: 1853: 1769: 1624: 1573:– This is a list, and there's only one image per character. Surely, that's fair use. – 1475: 1359: 1253: 1082: 944: 801: 179: 69: 3917: 3789: 3698: 3521: 3505: 2827: 2534: 2298: 2194: 2066: 1944: 1722: 1606: 1456: 1341: 1226: 1068: 6700:

Assume that everyone's assuming good faith, assuming that you are assuming good faith

6654: 5618: 5457: 5354: 4551: 4116: 4016: 3897: 3880: 3863: 3777: 3760: 3686: 3669: 3581: 3490: 3473: 3456: 3359: 3342: 3325: 3308: 3209: 3187: 3108: 3091: 2988: 2971: 2954: 2937: 2834: 2833:

Arguments that simply state that an image is good or bad are really just examples of

2815: 2798: 2781: 2764: 2747: 2730: 2626: 2522: 2505: 2488: 2396: 2379: 2301:, the fact that it is irreplaceable can be helpful in establishing that it satisfies 2286: 2183: 2166: 2055: 2038: 2021: 1925: 1908: 1824: 1721:

non-free content. Non-free content, instead, must satisfy all ten criteria listed at

1702: 1685: 1595: 1578: 1561: 1544: 1441: 1424: 1407: 1330: 1308: 1211: 1194: 1177: 1160: 1143: 1049: 1032: 1015: 998: 861: 2949:– This image adds no relevant information that can't conveyed by free text alone. – 1524:

Whatever you say, Knowledge's non-free content policy is stricter than fair use law.

62:. Some essays represent widespread norms; others only represent minority viewpoints. 5794: 5784: 5693: 4357: 3559: 2915: 2469: 1661:

There is a difference between being given away for free, and being freely licensed.

127:

Deletion decisions about non-free content at the English Knowledge are governed by

43: 3681:– We don't have images like this in similar articles, so we don't need it here. – 2546: 1935:

There can be good arguments that include these points, but arguments that consist

1345: 5547: 4181: 4095: 4027: 3799:, which is all the more reason for editors to listen to one another's arguments. 3224: 3120: 2998: 2846: 2709: 2407: 2306: 2302: 2202: 2198: 2070: 2069:

set a higher standard than just being educational for non-free images and files.

1948: 1737: 2178:– The event shown in the photo is never going to happen again. Irreplaceable! – 6819: 6764: 5849: 5149: 4187:

Knowledge:Don't overuse shortcuts to policy and guidelines to win your argument

2894: 2542: 880: 871:

The policy on the use of non-free content at the English Knowledge is given at

3755:– Following your argument, we would have to delete all images on Knowledge. – 7191: 4039: 3073:, that doesn't mean that an image wouldn't help readers understand it better. 2649: 1835: 1317:

said in a discussion where fair use was never raised as a reason for deletion

914: 891: 4168:, illustrating the history of how the wording of Criterion 8 was arrived at. 1290:

Satisfying the non-free content criteria is not like a multiple choice test.

5901:

Don't accuse someone of a personal attack for accusing of a personal attack

4112: 4012: 3912: 3908: 3893: 3876: 3859: 3773: 3756: 3682: 3665: 3577: 3486: 3469: 3452: 3355: 3338: 3321: 3304: 3205: 3104: 3087: 2984: 2967: 2950: 2933: 2811: 2794: 2777: 2760: 2743: 2726: 2622: 2518: 2501: 2484: 2392: 2375: 2282: 2265: 2179: 2162: 2051: 2034: 2017: 1999: 1921: 1904: 1820: 1698: 1681: 1591: 1574: 1557: 1540: 1437: 1420: 1403: 1326: 1304: 1230: 1207: 1190: 1173: 1156: 1139: 1045: 1028: 1011: 994: 887: 857: 3123:). A better argument is to explain how this image accomplishes that goal. 4098:

would look beyond a file page to determine an image's encyclopedic value.

3942:

policy. Instead, they must be shown to be properly licensed according to

3841: 2201:(contextual significance), and being unique may be helpful in satisfying 1590:– We could just combine all the disputed images into a single gallery. – 1452: 3191:

Whatever it's worth, it still has to pass the non-free content criteria.

2621:– I already said why it should be deleted in my nomination statement. – 4326: 2889:"WP:DECORATIVE" redirects here. For decorative images in articles, see 1286: 3065: 5305:

Don't overuse shortcuts to policy and guidelines to win your argument

4372: 4206: 1947:. Being of sufficiently low resolution is very helpful in satisfying 1729: 1515: 3276: 3005:

Furthermore, the threshold is not, strictly speaking, whether it is

2608:

Knowledge:Drop the stick and back slowly away from the horse carcass

2244:"WP:IRREPLACEABLE" redirects here. For the essay about editors, see 2193:

Once again, non-free images must satisfy all ten criteria listed at

2138: 1748:

the "External links" section of the page, or through the use of the

1733:

needed to establish that a file is "free" for Knowledge's purposes.

3645:

You don't have to look somewhere else just because someone says so.

2909: 2305:(no free equivalent). An irreplaceable image can also help satisfy 2268:

is irreplaceable. That doesn't mean that Knowledge has to store it.

1610: 1344:. The existence of a file description page with a usage rationale, 886:

The following are a list of arguments that can commonly be seen in

1951:. However, the file must still satisfy all of the other criteria. 1680:– This image is free. Anyone can download it from that website. – 1506: 4770:

Criticisms of society may be consistent with NPOV and reliability

3070: 2089:

the image does so, rather than just stating baldly that it does.

864:. However, the English language Knowledge, in agreement with the 849:

during these deletion discussions, as well as to avoid conflict.

4087: