Wikipedia:Files for deletion/2015 October 5

< October 4	October 6 >

October 5

File:Ahmed Mohamed Clock by Irving PD.jpg

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the media below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the media's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was: keep. Consensus here is that the image is vital to the article, freely licensed or not. Contextual significance, which is the core issue, is asserted, therefore meeting WP:NFCC#8. — ξ ^xplicit 06:26, 1 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Active discussion in talk page, attempting to get a free use license. - Cwobeel (talk) 23:01, 5 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. It would be quite possible to obtain a free-use license, per standard procedure at commons:Commons:OTRS#Declaration_of_consent_for_all_enquiries. — Cirt (talk) 02:07, 6 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I said it before, but the suggestion that something fails NFCC solely because someone might eventually be able to get a copyright holder to release their rights is crazy. We don't ask the creators of logos or album covers to release their rights. By your logic, every image should fail NFCC because the copyright holder might eventually be convinced to release it under a free-use license, perhaps after being given a lot of money. If someone can get an adequate copyright release for this image, that would be great. However, there is no way that an image should be considered to fail NFCC simply because a copyright holder hasn't yet been convinced to license it. As you well know, there have been efforts to try and get a free use license, but so far the responses provided haven't been adequate to meet Commons' demanding standards. Dragons flight (talk) 09:15, 6 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

1) The custody of the device is in the air. It may be in police possession, it may have been returned. Therefore future free versions are more problematic. 2) The controversy is about the clock as it existed on that day. It may be modified or further enhanced by Ahmed upon its return, and therefore will not serve the function of this photo. Gaijin42 (talk) 16:41, 6 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Meets NFCC criteria per discussion on talk. Goalposts keep shifting. It's already free per Texas law and no doubt there will never be enough OTRS releases to satisfy ideological delete requests. The "fair use" rationale that supports NFCC is wide discussion of the Police Department released photograph itself as well as content that cannot be expressed in words and has historical value associated with Ahmed Mohamed clock incident. The device owner has not asserted that the public release of the photo violates any copyright claim and also asserts that his "useful device" (not copyrightable) is a clock, not a work of art. There is no "non-free" photo available, or likely to become available, as long as editors claim the Police Department has copyright ownership. --DHeyward (talk) 03:11, 6 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. As stated in the image description and elaborated at length at File talk:Ahmed Mohamed Clock by Irving PD.jpg, this is a unique historical image due to its role in the Ahmed Mohamed clock incident. This image was released by the Irving Police Department to help explain their actions, and was the only image of the clock available when many people were forming an opinion about the incident (e.g. President Obama saying "nice clock" would presumably have been reacting to this image). There has also been extended third-party analysis of what Mohamed did based on people attempting to dissect this particular image, some of which is discussed in the article. In my personal opinion, the role that this particular image played in shaping the perceptions of the event more than justifies its use under NFCC. It contributes to the understanding of the event by allowing readers to see what others were reacting to in a way that can not be fully matched by mere words. Anyway, that's my opinion. I would again refer people to the lengthy related discussion at the file talk page, as well as some comments at the article talk page. Dragons flight (talk) 09:15, 6 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - The incident article's text is more than sufficient, thus failing WP:FREER. The key aspect of the incident was the arrest of a 14-year old kid, handcuffed wearing a NASA T-shirt, and not a tiny pencil box with a clock in it. If the image is that important to some editors, then they still have the path for requesting a free photo from the author of the clock. The person is alive and may be more than happy to share a photo with Wikipedia. - Cwobeel (talk) 13:52, 6 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

That's incorrect to suggest that the clock is a minor part of the topic of the article, Ahmed Mohamed clock incident. Bob K31416 (talk) 14:47, 6 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

14-year olds are probably arrested hundreds of times in the USA every day; it is because this clock was involved that made this event unique. This "tiny pencil box with a clock in it", as you call it, is a salient point in the event and to imply it is not a key aspect is simply astounding. Marteau (talk) 20:43, 6 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep – The Ahmed Mohamed clock incident occurred because of how the clock looked, so a picture of the clock is needed for at least that. --Bob K31416 (talk) 14:47, 6 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I would dispute that statement. The incident became known not because of a clock in a box, but because a blogger posted a photo of a 14-year old kid in handcuffs wearing a NASA T-shirt on his Twitter feed. If there is a photo that would illustrate this article is that photo, not a photo of a tiny pencil box with some electronics in it. - Cwobeel (talk) 14:53, 6 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I think your message is confusing the making of an informative Wikipedia article with advocacy for Ahmed Mohamed. --Bob K31416 (talk) 15:41, 6 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Please WP:AGF. My comment is based on an overwhelming number of sources. - Cwobeel (talk) 16:53, 6 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

strong keep the controversy is explicitly about the clock, and if it is reasonable for it to be considered dangerous (or reasonable for it to be considered to be intended to look dangerous, per the "hoax bomb" arrest). An image of the clock, exactly as it was when the police/school examined it is the best way to convey this. Gaijin42 (talk) 16:37, 6 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Many people have said the clock looked like a bomb. The PR officer for the Irving PD said in an email I received and submitted to OTRS that the pic is public and also cited the Texas law that press releases are public. (See the file talk page.) Raquel Baranow (talk) 20:21, 7 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - there is an ongoing OTRS ticket: ticket:2015100510021886 - Jcb (talk) 21:16, 8 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]