Maryam Hashemi (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

Speedy deleted per G11. The tone of the article was somewhat promotional, but I'm not sure it was irretrievably so. Deletion is not appropriate where normal editing can be used to improve an article, and the person appears to be notable per WP:GNG. Requesting consensus to restore, and/or to use AFD to discuss the notability of the subject, since the article is not unambiguously inappropriate for Wikipedia, even if the text could use some minor cleanup. Jayron32 18:06, 11 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• The article was deleted at AfD then re-created by the article subject, who knew full well that it had been deleted and had already edited the old article. The new article was an autobiography with ownership by the subject. It included blatantly promotional language, and read more like a gallery PR bio than a Wikipedia article. If someone wants to write a properly neutral new article without the advertorial then fill your boots. Maybe a half decent article could be written, but this wasn't it. Guy (Help!) 19:51, 11 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• List at AfD. The G11 is contested. AfD is the place to discuss it. The AfD was very long ago. No criticism of the speedy, but it should be taken to AfD on any reasonable request. Or userfy if the nominator would prefer to improve it before testing at AfD. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 13:48, 12 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• List at AFD per OP, remove protection. There really was no justification for salting the article: the prior AFD was eight-and-one-half years ago, and subsequent BBC coverage means the principal argument in that AFD was no longer valid, and there's also an academic of the same name who's potentially notable. Salting is supposed to be reserved for "bad articles that have been deleted but repeatedly recreated", and a single recreation is not "repeated". The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo) (talk) 19:57, 13 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Other than the obvious spamming,of course. Guy (Help!) 23:50, 13 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Jeff the Diseased Lung (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

Given the article's length and the 11 references in the article, it appears to be pretty self evident that the article for the character should not be merged into the article for the show. Sometimes the sky is blue (talk) 20:50, 10 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• The AfD presented no good keep arguments, and that it is long(ish) is in itself no reason to keep it. The article, as DGG said, "might warrant a line or two in the article on the show". Drmies (talk) 21:32, 10 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Please note that even the nominator, in his nomination statement, acknowledged the notability of the character. Sometimes the sky is blue (talk) 22:55, 10 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • The nominator noted no such thing. Drmies (talk) 15:51, 11 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
      • I guess you missed the first sentence of the nomination "the subject of the article has a lot of reliable sources". Sometimes the sky is blue (talk) 19:46, 11 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
        • Since "has lotsa sources" =/= "is actually notable", no, you guessed incorrectly. --Calton | Talk 01:18, 17 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
          • Could you explain what you mean here. Per WP:N it is exactly sources that create "actually notable" here. Are you claiming something else, or merely commenting on the nature of the sources or something else? Hobit (talk) 16:15, 17 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Ah, the old "not notable outside of this context" game. I view such arguments as exceptionally weak. Very few athletes, for example, are notable outside of their sport. Very few academics are notable outside of their field of study. I can't see the article, but there was pretty strong consensus that there were sources that meet the GNG. Certainly local consensus can override the GNG (either way) but no such local consensus existed. Overturn It's a rather silly topic and one I don't imagine a ton of people are going to be looking to read about. But that is true of 95% of our articles and isn't a reason for deletion. Hobit (talk) 23:05, 10 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Hobit, there was no such consensus. Please read the AfD carefully. In fact, the only who argued it was the article creator. Other keep arguments are exceptionally weak: "Once notable, always notable" is not an argument; "Flawed nomination. The nominator acknowledges notability by stating that 'the subject of the article has a lot of reliable sources'" is not a reason for speedy keep and this voter did not argue anything about the sources or the subject, only something about the nomination; " It makes no sense to merge" coupled with an unfounded accusation of bad faith is also not an argument. So there was no consensus that the sources were reliable, and there were no arguments (except for the one by the creator) that the topic warranted its own article.

  As for merge--the nominator doesn't propose it, but it's proposed and supported by Wildthing61476 (now RickKJr), DGG, and Athomeinkobe, arguments and all. Drmies (talk) 15:51, 11 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Once notable, always notable is a fine argument if it was originally notable. Given that the nom acknowledged that it was (""the subject of the article has a lot of reliable sources") that topic of if there are a lot of reliable sources didn't need to be addressed by those arguing keep. If I start an argument with "this light is red, but I still think I should drive through it" it's unreasonable to expect those arguing against the position to claim "but the light is red". I feel that because the nom conceded the point of there being plenty of reliable sources, no one felt the need to argue that those sources existed. Does that make sense? Hobit (talk) 01:11, 12 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Sure, but I have the feeling the nominator said that to head the old "it has sources" off at the pass. If they had been more skillful at the AfD game they should have said something like "but this does not guarantee notability as a standalone topic for this and that reason". By the same token, the counterargument is not "yes there are reliable sources" but "yes there are, and they all point to notability as a topic". That the nominator and (only) one other editor agree on the reliable sources doesn't mean there's consensus, but even if it did, it doesn't mean notability. At any rate, I don't rightly understand this hullabaloo over a merge, but the hullabaloo is not of your making, I know that. Drmies (talk) 23:15, 12 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• I think the problem is that we are both reading arguments into that discussion that were not there. I'll point out that 2 people said there were plenty of sources and no one disputed the point. I'll grant you the keep side didn't explicitly argue that there were sources enough for GNG, but *I* think that they didn't need to as the point had been conceded. You are arguing that people had a deeper reason for deletion involving the fact that the GNG doesn't promise an article. And that's fine, but there certainly wasn't consensus on the issue (which I'd say would need to be strong to remove an article that does meet the GNG). I think part of the reason for the hullabaloo is that you merged an article where only one person proposed a merge and one had to "read into" the !votes something that wasn't clearly there (IMO) to get any result other than no consensus. That begins to look like an admin making their own call on what to do rather than following the outcome of the discussion. I know that wasn't your intent. But upon reading the discussion, I just don't see how merge is a reasonable outcome from the discussion. Clearly others do. (To ramble even more, I've had arguments with friends over what color a book was--some of us saw it as green, others as brown. It didn't matter what color it was, but people just argued about it for hours because they couldn't believe the other side didn't see it there way. See also the internet gold/blue dress... ) Hobit (talk) 23:54, 12 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Oh, I'd be fine with a discussion at the article concluding that editorially it makes more sense to merge. But *that* isn't AfD's traditional job. And in any case there wasn't consensus for the merge. Hobit (talk) 23:07, 10 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• There are ultimately two possible outcomes for a deletion discussion, which are delete and not-delete. There is no need for a DRV to vary between the different types of not-delete outcome; such changes can be done via WP:BB or talk page discussion. Stifle (talk) 10:00, 11 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• In practice it's common to see reverts of such an undo due to an AfD result. People feel it has some magical quality compared to a local discussion. I'd prefer we not have closes at AfD that don't reflect the actual discussion even if they are some variation of not-delete. Hobit (talk) 14:59, 11 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Overturn to no consensus. Hard to understand from the closer's statement how they read a consensus to merge from the discussion. Thparkth (talk) 14:12, 11 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Not so hard. Three editors supported delete/merge: DGG, Athomeinkobe, Wildthing 61476. I find it hard to believe that "Once notable always notable" is taken as a serious argument to keep, or that some unfounded accusation of "special interests" is accepted. Drmies (talk) 15:51, 11 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I don't agree that !voters who argued for "delete" and "merge" should be grouped together as if the two outcomes were identical. Only one participant argued for "delete, or perhaps merge." My concern is that there were seven participants in this AfD, and only one actually argued for merging (with one delete !voter giving merge as their second preference), so it is a surprise to me to see that you considered that to be the consensus outcome. There were more "keep" than "delete" !votes, with strong arguments on both sides. I don't see any consensus emerging from the discussion, but if anything, the strength of argument and also of numbers was on the "keep" !side. Thparkth (talk) 19:19, 11 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse closure. None of these Keep arguments are even slightly convincing. --John (talk) 16:52, 11 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Could you explain why meeting the GNG isn't a convincing argument for keeping? Hobit (talk) 17:41, 11 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hobit, only the article creator argued it met the GNG. Drmies (talk) 17:49, 11 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The nominator wrote in the nomination that "the subject of the article has a lot of reliable sources". Notability was never challenged. The nominator then made the flawed conclusion that "the article could fail notability in the long run", which is not in line with WP:NTEMP. Sometimes the sky is blue (talk) 19:48, 11 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

A lot of sources does not equal notability. I agree that they formed an awkward sentence, but that doesn't take away from the fact that there were no arguments presented by anyone other than the article creator. You can fault the nomination all you want (you've been riding that pony for quite some time now), but the fact remains there was a consensus to delete/merge. If y'all had presented real arguments, instead of either simply stating "it's notable" or quibbling over the nomination, things might have gone differently. Drmies (talk) 22:48, 11 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

A lot of sources does indicate notability. WP:GNG specifically says that notability is defined as having coverage in multiple independent secondary sources. Therefore, when the nominator specifically says "the subject of the article has a lot of reliable sources" that's not just bad phrasing, that shows that the nomination is completely flawed. Sometimes the sky is blue (talk) 00:45, 12 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It actually says "significant coverage", hence the role of editorial discretion and the existence of discussions like this one. --John (talk) 11:34, 12 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

A fine argument and one not made at the AfD. The argument for deletion was solely "not yet notable enough" and "not notable outside of the context". If the argument you mmake had be made there then there would have been a chance for people to discuss that. But there wasn't. Not by any editor. Hobit (talk) 23:45, 12 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse close, correct reading of the debate. I am a massive fan of John Oliver, but it takes more than obsessive interest by a few fans to turn a comedy show meme into a valid Wikipedia subject (e.g. truthiness). Guy (Help!) 19:55, 11 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Why? If there are plenty of reliable sources (as stated by the nom) and thus meets WP:N why should a comedy show meme be held to a higher standard (WP:N) than, say, a book or an athlete? Hobit (talk) 01:12, 12 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Overturn to no consensus. another supervote. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 22:16, 12 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Your favorite argument. PLEASE next time do something more than just slap down "Once notable, always notable" in a deletion discussion. If you had argued your point, rather than suffice with a boilerplate comment, we might not have been here. Drmies (talk) 23:16, 12 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse there was widespread support for merging during the discussion and apart from Another Believer the arguments for keeping were rather weak. The length of the article is not a barrier for merging, the argument for merging/deletion was that the subject was not sufficiently significant outside of the show to justify a standalone article of this length, which means the material will likely have to be trimmed. This argument does have a basis in the notability guidelines (e.g. WP:NOPAGE). Hut 8.5 16:44, 13 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse- the argument that the article is too long to merge only makes sense if you think that merging means to go Ctrl-C, Ctrl-V, and then walk away. A proper merge means to be selective about what to keep (a few sentences) and what not to retain (reams and reams of cruft), and that's entirely consistent with the close. Reyk _YO! 17:07, 13 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn. The central argument for deletion was "no notability independent of the show". This argument acknowledges a level of notability sufficient to support coverage is some form, so this is really a dispute over the extent and form of the relevant content, not a deletion discussion. Practice strongly establishes that similar fictional characters/sketches from comedy programs are regularly treated as suitable for stand-alone articles; there are roughly fifty similar articles for Saturday Night Live-related properties alone. In this context, when the views of the majority of editors in the discussion are based in an established practice which enjoys broader consensus, there is no justification for the closer to disregard the expressed consensus and disregard consensus practice. Whether this is a "supervote" or simply a bad close is not a useful distinction. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo) (talk) 20:13, 13 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse. If a policy-based consensus finds that a topic is not independently notable, it's alright to merge it. There is value in a concise argument, but simple assertions typically won't be weighed highly by the closer. Sometimes there isn't much to say, like if it's a dictionary definition or a hoax, but arguing that an article is too long to merge isn't really persuasive. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 13:55, 14 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse. Sources or no sources, no real evidence of independent notability, so merging with the subject it's dependent on is the right choice. --Calton | Talk 01:18, 17 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

File:2015 Russian Sukhoi Su-24 shootdown Turkey claim.jpg (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (article|XfD|restore)

The file was speedy deleted with the comment: "F7: Violates non-free content criteria #1"
From my point of view, the deletion of this map, which depicts the aircrafts' courses (as claimed by Turkey) is erroneous. Unless full position data is available under a free license, it is not possible to create a free equivalent per WP:NFCC#1.
As the file is vital for the article 2015 Russian Sukhoi Su-24 shootdown, I would ask you to restore the file ahead, using a {{delrev}} tag, to avoid further disruption during the lengthy DRV. Thanks, PanchoS (talk) 13:56, 10 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse This is a map. Maps are automatically replaceable per WP:NFC#UUI §4. The position data is ineligible for copyright protection in the United States and can be used in a different map. --Stefan2 (talk) 14:57, 10 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• @Stefan2: Copyright protection or not – please show us where the data of the Turkish flight radar is available. Also, please read the paragraph you referred to – it says:

  Unacceptable use: Images (4.) A map, scanned or traced from an atlas, to illustrate the region depicted. Use may be appropriate if the map itself is a proper subject for commentary in the article: for example, a controversial map of a disputed territory, if the controversy is discussed in the article.

  The map we're reviewng is neither scanned nor traced, and more importantly, it is a proper subject for commentary in the article, and the controversy is discussed in the article. Clearly, any replacement map wouldn't serve the same goal. PanchoS (talk) 15:18, 10 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Overturn deletion - I agree with PanchoS. The map's nuances have been discussed at length at the relevant article's talk page, and the map itself - every pixel in it - is subject to precise international and scientific scrutiny. It cannot be replaced by a map that roughly shows the same positions. LjL (talk) 15:32, 10 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Turkish flight radar data are available on the map itself, and possibly at other places. A freely licensed map could cite the Turkish map as reference for the flight radar data. --Stefan2 (talk) 16:06, 10 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

That's not my point at all. "The map's nuances" aren not simply "flight radar data", as I do believe my comment above should have clarified. LjL (talk) 20:26, 10 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• There are four limbs to WP:CSD#F7. They are: (1) Non-free images or media with a clearly invalid fair-use tag; (2) Non-free images or media from a commercial source; (3) Non-free images or media that have been identified as being replaceable by a free image and tagged with {{subst:Rfu}} may be deleted after two days; and (4) Invalid fair-use claims tagged with {{subst:Dfu}} may be deleted seven days after they are tagged. Stefan2, do you want this speedy to stand on limb (1) or limb (3), and if on limb (3) then for how long was it tagged with {{subst:Rfu}}?—S Marshall T/C 19:01, 10 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Per S Marshall's valid question, I request the template to be at least {{TempUndelete}}ed, so we can scrutinize the circumstances of the deletion. Regards, PanchoS (talk) 20:14, 10 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@S Marshall: He argued limb (3), and the file was tagged for three days. — ξ^xplicit 01:08, 11 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse: well-reasoned decision, procedures correctly followed.—S Marshall T/C 08:43, 11 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Overturn deletion; I agree with PanchoS and LjL. WP:NFC#UUI §4 is very explicit that the use of this file is not disallowed. The file is not used as a map in its capacity to illustrate a region; it is used in the article as the piece of evidence that the Turkish side submitted, namely their radar output. Russia claims that some details of this evidence (or maybe all of it) is falsified or fabricated; and the controversy is discussed in the article, in fact, it is very much the subject of the article.--Orwellianist (talk) 20:02, 10 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn feel free to start an XfD on it, but this isn't a clear cut case IMO and should be discussed rather than speedied even if it technically meets a CSD criteria (which I'm not sure of either way yet, the response to S Marshall seems likely to help though). I understand why it was deleted, but feel this is perhaps as strong as a case that could exist for keeping a copyrighted map (exact map itself is relevant to the article and the subject is relevant to the world). And since it's something that our guidelines allow for, it seems that we should at least have a discussion. Hobit (talk) 22:59, 10 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse. Maps are replaceable and the map images should be replaced with a free one that sums up the various claims. For fair use, I think we would need third-party discussion of the map in the article itself, which we do not have. --John (talk) 00:09, 11 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: I have restored the image for the sole purpose of review for this DRV. — ξ^xplicit 01:08, 11 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse as deleting administrator. As Stefan2 correctly tagged and elaborated, this is an image of a non-free map that can be replaced by a user-generated map under a free license. The main argument to keep the image is not necessarily the map itself (which is a big indicator that it violates WP:NFCC#1), but of the line drawn on the map to depict the path of the Su-24 which led to it being shot down. This is what the nominator means by "full position data". This is not even remotely similar to the example outlined at WP:NFC#UUI because the matter is with the line, not the map in its entirety. — ξ^xplicit 01:08, 11 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Good luck deriving the unarguably correct position data from the map, as well as other details presented on it, without making WP:OR and creating disagreements. A user-generated map was already created and then discarded for 2015 Russian Sukhoi Su-24 shootdown. Argument by argument, we're ending up with no maps at all: one says the user-generated map is POV and inaccurate, so it gets removed; then the other says the Turkish map is non-free, so it gets removed; then only the Russian maps are remaining, but presenting them without the Turkish map is POV, so they are about to get removed too. Convenient for whoever doesn't want information to be available, but I thought it was an encyclopedia. LjL (talk) 14:11, 11 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You thought correctly, this is an encyclopedia. No good luck will be needed to generate a decent free map, if the data is unambiguously available about what the various claims were. If this is not possible, we should not even consider republishing these maps. --John (talk) 16:46, 11 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Erb? You are saying if those creating the maps didn't also provide exact coordinates (which would be needed for what you are proposing given the pixel to actual distance ratio isn't all that good) we can't use them? Could you provide a relevant policy/guideline or even commonsense argument please? That seems odd. Hobit (talk) 19:56, 12 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse. Maps are absolutely replaceable with a free equivalent that could be created, and as such there is no possible reasonable argument that this is an invalid deletion. Stifle (talk) 10:01, 11 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse - the position data, which is not copyrightable, can be extracted from the map with sufficient accuracy and plotted on a free map image. Not even a difficult exercise. Thparkth (talk) 14:17, 11 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• I'm curious what people are thinking here. This map, not any other map, is what Turkey submitted as evidence. An equivalent map isn't the artifact that was actually used. If this were a murder case and there were a lunchbox with Micky Mouse on it covered in blood that was part of the article, would we not have the lunchbox because it's covered by copyright? Would people be suggesting that we create a new, nearly identical lunchbox with blood on it and use it? We shouldn't be creating "reproductions" of actual evidence because of copyright. Further, this clearly falls under fair use and the basic reason for having no copyright images (so that others can reuse our material) is in no way damaged by this image. It's cutting off our nose to spite our face. Hobit (talk) 14:38, 11 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Per WP:PRIMARY we don't usually use this type of material, preferring to report what reliable secondary sources say about a subject. To qualify for fair use we would need to to have significant third-party discussion of the image itself. We don't have that at present. Does it exist? (Incidentally I raised much of this already 16 hours ago, but ok.) --John (talk) 16:46, 11 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn Agree very much with User:Hobit. The image itself is evidence and subject of the article, and a replacement will not have the same authority. The people here arguing for deletion seem to not at all be aware of, or argue against, this line of reasoning. Note also that a replacement has been rejected on the article talk page as being inferior to the original image. [I am the original uploader] Thue (talk) 15:16, 11 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn. This would have needed a deletion discussion. The argument that this is not replaceable because the exact pixel image of the flight path is what this image is meant to illustrate is a valid one, and ought to be discussed on the merits.  Sandstein  21:12, 11 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Sandstein:, please enlarge upon how you think this is not replaceable because the exact pixel image of the flight path is what this image is meant to illustrate intersects with our mission as a free resource and statements of it such as WP:NFCC. --John (talk) 21:33, 11 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • Should I use a bigger font? :-) The topic being illustrated is the exact position of the pixels denoting the flight path in relation to the state boundaries as depicted on this map. If somebody were to redraw this, even a deviation of a few pixels would not communicate the same content.  Sandstein  22:09, 11 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
      • Interesting interpretation. If we accepted that, we would accept every nonfree image, every album cover, every promotional shot, where the fans of the band think that particular picture is vital to display. We don't. As a free encyclopedia, we value free images over nonfree. In this case, the subject is an air-to-air incident, and we can describe and depict the two sides' differing versions of what happened without reproducing pixel for pixel the maps they released. As we can, we should. --John (talk) 11:39, 12 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
        • If the album cover art has significant coverage we can keep it even if non-free. Here the specific maps have significant coverage. The issue as to if we would be better off with or without the maps in the article is an editorial one and not a subject that should be addressed by speedy deletion. Hobit (talk) 00:28, 14 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn and relist at FFD: I do see at least one source that discussed the "map conflict" (including this specific map) specifically, so a claim that the exemption in WP:NFC#UUI point 4 applies has some merit. Likewise, if a free usermade map is considered inferior by discussion this can put WP:NFCC#1 complaints into question. I think a free replacement should be create-able (with the original map being linked rather than hosted here) but the CSD process is not appropriate in these circumstances; it needs to be run through FFD.Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 17:46, 12 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Which source? Hobit (talk) 03:51, 13 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • This one; don't know why it was removed. Some of the current sources also show the Turkish map but they don't explicitly talk about map conflict.Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 08:58, 13 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
      • It's not removed, it's in the text. There are other similar references in the text as well, such as this and this.--Orwellianist (talk) 19:20, 13 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment Could those who are endorsing this speedy please comment on https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Non-free_content#UUI #4? This appears to be almost exactly the case spelled out as a reason to keep a map. Hobit (talk) 18:37, 13 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • WP:NFCC, a policy, trumps WP:NFC, a guideline. A non-free image can receive all the coverage in the world and pass WP:NFCC#8, where UUI#4 stems from, but if it doesn't meet WP:NFCC#1, it still violates the policy and must be deleted as a result. This is likely the view shared by the users who endorse the deletion.

In fact, looking at the discussion linked above by User:Thue, the freely licensed alternative was "rejected" on the basis that this non-free file was "covered by [...] a very strong fair use claim", which, again, goes against NFCC in the first place. — ξ^xplicit 03:25, 14 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

That there is an equivalent free option is actively in debate. Which is why this should not be a speedy delete--it should be discussed. Hobit (talk) 03:56, 14 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I think this is also a function of what you are using the image for. A dispute about who's map is correct can raise questions if it's illustrated by a different image. If merely showing the flightpath is the purpose, then it can't meet NFCC#1.Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 06:38, 14 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. Hobit (talk) 02:01, 15 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• File:Sukhoi Su-24 shootdown Syrian-Turkey border.svg looks perfectly adequate to me. It gives the reader all the necessary information in context. I mean, I generally feel our encyclopaedia benefits from fair use material and I think we're here to write an encyclopaedia, not to provide free content to reusers (that's Wikimedia Commons' job). I have a history of defending fair use images from free content extremism, but this doesn't look like free content extremism to me. It looks like a rational and moderate decision.—S Marshall T/C 12:19, 14 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

In fact, that file is significantly more readable than the original. It is the graphical equivalent of simplifying and summarizing external sources, which we do all the time in text. Thparkth (talk) 14:05, 14 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, it is so much better that it says the Turkish-claimed crash site is a "Turkish claimed crash site", while the Russian-claimed crash site is the "area where [it] crashes". That's not very WP:NPOV, but IIRC there were other issues such as the Russian-claimed flight path not seemingly corresponding to their original map (which can be hard to tell for sure, and that's the entire problem). In any case, for these and/or various other reasons, that map was removed from the article, so it cannot have been that good. LjL (talk) 14:15, 14 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You're right of course, but those issues are trivially fixable. Thparkth (talk) 14:46, 14 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think making sure the flight path matches the maps provided as evidence accurately is something that is so trivial. LjL (talk) 15:03, 14 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• List at FFD A reasonable dispute, which should not be decided here. DGG ( talk ) 19:19, 14 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Send to FFD the argument that this image is not replaceable is at least plausible, and speedy deletion is intended for obvious cases only. Hut 8.5 22:23, 14 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]