Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2020 April 5

NSYNC single covers – Overturn and relist. There seems to be substantial disagreement about whether it meets NFCC, so further discussion is the best way to resolve it. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 07:57, 20 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it.

The files were unanimously agreed upon by the editors involved in 'Files for discussion' to be kept, including the editor who previously attempted to delete the files, stating that were not aware of Template:Infobox album#Template:Extra album cover. However, as consensus could not be reached on time, the files were subsequently deleted due to being over a week old. I believe that there was no reason for the files to be removed, as they were only removed after being tagged for over a week while they were still in discussion, as well as gaining consensus from two editors that they should be kept, including the editor who previously attempted to remove them. — Angryjoe1111 (talk) 00:32, 5 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Courtesy ping for @Explicit, @Jonteemil, @George Ho -FASTILY 02:50, 5 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

~~(Weak?) Relist~~ - The deletion was unilateral, but I didn't feel like contesting it at the time. Copyright and policy interpretations are in the grey area, especially when it comes to enforcing existing copyright laws. Back to the images, I wasn't sure whether copyright laws override the votes, but I felt that more input should have been awaited and that deletion rationale should have been provided besides citing WP:F7. George Ho (talk) 03:07, 5 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Weird deletion. Why delete before consensus has been achieved?Jonteemil (talk) 03:47, 5 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Jonteemil: The disputed tag you placed on all three files meant that every file marked would be deleted in seven days unless the tag was subsequently removed. As consensus was not achieved in the past seven days, the tag on all three files automatically deleted them before the discussion was closed. — Angryjoe1111 (talk) 04:04, 5 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I figured that. I guess the files will get undeleted anyway when the ffd gets closed.Jonteemil (talk) 05:03, 5 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

After a long thought, I would consider undelete and then re-nominate the cover arts separately, and then nominate other cover arts used in those articles. Furthermore, the cover arts of each song should be separately discussed. George Ho (talk) 02:40, 7 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Deleting administrator comment. For clarification, these files were in Category:Disputed non-free Wikipedia files as of 27 March 2020 and were deleted as a result of that process, not the FFD. It was originally tagged by Jonteemil with {{di-disputed fair use rationale}} with the rationale: Fails "Criterion 8, because the file does not significantly increase readers' understanding of the topic, and its omission would not be detrimental to that understanding". This refers to WP:NFCC#8. What constitutes "contextual significance" is laid out at WP:NFC#CS. Cover art is mentioned specifically: "To identify a subject of discussion, depiction of a prominent aspect of the subject generally suffices, thus only a single item of non-free content meets the criterion. For example, to allow identification of music albums, books, etc., only an image of the front cover art of the object is normally used" (emphasis mine). This allows for the use of one cover; additional covers are only allowed where "the item is itself the subject of sourced commentary in the article" or "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". An example of meeting this criterion would be The Fame Monster, where cover art is critically discussed. The arguments about a particular song's success in a different country fail to address NFCC at all, and is a serious failure of adherence to WP:UNDUE (again, per WP:NFC#CS). Given the letter of policy, I would like to understand how others have concluded that NFCC is not being violated here.

I'm actually not sure why Template:Infobox album#Template:Extra album cover reads at it does. It does not present evidence to its claim that "An alternative cover that is significantly different from the original and is widely distributed and/or replaces the original has generally been held to pass this criterion". WP:NFC does not address such a circumstance. Ə XPLICIT 12:31, 5 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Explicit: Thank you for your comment. As you had previously stated, WP:NFCC#8 and Template:Infobox album#Template:Extra album cover both conflict with each other, as while the files used in the articles were not critically sourced, it also held to the standards of the infobox album template. For WP:NFC#CS, two of the files' original covers were originally released in Germany for over a year before the current infobox covers were published. In accordance to WP:DUE and WP:BALASPS however, there would be no weight on the original German release, which I am able to add sourced information about, as I acknowledge that I cannot find any references about the cover art of either region. From WP:NFC#CS, it states that to allow identification of music albums, books, etc., only an image of the front cover art of the object is normally used, implying that the back cover may only meet requirements depending on whether it is thoroughly sourced or notable. According to WP:NFCI #1, the cover art implicitly satisfies the "contextual significance" NFCC criterion (NFCC#8) by virtue of the marketing, branding, and identification information that the cover conveys, which only mentions the file being used on only one article unless it is thoroughly sourced on the artist's main article. There needs to be a discussion on Wikipedia:WikiProject Songs clarifying the use of alternate covers within articles as WP:NFCC, as several single and album covers also suffer from the same issues. Basing a single/album cover on WP:NFCC (which covers all non-free content and only gives a passing mention to single/album covers), and an extra album cover template (which lacks clarity and information), will only cause contradictory arguments to be made against both. Regardless of how much weight is placed on relying on three different NFCC guidelines and templates about the usage of artwork covers, both users agree that the artworks should be kept, despite the lack of sourced information addressing the artwork. Although there is no sourced information about the artwork which fails WP:NFC#CS, both users acknowledged that readers unfamiliar with the origins of the songs' initial release will be able to use the alternate cover to further strengthen the songs' impact, as well as the chart section. As far as I am aware, no non-free content dispute has brought up the success of a single/album cover in a single region replacing the artwork cover when they would eventually expand internationally, which leaves both policies ambiguous. In regards to the removal of the files, I assume that Jonteemil was not aware that tagging files as disputed would automatically delete them after seven days, which the user thought that 'Files for discussion' would override. After explaining why the files should be kept, Jonteemil was willing to keep the files. As George Ho previously mentioned, WP:GUIDES may have to be invoked as the exception of dealing with ambiguous policies at the moment, which would again need community consensus and discussion in creating an entirely separate policy on non-free content for single/album covers. — Angryjoe1111 (talk) 15:08, 5 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Not to mention WP:NFCCEG—saying that we should use the spirit/intent, "not necessarily the exact wording") of the NFCC to decide whether to appropriately use a content but then also says that even complying with NFCC does not make a content either acceptable or unacceptable—and WP:PAG#Adherence—which says the same as WP:GUIDES but then extends to probably other rules. --George Ho (talk) 17:30, 5 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse based on explicit's response - the rationale for deletion wasn't based on the discussion and has been done appropriately. If there is a conflict between non-free content and the extra album cover template, the non-free content policy should always take precedence. SportingFlyer T·C 21:17, 5 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn due to the process failure. I see there was a dispute of the WP:CSD#F7. Someone actively wanted to talk about it. Disputed CSDs should be resolved at XfD. Explicit was wrong to speedy delete. Did the speedy deletion happen because the CSD dispute method didn’t make itself apparent to the deleting admin? Should WP:CSD#F7 include instructions on how to effectively appeal a disputed tagging? —SmokeyJoe (talk) 03:48, 6 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
NFCC#8 is really hard to work with because it's so subjective. Deletion review has struggled with it before and my memory says that our decisions have been a bit inconsistent. But, obviously, a file that's just been kept at FFD shouldn't be speedily deleted, so to me it's a straight overturn on procedural grounds.—S Marshall T/C 11:18, 6 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- No, wait, they hadn't just been kept. They'd been closed as "delete" after a unanimous keep consensus. Whiskey tango foxtrot, over?—S Marshall T/C 11:23, 6 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  - In fact, I think they were speedy-deleted independently of the FFD, which was still open at the time of the deletion. Whether the deleting admin knew the FFD was ongoing or not, I am not sure. Stifle (talk) 11:53, 6 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    - If he didn't, then there's been a failure of process that we can correct. If he did know it was ongoing but disregarded it, then we can decide whether he was correct to do so. If it is correct for a sysop to disregard an ongoing deletion discussion, then we might as well downgrade FFD to a sysop suggestion box.—S Marshall T/C 12:29, 6 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
      - The deleting administrator clearly noted above they were deleted through a separate process than FFD, since they had been tagged for seven days, and produced a very valid reason for deleting the content. Considering this was a proper copyright-related deletion, there's not really a remedy here for the appellants - there are very few things more important than consensus on here, but copyright violations are one of them, and consensus was light anyways. SportingFlyer T·C 20:31, 6 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
        That notion of “copyright violation” is unsound. There was no copyright violation, the legal standard of fair use being met, many things considered. The issue is of Wikipedia interpretation of Fair Use, which weaves in Best Practice, caution, and setting a good example. It is not black and white. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 02:23, 7 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
        
        True, consensus wouldn't likely override copyright violations or NFCC, but how alternative covers of singles have been used is subjective, especially on whether using at least two images of each song release violates copyright. One example is a discussion about cover arts of another song, which ended as "no consensus [to delete]". In other words, the consensus haven't decided (yet) that using two cover arts in one article has violated copyrights. In contrast, one image is kept, while other is deleted. In most cases, the result of FFD should have overridden speedy deletion decisions and made such files ineligible for speedy deletion. This case is no exception, IMHO. Rarely (if not sometimes), however, there would be no prejudice to speedy deletion only if it is allowed and there haven't been any (other?) votes from uninvolved editors; see another discussion. George Ho (talk) 22:34, 6 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
        That's fair, but I don't think it's as subjective as it seems. The files violate NFCC #3a and #8 on their face. Deleting this out of context poses absolutely no problem, and speedy deleting this on copyright grounds also should pose no problem, as copyright (to respond to a comment above, including Wikipedia's interpretation thereof) is one of the exceptions to speedy deletion (except where FFD has concluded a particular copyright element may not apply.) You're correct to state that a level of subjectivity exists, but in the sense of NFCC#8, the omission must be "detrimental to the understanding." For album art, this reading implies that in order to be able to illustrate an album article with different album covers, the album covers in their multiples must be significant enough to understanding the concept in order to be kept. SportingFlyer T·C 05:42, 7 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
        What you said about album cover arts may be valid (and probably true), but what we've been primarily discussing are cover arts of single (or song) releases, like ones by NSYNC. Hmm.... the "detrimental to the understanding" part is, rephrasing you said, essential to keeping an image. If deleting the alternative covers doesn't affect how readers are adequately conveyed by the already-used other images of those NSYNC singles, then I guess you made a good point. However, those songs were successful in Germany (and probably some other European countries) earlier before their successes elsewhere one or two years later, yet the band members are of American origins. Nonetheless, I would hope the captions I added are adequate enough to help readers identify which releases are used and to prompt them into not adding other alternative images. Lately, I've seen editors remove captions without realizing how deleting the captions would affect the conveyance of (identifying the) releases, especially in articles about older songs. If a caption of each sole lead image is inadequate enough to readers, and one image isn't enough to the masses, then probably an alternative cover might be needed. George Ho (talk) 06:09, 7 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse. Excess use of non-free content. NFCC overrides local consensus at an FFD, instructions at a template page, etc. Stifle (talk) 11:52, 6 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- NFCCP#8 is subjective. “Local consensus” vs “Consensus” is loaded terminology, and the solution is continued informed discussion. The purpose of discussion is not just to make the right decision, but to involve the community, and the continuing education of all involved. “Overrides” is a term incompatible with consensus. In the FfD, the CSD nomination withdrew after a contextual significant argument was made, and a third participant joined the unanimous position to not delete. A speedy deletion in that context is intolerable to the notion that this is a community self-managed project. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 02:19, 7 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  - This isn't a question of "consensus vs local consensus"; NFCC is foundation-level policy and trumps consensus. Stifle (talk) 10:38, 9 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    - Interpretation is always a matter of consensus, and discussion is important for people to understand what is happening and why. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 03:34, 12 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn speedy. I wish people would distinguish the policy WP:NFCC which should rarely, if ever, be overruled without an RFC and may be acted on unilaterily by an admin, and the guideline WP:NFC which provides (strongly) suggested ways in which the policy may be interpreted. The FFD was quite properly discussing in terms of the guideline. However, the speedy was supposedly done in terms of the policy that the non-free use was indisputably invalid. Whether it was invalid could not be derived from the policy statement alone but only from interpretation based on WP:NFC and therefore subject to discussion. Now, because of the lapse of seven days the deletion was not in any way an abuse but it should be undone pending consensual assessment. Thincat (talk) 12:24, 6 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
overturn I don't know a lot about NFC and NFCC. But SmokeyJoe has it right IMO. We don't appear to have a policy that prohibits this use (and I can't imagine there is any kind of copyright claim that could stand here, that I do know something about) and so I don't see how a speedy can be used to override a community discussion. Bring it back to the appropriate forum with stronger arguments if this needs to be deleted. Get consensus to add this to policy if that is needed. But this route isn't acceptable. Hobit (talk) 12:21, 7 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn as explained by Thincat. Andrew🐉(talk) 22:24, 11 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn WP:F7, relist at FFD. Speedy deletions should never be controversial; that there was a concurrent FFD which was heading towards keep, the speedy was clearly controversial. Even the F7 tagger had withdrawn their original complaint. -- RoySmith (talk) 15:47, 12 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@RoySmith: However, that withdrawal was made per Template:Infobox album#Template:Extra album cover, which Explicit says doesn't present any evidence. So that withdrawal is only valid if Template:Infobox album#Template:Extra album cover is correct, which not might be the case.Jonteemil (talk) 23:31, 17 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.