Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ainu flag

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

The result was keep. No valid reason for deletion. (non-admin closure) (t · c) buidhe 10:51, 7 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Ainu flag

Ainu flag (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Not notable.

Summary: A tricky case. This article is about an image, for which I confirmed copyright infringement and submitted a deletion request at Commons. This article itself is not copyright violation, but without the image, it cannot satisfy the notability criteria.

Details: The image in question is a reproduction of a work of Bikky Sunazawa (1931-1989). It has been uploaded to Commons multiple times and I have filed two successful deletion requests (1 and 2). The ongoing deletion request is the third one. It was submitted on 26 July, but unfortunately, the Commons deletion procedures are stalled.

To be clear, when I submitted deletion requests for the image, I didn't know its copyright status. On 2 October, Bikky's son Jin Sunazawa posted a blog article in which he made it explicit that his family retained the copyright of the flag designed by his late father. He repeated the same claim in his YouTube video clip (04:40-05:45) posted on 4 October. Now copyright infringement is confirmed.

Also in the blog is his request not to use the flag. Mr. Sunazawa stated that the flag had been abused by Ainu groups who had misused public funds. Although it's not entirely clear whether his request was directed specifically at Ainu activists or at the general public, I don't think we can claim fair use against the copyright holder's will.

Now that there is no way to keep the image, the article devoted to it loses notability.

--Nanshu (talk) 17:29, 4 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 17:53, 4 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 17:53, 4 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. An article's notability is completely independent of the copyright status of the images it contains. An article can discuss an image without including said image just as, for instance, we can talk about music without including the songs. Also, if the image is not admissible on Commons because of copyright issues, it can still be uploaded onto English Wikipedia under fair use. _dk (talk) 18:52, 4 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep for reasons stated above by _dk. Article is about the flag existence which is notable. Although yes, it would certainly be a better article with an image, so one should be uploaded under fair use. WestCD (talk) 00:18, 5 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. This flag passes GNG (see Gbooks). The image is an entirely separate matter, which can and should be dealt with on Commons. AleatoryPonderings (talk) 00:28, 5 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment. @Underbar dk and WestCD: Just out of curiosity, allow me to repeat the same point. Do you really think we can claim fair use in Wikipedia even if the copyright holder asks for the disuse of the image in question? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nanshu (talk • contribs) 15:11, 5 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Nanshu: As much as I want to respect the family's wishes, fair use does not require the copyright holder's consent as far as I know (IANAL tho). We can add in the article that the family does not want to see the flag being used because of the feud. _dk (talk) 00:55, 6 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Underbar dk: The situation is not exactly the same as that of this flag, but I'm thinking of a manga series by a deceased author whose surviving family decided to pull it from circulation. The copyright gave absolute power to them so that no one was able to overturn their decision. Fair use does not require prior consent. That's true, but the real question is whether fair use is powerful enough to overturn prior dissent (if so, on what conditions?). WP:NOTFREE does not cover such a case. --Nanshu (talk) 16:15, 6 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Even if it were true "the article is about an image" that would not mean we had to delete the article if we could not get a copy of the image. The flag is clearly notable and needs an article. We can have an article on the flag with no image of the flag.John Pack Lambert (talk) 18:23, 5 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.