I have no idea why this image was deleted let alone even brought up for deletion. Pretty much all our boxing, MMA, pro wrestling, etc pay-per view articles use the official poster as the main image. It has the correct fair use and it's not being used for any other article but Evander Holyfield vs. Riddick Bowe. I really don't see what the problem is. Beast from da East (talk) 02:38, 31 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse It was quite appropriate to raise a discussion about whether the image was allowed under our policies[1][2] and guidelines[3] and the discussion was a whole lot better than most at FFD. It looks as if the close of "delete" was in line with the consensus there (and was also in accord with our usual implementation of policy). It is clearly lawful for Wikipedia to use the image under fair use law but the discussion considered its use would be contrary to our own policies. Thincat (talk) 08:24, 31 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Like so much of Wikipedia, image use policy exists in tension between two points of view. The "pro-encyclopaedia" view has it that we're here to build an encyclopaedia and any image that (a) enhances the encyclopaedia in some way and (b) would be lawful to use, should be used. The "pro-free content" view has it that we're here to provide free content and unfree images shouldn't be used unless no free replacement could ever exist. The pendulum swings a bit from time to time, just as it does between inclusionism and deletionism, and the unfortunate fact is that right now we're in a deletionist, pro-free content phase. We'll return to a more balanced situation in due course (or else the encyclopaedia will run out of content contributors, leaving a bunch of increasingly militant deletionist/free content people wandering around deleting all the incomplete stuff). My advice is to accept it and do something else until the pendulum swings back...—S MarshallT/C19:59, 1 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I am saying (and I believe S Marshall is) that the the discussion was closed properly and so the image was correctly deleted. I am now pondering whether the FFD discussion was sufficiently faulty that the matter should again be referred to FFD. I might (or might not) comment later. Thincat (talk) 09:21, 2 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion was faulty. The WP:NFCI#4 guideline says non-free posters may be allowed and this was not rejected on a proper basis. The inappropriate "cover art" criterion was discussed which has different considerations. The poster illustrated the subject of Evander Holyfield vs. Riddick Bowe. This article does not have "critical commentary" on the poster itself but it does have commentary on the event. Moreover, the consensus of earlier RFCs and discussions has been that when an image illustrates an article topic it (as a guideline) inherently has the "contextual significance" required by WP:NFCC#8. The matter is worth discussing again at FFD. Thincat (talk) 10:15, 2 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Well, you can do if you like. The trouble is that in practice, fair use images presently default to delete. If we send it back, the onus won't be on the delete side to show why the image is inappropriate; it'll be on the keep side to show why it's appropriate, and it will be closed accordingly. And someone will probably say the Magic Image Deleting Word ("decorative") anyway. We probably should send it back but the outcome won't be different.—S MarshallT/C12:43, 2 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The matter should be brought up again, there were only two to three users discussing it last time and that just isn't enough in my opinion to warrant a deletion. If we could get more users to join the discussion, I think we'd be able to come to a better agreement on the situation.Beast from da East (talk) 21:45, 2 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
