Talk:Nao Saejima

WikiProject class rating

This article was automatically assessed because at least one WikiProject had rated the article as start, and the rating on other projects was brought up to start class. BetacommandBot 21:33, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

Non-Free Image File:Nao_Saejima.jpg

Hullaballoo Wolfowitz before just reverting you could have left a note on a talk page. I gave you specific links namely WP:NFC#UULP and also the corresponding point at WP:Pornography while you only wrote "rv, nonfree image in blp infobox, no legit claim for NFCC use" as reason which is rather unclear. So I will take this section here as beeing representative for several similiar other articles where you recently removed the related image. More examples are Kimiko Matsuzaka and Junko Miyashita.

The policy (WP:NFC#UULP) cleary states:

"However, for some retired or disbanded groups, or retired individuals whose notability rests in large part on their earlier visual appearance, a new picture may not serve the same purpose as an image taken during their career, in which case the use would be acceptable."

This is without any doubt applicable for a pornographic actress who has retired for many years. All formal criterias for the declaration of a non-free image are also fulfilled. So please explain what problem you see here. Unless you can not give a VERY good reason, I will either file a WP:DRR or take it to the related policy talk page or noticeboard.

If somebody else wants to add his or her opinion here or in case I miss something, please do so. But it seems that I am not the only who sees the non-free image in question is acceptable here and in accordance with the currenty guidelines and policies.

Testales (talk) 18:00, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

This claim is clearly invalid; the rationale is so broad and vacant that it wipes out NFCC requirements for retired entertainers in visual media. Perhaps you could provide even a single example, outside of the images currently being disputed, where a similar claim has been validated. Nothing in the relevant article provides even the slightest indication that the subject's notability "rests in large part on their earlier visual appearance," so that flimsy rationale mentioned is clearly inapplicable. And BLP infobox illustrations are intended to provide general, identifying images, a purpose for which nonfree images are not appropriate -- because such images do not "provide information beyond simple identification." Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 21:51, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

As hard as I try, I can't find any special rules for "for retired entertainers in visual media". Your logical conclusion that non-free images are not appropriate in a the BLP has little flaw - it is based only on the template text which (only) roughly summarizes the related policy.

It states "Please note that our policy usually considers fair use images of living people that merely show what they look like to be replaceable by free-licensed images and unsuitable for the project. If this is not the case for this image, a rationale must be provided proving that the image provides information beyond simple identification or showing that this image is difficult to replace by a free-licensed equivalent.".

So if it would be just that, you may be right. But what is really deciding here is the policy behind it and that is here the quoted WP:NFC#UULP. In contrast to the template it does not allow non-free images bascially only for deceased people but lists other cirumstances which make it also hard or even impossible to replace the non-free image. One of these is "retired individuals whose notability rests in large part on their earlier visual appearance". Therefore the "beyond simple identification" part can completely be ignored here. Well unless maybe, if you can prove that the visual appearance of a model - and pornographic actresses are models too - during the active years has no influence on their notablity. We are not talking about scientists, politicians or poets here. That specific image has furthermore been challenged already in the past for not falling under fair-use. So see also the related talk page. If you think that the given rationale is not formally correct, feel free to improve it. But so far I never seen you improving anything and I also have serious doubts whether repeated mass reverting is an adequate practice if at least 3 other editors do not agree with you. Testales (talk) 22:56, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

For what good it may do, make that at least 4 other editors who agree that the policy in WP:NFC#UULP is operative in these cases of actresses where a good part of their "notability" is definitely tied to their appearance at the time when they were in the business. Cherryblossom1982 (talk) 00:02, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

A little history: Back when I first added this image, and dozens of others to similar articles (3 or 4 years ago, I think), such images were allowed under certain requirements. The images I added all fit those requirements. The requirements were then changed, and the images mass-deleted. The few remaining images were to actresses who had clearly retired, and some of whom (Kimiko Matsuzaka and Kaoru Kuroki were two) had made the news specifically for zealously guarding their privacy in retirement-- even suing those who had taken pictures of them post-retirement. Hence new, free images are impossible to obtain. At the time I made the argument Testales is making, i.e., that the appearance of a model or actor/actress is very much related to their notability. The bit that Testales cites appears to be new, but I believe it is good. I have not objected to deletions of these images in the 2 or 3 years since the mass-deletion, and was prepared to let Hullaballoo get his way here. Ironically his edit-warring has brought to light indications that such images indeed do conform to non-free image policy. Dekkappai (talk) 00:11, 27 July 2010 (UTC)