File talk:Nex Benedict.png

Contested deletion

I am unconvinced that this file is subject to F7. It is not from a commercial source: according to the AP, Benedict's grandmother took the photo. I also contend that it's not likely to replace the original market role, which is a family photo. I believe all 10 points in NFCC are met. SWinxy (talk) 00:53, 2 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Does the article, in which this copyrighted photo is to be used, cite reliable sources in discussing Benedict's December 2023 appearance, therefore requiring this NFC to understand such prose? I ask because the WP:NFCC#8 rationale currently says it's "for visual identification of the person in question, at the top of their biographical article", yet not being used in that capacity. This would seem to be the crux of the matter as explained by Melmann (talk · contribs) here. — Fourthords | =Λ= | 23:51, 4 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Per WP:NFC#CS, the rationale isn't limited to the subject of sourced commentary in the article, it can also be so the reader [can] identify an object, style, or behavior, that is a subject of discussion in the article. Nowhere in NFCC does it mandate the first bullet point, which is why we have hundreds of photos of deceased people, or show album art. Benedict's photo is contextually significant on an article about Benedict. SWinxy (talk) 06:10, 5 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The question I asked, which you didn't answer, is essentially the heart of Wikipedia:Non-free content#Meeting the contextual significance criterion: which valid articular prose would become specifically less comprehensible with the omission of this NFC, or whose understanding is absolutely dependent on the same? Does the article discuss Becedict's December 2023 appearance in some manner as would be referring to such a photo? Which source is cited referring to Benedict's… facial features, specific clothing, cosmetic applications, hair style, or other content depicted in the NFC, and is otherwise indescribable? Please point to the specific written content that needs this copyrighted photo. Remember, despite this file's actual extant claims, it is not being used "for visual identification of the person in question, at the top of their biographical article", and so its actual necessity of purpose needs to be determined and explained. There is no blanket or widespread understanding of hand-waved NFC allowance in event-articles (the FFD, DRV, second FFD, and second DRV of File:James Thomas Hodgkinson.png established that). — Fourthords | =Λ= | 08:23, 5 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

All the prose. The entire article benefits from the reader seeing Benedict's appearance. There is no discussion of appearance, but as I have said already, that is not necessary. NFCC does not say what you are saying. You are also wrong in your claim that this isn't a biographical article. It is. In contrast to Hodgkinson's image, which was used in an event article, this usage is about Benedict's life and death, with the focus clearly on Benedict's biography. The omission would be detrimental to that understanding of it. SWinxy (talk) 19:31, 5 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

All the prose. The entire article benefits from the reader seeing Benedict's appearance. So the entire prose of the article becomes, just, indescribably less comprehensible without the copyrighted photo? The NFC is just… 'hand-wavingly necessary' to understand the article? Well, I certainly can't refute such clear-cut and objective arguments. Perhaps Melmann can? NFCC does not say what you are saying. WP:NFCC#8 requires both that the use of NFC "would significantly increase readers' understanding of the article topic, and its omission would be detrimental to that understanding." I've now read the entire imageless article again, and nothing there was less comprehensible than otherwise. I do now understand that, in December 2023, Benedict had brown hair, a light complexion, and a monochrome fabric outfit—though I don't see how that helps me understand what's written. You are also wrong in your claim that this isn't a biographical article. I'm pretty sure a biography would be at Nex Benedict. However, per Wikipedia:Notability (people)#People notable for only one event, this seems to be an "article on the incident, especially if the individual is only notable for that incident and it is all that the person is associated with in the source coverage." — Fourthords | =Λ= | 19:51, 5 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'm trying to say that the article significantly benefits the reader's understanding. Lacking a photo, like any other biographical article, is detrimental to readers' experiences. What do or did a person look like? Other articles with "death of" or "killing of" in the title have non-free photos of the subject, such as Death of Shukri Abdi, Death of Sandra Bland, Killing of Michael Brown, Death of Khaled Mohamed Saeed, Killing of Elijah McClain, Death of Jill Phipps, Death of Mahsa Amini, Death of Azaria Chamberlain, and I could go on. The argument to keep Benedict's photo is just like those rationales. (Some were even nominated for deletion, but ended up being kept.) SWinxy (talk) 20:49, 5 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Lacking a photo, like any other biographical article… I've double-checked, and death of Nex Benedict still isn't the biographical article Nex Benedict, IAW the biographical-notability guideline I linked above. …is detrimental to readers' experiences. Are you perhaps confusing "readers' experiences" (people like shiny colorful things) with "readers' understanding" (needing to see something to comprehend the written article)? What do or did a person look like? If that were relevant to the Benedict's death (the actual subject of the article), it would be specifically and analytically commented upon by reliable sources, and then be summarized and cited in the article. Other articles… aren't this article. Every article, its sources, and its needs are different; we're discussing the unnecessariness of File:Nex Benedict.png in understanding what's written at death of Nex Benedict. — Fourthords | =Λ= | 21:30, 5 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I feel like you're going farther and farther from NFCC with your points. We fundamentally disagree on the omission [being] detrimental to that understanding. I assert it is, you and Melmann assert is not. The Hodgkinson file from earlier cannot be invoked here if later you say that I'm wrong in invoking other articles, which are closer in nature than the 2017 baseball shooting article is, that back my point. SWinxy (talk) 03:32, 6 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree entirely. Death of Nex Benedict is, at most, an article that contains biographical information. Benedict is non-notable except for this single event, the biographical aspect does not exist without Benedict becoming a victim of what appears to be gender-based violence and bigotry. The article is clearly about the event and its significance, not about Benedict themselves.

Further to this, how is Benedict's appearance relevant to the reader's understanding? It appears that Benedict was not specifically bullied due to her appearance, and Benedict, as depicted in this photo, is a relatively ordinary individual of approximately 16 years old, and inclusion of this photo does not bring about any additional understanding of the event for the reader.

Your argument would stand if Benedict was bullied and attacked for her appearance, or if the file itself was a depiction of the event, such as a crime scene photo or a security camera still of the event.

As it currently stands, the article in question is not a biography, reader's understanding is not improved by a relatively generic photo of the victim, and it does not meet WP:NFC. Melmann 19:54, 5 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]