Wikipedia:Files for deletion/2011 January 13



File:Polanski-Tate-promo.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: delete. This close was decided based on WP:NFCC. No one has made a strong case for exactly why having a photo of the two together is absolutely necessary for understanding of the topic. While it's certainly unfortunate to lose a spouse to murder, it's not justification for use of a non-free image. SchuminWeb (Talk) 09:26, 20 January 2011 (UTC)
 * File:Polanski-Tate-promo.jpg ([ delete] | talk | [ history] | links | [ logs]) – uploaded by Wikiwatcher1 ( [ notify] | contribs | uploads).


 * Image fails WP:NFCC and WP:NFCC. I'm not understanding how this specific image is necessary and why its omission would be detrimental to the understanding of the article. Yes, Polanski married Sharon Tate and she was a victim of Manson murders, but I fail to see how this image: 1) is historic in anyway; 2) is essential to the readers understanding of the couple of the Manson's murder. — ξ xplicit  06:51, 13 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Keep. Their relationship, as a result of her murder, became a major international news event and is clearly historic for the same reason the Manson murders are historic. There is no free image of them together, and text would not replace the photo, so it really is essential to a better understanding. This factor is similar to why a photo of Natalie Wood with her husband, who was with her the night she died under "unusual" circumstances, is relevant and historic (although it's PD). This photo is low resolution and can not limit the copyright owner's rights to sell the photo. --Wikiwatcher1 (talk) 08:43, 13 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Why is this specific image essential to the readers' understanding of the article? There are several images of them together, what's so special about this one that its inclusion is necessary in the article? The related section clearly explains the aftermath of Tate's murder and puts the relationship in the spotlight, but I fail to see what exactly this image is adding, and how it would be detrimental to the understanding of the article without it. You can't make a case comparing a photo under the public domain to a non-free image, they're not the same thing. — ξ xplicit  19:56, 13 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Any image of them together would be equivalent, although they're probably non-free also.--Wikiwatcher1 (talk) 20:09, 13 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Delete. Fails NFCC 1&8 as per nom. Their relationship and her murder are relevant, maybe even "historic", but you can describe the relevant details without an image. In other words, a picture of both of them does not significantly increase my understanding of the import of those events, and without it the article can still stand perfectly well. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ( talk ) 22:09, 13 January 2011 (UTC)
 * (comment transcluded from File talk:Polanski-Tate-promo.jpg by Wikiwatcher1 (talk) 22:27, 17 January 2011 (UTC))
 * Note: appears to be a single purpose account (registered today, sole edit). Plus, their rationale is not policy-based. —  ξ xplicit  22:42, 17 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete - very weak fair use claim that it is needed to add something, which it doesn't help me understand anything at all. User should realize that commons licensing is the goal of the project with fair use only in very limited use in exceptional circumstances the like of which this is clearly not. Off2riorob (talk) 17:40, 19 January 2011 (UTC)
 * 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 media's talk page or in a deletion review).  No further edits should be made to this section.

File:Squawbosh.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: Delete; deleted by AnomieBOT ⚡  11:06, 20 January 2011 (UTC)
 * File:Squawbosh.jpg ([ delete] | talk | [ history] | links | [ logs]) – uploaded by Noeljohnhoward ( [ notify] | contribs | uploads).


 * orphaned, unencyclopedic; illustration of a non-notable "drinking game" made up by a few individuals a few weeks ago. Fut.Perf. ☼ 09:29, 13 January 2011 (UTC)
 * 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 media's talk page or in a deletion review).  No further edits should be made to this section.

File:Ambassadors1.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: Delete; deleted by AnomieBOT ⚡  11:06, 20 January 2011 (UTC)
 * File:Ambassadors1.JPG ([ delete] | talk | [ history] | links | [ logs]) – uploaded by Jjarivera ( [ notify] | contribs | uploads).


 * Unused photo of some people at what appears to be a McDonalds, possibly in the Philippines; no description and no context for encyclopedic use. —Bkell (talk) 14:56, 13 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete Per nom, what article does this article go with anyways? - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 03:43, 20 January 2011 (UTC)
 * 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 media's talk page or in a deletion review).  No further edits should be made to this section.

File:Salocin.gif

 * 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: Delete; deleted by AnomieBOT ⚡  02:01, 21 January 2011 (UTC)
 * File:Salocin.gif ([ delete] | talk | [ history] | links | [ logs]) – uploaded by Vir3nt ( [ notify] | contribs | uploads).


 * Unused logo for something called "Salocin," which apparently is or was some flavor of Linux. The corresponding article was deleted for lack of notability; see Articles for deletion/Salocin. —Bkell (talk) 15:28, 13 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete Article no longer exists, noplace to merge to, delete this. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 03:44, 20 January 2011 (UTC)
 * 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 media's talk page or in a deletion review).  No further edits should be made to this section.

File:Image-LayOfLuthien.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: Delete; deleted by AnomieBOT ⚡  02:01, 21 January 2011 (UTC)
 * File:Image-LayOfLuthien.jpg ([ delete] | talk | [ history] | links | [ logs]) – uploaded by Sherurcij ( [ notify] | contribs | uploads).


 * According to the description, this is a "personal term project completed at the University of Waterloo, an exacting translation and transliteration of the Lay of Luthien" (The Lay of Leithian).
 * 1) The Lay of Leithian is a poem written by J. R. R. Tolkien, which is presumably copyrighted. A translation of that poem is a derivative work; the uploader most likely does not have the right to release it into the public domain.
 * 2) This translation and transliteration has probably never been published outside Wikipedia. It likely qualifies as original research.
 * 3) This image is written in some strange script, Elvish or something, which practically no one in the world can read, so its usefulness here is questionable at best.
 * 4) The rather low resolution of the image and the compression artifacts introduced by saving it as a JPEG cause the text to be blurry, so it would be difficult to make out even if it were written in an ordinary script. —Bkell (talk) 16:30, 13 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete as a derivative work of a copyrighted text. And while the Elvish script could have been used for illustration the scan is indeed of poor quality. De728631 (talk) 00:26, 14 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete Appears to be just on a user's page and is copyrighted text per above. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 03:45, 20 January 2011 (UTC)
 * 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 media's talk page or in a deletion review).  No further edits should be made to this section.

File:Photograph of Jared Lee Loughner by Pima County Sheriff's Office.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: no consensus. SchuminWeb (Talk) 17:06, 21 January 2011 (UTC)
 * File:Photograph of Jared Lee Loughner by Pima County Sheriff's Office.jpg ([ delete] | talk | [ history] | links | [ logs]) – uploaded by Sandstein ( [ notify] | contribs | uploads).


 * the subject is a living person and just because it will probably be difficult to obtain a free use image of the individual for a long while if at all does not meet the requirements of WP:FAIR to use it now. Active Banana    (bananaphone  21:38, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

What a waste of time. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.109.24.108 (talk) 19:30, 15 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Banana is forum-shopping and wiki-lawyering to get a photo removed that he doesn't like. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 21:41, 13 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Wow, Bugs, I just thought you provided comic relief at ANI, but I guess I was wrong. Active Banana    (bananaphone  21:47, 13 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Yep, you were wrong. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 21:51, 13 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete; our usual stance on non-free BLP images is almost always that it is possible to obtain a free alt. In this case I think it is supremely possible a free alternative will be available at some point (probably soon). The fact he is in jail is not an inconvenience IMO - all manner of things might find us a free alt (take Bradley Manning, despite being in solitary in an army prison we now have a free image of him!) --Errant (chat!) 21:42, 13 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep. Per WP:RAT we are obliged to consider "To what degree is the image replaceable by a free content image?". It is clear that this image is not realistically replaceable by a free content image to any degree. The guideline also doesn't say anything along the lines of "is it theoretically possible that a free image might become available "at some point". --FormerIP (talk) 21:45, 13 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Of course it is. There is no requirement for us to use an image from the time of the shooting, for example. In fact I find that argument unconvincing because, as a mugshot, it is not a "normal" image from that period anyway. The guideline also doesn't say anything along the lines of "is it theoretically possible that a free image might become available "at some point" - no, it is more forthright that that, it says we almost always assume that a free image can be taken. We have assumed it with numerous other cases in the past, this is no different - it is amply possible, with reasonable effort, to obtain a free image of this person. --Errant (chat!) 21:48, 13 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Apparently it would be illegal to do so whilst he is either in prison or a courtroom. If we accept the idea that obtaining a free image has to be completely impossible, that would invalidate all free use rationales on WP and Commons. --FormerIP (talk) 21:55, 13 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Manning was in prison and we still got a free image of him :) there is no requirement for the image to be taken now, for example. It sucks, but out NFCC is pretty strict --Errant (chat!) 21:58, 13 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Keep.The image is public domain due to the fact that it was taken by a police department in the United States. There's no basis for even questioning whether it is legal to use on Wikipedia.Heavy (talk) 01:24, 17 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Using wikipedia guidelines to try and get something deleted because you don't like it. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 21:52, 13 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Huh? Quit with the same old tune on this one Bugs, our BLP and NFCC policies are pretty strict... so where they meet there is clearly going to be friction. But throwing non-policy ad-hominem is barely helping your argument. Keep it civil and friendly pls --Errant (chat!) 21:57, 13 January 2011 (UTC)
 * What do the words "released to the public" mean? ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 22:06, 13 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Without actual proof of what the release terms were, we cannot simply assume that it is free use and thus nullifying any reason we would need to follow our rules on copyright image. Perhaps the best thing is if someone can find out the specific terms underwhich they "released it to the public"Active Banana    (bananaphone  23:04, 13 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep, as uploader. Loughner is a closely guarded prisoner and as such it is essentially not possible to photograph him for reasons unrelated to the investigation. I encourage any editor who disagrees to try and ask the FBI for permission to hold a portrait photography session with him. If and when he's no longer imprisoned, we can delete discuss deleting this image, but until then it is not replaceable for our purposes. In addition, even if Loughner should become more accessible, the image remains irreplaceable because it is the only image that we know of which shows the subject as he appeared at the time of the  shooting, which is what any article about him will mainly be about, and which is what interests readers about him.   Sandstein   21:53, 13 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep until something better comes along. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 21:54, 13 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Not really a policy based reason for keeping it there.... in fact, policy says that is a reason to delete ;) --Errant (chat!) 21:57, 13 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Not in this case. In this case it is justified to say "Keep" as it is not possible to get a photo of him. WhisperToMe (talk) 18:21, 14 January 2011 (UTC)
 * So you have talked with everybody who knows him and none of them have a recent photo that they would be willing to donate? Active Banana    (bananaphone  18:26, 14 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Well, when I suggested that editors contact them, other editors said "we can't contact them! It's poor taste!" If it's poor taste to contact the other relatives/friends, then it's not a doable option
 * Plus now we have commentary specific to this particular image, so we definitely must keep this picture.
 * WhisperToMe (talk) 19:49, 19 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Comment I had seen this image being used widespread by diffrent news stations did it get released into the public domain? - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 21:55, 13 January 2011 (UTC)
 * It is probably being used so widely because its permissibility under Fair Use is so clear. --FormerIP (talk) 21:57, 13 January 2011 (UTC)
 * under the general application of fair use, you may be right, but Wikipedia's FAIR is different. Active Banana    (bananaphone  21:58, 13 January 2011 (UTC)
 * I might be wrong, but isn't the purpose of FAIR simply to ensure that we stay legal and no more than that? --FormerIP (talk) 21:59, 13 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia's own definition of fair-use is far stricter than the law requires, and with some justification. However, this photo was "released to the public". I would say that maybe it should be diminished in size a bit, to be less in-your-face in the article. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 22:05, 13 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Comment: I have to agree that it does not meet the non-free argument as this individual is not dead and there is a possibility that a federal agency could take another photo (that would be free) of him later. I think the best fair use argument I have seen from the uploader is that this image may have some historical value in that it has been the subject of much media discussion over the subject's appearance. KimChee (talk) 22:42, 13 January 2011 (UTC)
 * In which case we would have to have content about such a discussion in our article, and I do not think that "based on his photograph, people think he looks creepy" comes anywhere close to WP:BLP aceptable content. Active Banana    (bananaphone  22:56, 13 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Mug shots often look "creepy". The picture was "released to the public", so there's really no reason not to keep it in the article, although it could maybe be shrunk a bit. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 22:59, 13 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Keep Per above, I see no problems with this image. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 22:16, 13 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep after he removed it on the article, and I reverted, he comes up with this mess. It is okay to be here. --Hinata talk  22:25, 13 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete Subject is still a living person, and while being in jail makes it more difficult for us to get a free photo, it certainly isn't impossible so this fails NFCC. Also, he hasn't been convicted of a crime, so we should make an effort to not use a mug shot as a principle way to identify him. AniMate  23:00, 13 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Feel free to have someone at the jail take a better picture. :) ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 23:02, 13 January 2011 (UTC)
 * It's a possibility. I'm also fairly sure that being in the Arizona prison system isn't the same as disappearing off the face of the earth. He's going to be making a lot of court appearances and there will definitely be opportunities to take his photo there. It's also not outside the realm of possibilities that one of his friends or family members could release a picture of him to us. This has happened on several of our BLPs. Just because we don't have one now doesn't mean we get to ignore NFCC. AniMate  23:13, 13 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete. WP:MUG and WP:BLP are the appropriate standards here, rather than relying on NFCC. Mugshots are rarely appropriate as a depiction of someone's appearance; even in the article Rosa Parks, where the mugshot is the single most famous image of the subject is and used directly in the article, we don't use it for the primary image, because of problems with using mugshots for identification. Likewise, per WP:BLP we must not allow our article to imply that a person is guilty of a crime they have not been convicted of, so the use of mugshots for individuals like Loughner who are only notable for alleged crimes they have not been convicted of is especially problematic. It's an open question whether there will ever be an opportunity for us to obtain a free image of Loughner; the two other circulating images of him are non-free and one is not representative of his current appearance, so they are not usable. Regardless of issues with free and non-free images, however, an individual accused of a crime, who has not been convicted of that crime, should not have a mugshot as their primary identification. — Gavia immer (talk) 23:03, 13 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete per AniMate. As long as there is a possibility of obtaining a PD or free image of Loughner, this fails WP:NFCC. –MuZemike 23:12, 13 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep. As per the prior points made about the extensive use of this image on various news organizations (knowledgekid87); although the fair use policies of news organizations of the fair use policy of wikipedia are different, one of the very first rules of wikipedia is to break the rules when it is good for the encyclopedia. As for the mugshot concerns, this photo could just as easily be a passport photo if it was not identified in the caption as a mugshot - so those concerns, in my opinion, are moot. Spiral5800 (talk) 23:41, 13 January 2011 (UTC)
 * So you are saying, breaking copyright rules is good for the encyclopedia? Active Banana    (bananaphone  23:44, 13 January 2011 (UTC)
 * In this case, I was merely referencing IAR; in all the time I've been using this encyclopedia I have yet to find an example where the importance of WP:IAR is so clearly demonstrated.  Spiral5800 (talk) 06:44, 17 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete Fails WP:NFCC as a free photo could be taken. — Preceding unsigned comment added by TEB728 (talk • contribs)
 * How? Abductive  (reasoning) 00:17, 14 January 2011 (UTC)
 * With a camera of course! Actually, we don't even need to take a new picture. We just need to contact someone who took a photo of him and get them to release it under the correct license. Getting free photos isn't a Herculean task, especially when we consider that Jared Loughner has only been in the public eye for three days. There will be opportunities to photograph him and there will be opportunities to get older pictures of him. It may not be easy, but I don't think laziness is an exception to our NFCC policy. AniMate  00:33, 14 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Right, so get busy. :) ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 01:42, 14 January 2011 (UTC)
 * So you're argument is that until someone shows some initiative we should just use copyrighted material. Excellent. AniMate  02:32, 14 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Comment, how is it that the various news companies are using this image? Was it not "handed out" by the sheriff? I would say that the sheriff fully expected the image to be used all over the place, and gave it away. Have they raised an objection? Abductive  (reasoning) 00:17, 14 January 2011 (UTC)
 * They do not have to raise an objection. We do not know under what terms the "release" was made, as such we operate under the premise that it is a copyright image of a living person for which our policies WP:FAIR state that we cannot use it. Active Banana    (bananaphone  00:25, 14 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Our only knowledge of the release conditions is Time's statement that ["the suspect ... is shown in this US Marshals handout photograph"] Active Banana    (bananaphone  00:31, 14 January 2011 (UTC)
 * It was "released to the public". Perhaps someone could contact them and see if they have relinquished copyright. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 01:42, 14 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Gah! This is what is driving me crazy about this photo. No one has done any due diligence in an attempt to find a free photograph. We haven't even tried to see if this mugshot is copyrighted. Please read WP:NFCC people. We can't use copyrighted material just because it is the most expeditious and this is the current major news story. AniMate  02:43, 14 January 2011 (UTC)
 * If it helps to make you feel less crazy, I've done both. I haven't been able to find a free image - I'd also point out that a lot of people have been on the job of trying to find images. Although I haven't found any specific copyright notice for this photo, it is almost certainly the property of the State of Arizona. --FormerIP (talk) 02:46, 14 January 2011 (UTC)
 * It helps a little but you simply haven't done enough for me to believe that this image is the only viable representation of the suspect. Have you attempted to make contact with any of his former friends who have been discussing him on the news? Have you contacted any of the friends on his MySpace page to see if they have photographs of him? What about his former schools? Might they have photos they would be willing to release under the proper licenses? What about his lawyer? This article is already one of the top results from a Google search, and I'm sure his lawyer would be thrilled at the prospect of not having his primary image be his mugshot. Will getting a free photo of him be easy? No, I don't think it will, but I don't see "Not willing to put forth the effort" as one of the criteria for acceptable copyrighted material. Getting a free photo is definitely possible. I mean we have an editor here who got to sit down and interview Shimon Peres the current president of Israel through our sister project Wikinews. I don't think he was able to get that by doing a few simple internet searches over two days. Jared Lee Loughner isn't J.D. Salinger, he hasn't lived his life as a recluse. There are without doubt free images out there, and there may be opportunities for Wikipedians in the area to get photos as well. Flat out, this photo does not satisfy our non-free criteria. It's an easy shortcut, but it isn't within policy. AniMate  03:24, 14 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Yes, it is. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 03:31, 14 January 2011 (UTC)
 * How is it? Have you decided it is physically impossible to get a free photograph of him? Please show where you have tried? I myself have not, but fortunately there isn't a section over at WP:NFCC that says "AniMate's lack of ambition in getting photographs means we can use copyrighted pictures". So Bugs, what has lead you to determine that no free photograph of Jared Lee Loughner is going to be available. AniMate  03:42, 14 January 2011 (UTC)
 * I'll admit that there are certain lengths I didn't go to in searching for a free photo. I didn't live in a ditch for a week. I didn't telephone the Pope. I didn't do a sponsored bike ride. Any image on Wikipedia is potentially replaceable by a free image if you dedicate yourself enough. You can contact film studios asking them to release stills into the public domain. You can ask the relatives of dead people if they would like to donate their family photos. That doesn't reflect our normal standard, though. --FormerIP (talk) 03:59, 14 January 2011 (UTC)
 * The things I mentioned aren't even extraordinary though. Looking at your keep rationale, you cite WP:RAT. If I may quote RAT:If, on the other hand, the image is a photograph, the image is more easily replaced, even if Wikipedians may lack the resources to create a replacement. Right now we don't even know if we lack the necessary resources, since the subject has only been notable for a few days. Again, there are free photographs out there, and the normal standard is that we always use free photos of living people except in extraordinary circumstances. Being in jail isn't so extraordinary that free photos of him no longer exist. Make a real effort and do some real legwork before stating that a free image doesn't exist. AniMate  04:15, 14 January 2011 (UTC)
 * "Being in jail isn't so extraordinary that free photos of him no longer exist." - It means that no new free photos can be made. Correctional facilities prohibit cameras, and I do not think Loughner's going to be assigned to a minimum security environment.
 * To my knowledge the only place where you can get a free photo is from the Loughner family.
 * WhisperToMe (talk) 00:16, 15 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Delete Natalie Holloway of Aruba's killer was visited by Mrs. Holloway, who brought a camera. You can visit this guy and bring a camera.  Just ask his laywer. Madrid 2020 (talk) 02:21, 14 January 2011 (UTC)
 * You'd better hustle on over there then. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 03:08, 14 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep. What another Editor says above is dead on; "Banana is forum-shopping and wiki-lawyering to get a photo removed that he doesn't like". Mr.Grantevans2 (talk) 03:11, 14 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Suggestion: Here is another option, if an editor is motivated enough for the task. Why not contact the Pima County Sheriff and ask if they can confirm in writing (or e-mail, forwarded to WP:OTRS) that this image has been released into the public domain? KimChee (talk) 03:47, 14 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep. I disagree that this is a non-free picture. Even if it is not free, I think it is fair use and this picture should be used. Aardhart (talk) 03:51, 14 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep. This is obviously a free picture being used by all news organizations.  It is common knowledge that police mugshots are part of the public record and are often released to the media and elsewhere.  This ludicrous attempt to remove it is little more than right wing extremism at its most moronic.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.142.168.23 (talk) 04:04, 14 January 2011 (UTC)
 * So much for the civility our president asked for us. Actually, state mugshots are almost always copyrighted. AniMate  04:15, 14 January 2011 (UTC)
 * No, they are rarely if ever copyrighted. They are part of the public record and as stated above, mugshots are commonly released to the media.  --67.142.168.23 (talk) 05:12, 14 January 2011 (UTC)
 * No, Federal mugshots aren't copyrighted and usually are released into the public domain. State and local mugshots are often copyrighted. See Template:Non-free mugshot. It exists for a reason. AniMate  05:23, 14 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep every news service in the world has used this photo, and we are afraid that we won't be allowed to use it? Essays, guidelines, and perhaps even a policy or 2 might be interpreted as saying that we shouldn't use it, but at the end of the day we only have to answer 2 questions 1) will its use improve the encyclopedia? (An obvious yes) And 2) will it's use subject Wikipedia to even the slightest possibility of even a minor slap on the wrist from the authorities who took the picture?  (An obvious no) That should be enough of an analysis for anybody, but for those who insist on a policy, see WP:IAR.  Smallbones (talk) 04:07, 14 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep As I said before, it is hard to point out any occasion where there was a copyright fuss over an image that the police released to the media. This is an important image and easily meets the WP:NFCC requirements even if it is copyrighted, which is debatable.-- ♦Ian Ma c M♦  (talk to me) 08:56, 14 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Comment The mug shot template says: Depending on the photo, the mug shot may preserve, in its unique and visually powerful way, the subject individual's brush with the law for posterity. The fixed stare and grin of Loughner in this booking photo are already an integral part of coverage of the case. Anyway, rather that arguing about "is or isn't it within WP:NFCC?", let's see if an OTRS ticket is forthcoming.-- ♦Ian Ma c M♦  (talk to me) 17:01, 14 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Comment There would be little point in having the mugshot template if it was going to produce this sort of wikilawyering every time it was used. The photo shows Loughner at the time of his arrest, not when he was 5, 10, 15 years old etc. This is why it meets WP:NFCC#1.-- ♦Ian Ma c M♦  (talk to me) 11:49, 14 January 2011 (UTC)
 * a) it's uncivil to accuse good faith discussion as wiki-lawyering, and it really doesn't help your argument... b) I'm still not convinced that we *need* an image from the exact time of his arrest - why not in the coming weeks, or in the last couple of years? Why is that not acceptable (it has been for other BLPs :)) --Errant (chat!) 13:02, 14 January 2011 (UTC)
 * The best suggestion I've seen anywhere in this megillah is for someone to contact the sheriff's department and find out what the copyright status of that photo is. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 13:13, 14 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Why don't you do it, someone who wants to keep it! ;) (I sent an email last night, but if someone in the US is able to call that would work better) --Errant (chat!) 13:21, 14 January 2011 (UTC)
 * I could. On the other hand, you're the one that wants to get rid of it. Whose information would you trust more from such a phone call... mine, or yours? :) ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 13:24, 14 January 2011 (UTC)
 * I am not an expert on U.S. copyright law, and suspect that most people who have contributed here are not either. The mugshot template exists for a purpose, let's use it. Otherwise it might as well be axed. Also, agree that an OTRS ticket would be the best way to sort out this mess.-- ♦Ian Ma c M♦  (talk to me) 13:15, 14 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Excellent idea. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 13:20, 14 January 2011 (UTC)
 * At the moment, there is no consensus and we are repeating the same pro and anti arguments. An OTRS ticket is the logical next step, could someone with experience in this area do it? Let's put this debate out of its misery quickly.-- ♦Ian Ma c M♦  (talk to me) 13:29, 14 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Errant sent an e-mail. Let's see if he gets an answer back. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 13:34, 14 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Actually, there is consensus. There are also a lot of arguments without any basis in policy. AniMate  18:26, 14 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Whether the pro-keeping the photo arguments have a basis in policy all depends on the results of the e-mails sent out. If the e-mails don't lead to any free photos, we can say "See, we put in a reasonable effort to find a free photo! We didn't, so we presume that no free photo exists." It's very simple. WhisperToMe (talk) 01:00, 15 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete It appears that AZ police handed out the photo to news agencies, but we don't know if they attached any conditions or limitations including non-commercial use. If they did, then it is inappropriate for use here under WP:FAIR. It should be a simple matter for the uploader or someone who is truly interested in keeping this pic in the article to contact the PD for the appropriate license/permission. WP:NFC says: "a new free picture as a replacement ... is almost always considered possible". I would like to point out that there is certainly a copyright free, post arrest photograph taken by the feds when Loughner was booked by them. So, there are two avenues the uploader can persue -- permission from the AZ police for this mugshot or an unquestionably copyright free replacement mug shot taken by federal authorities. KeptSouth (talk) 09:30, 14 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Comment Thank you for this example of civil intellegent debate in a county with a reputed penchant for ignorant bullying. Wikipedians give me hope for national sanity. I can't vote/comment/add to this debate without better comprehension, but I am proud of everyone here. (please change/edit/move/delete this comment as needed if it violates protocol/causes thread problems/disrupts discussion/etc) Arkbg (talk) 10:09, 14 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete per AniMate. Does not meet WP:FAIR. Just because it is difficult to find a freely licenced photograph doesn't mean we can just go ahead and use a non-free one, and there is no evidence whatsoever that this photograph is freely licenced, just supposition. -- Mattinbgn (talk) 11:14, 14 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete - Free image is attainable of living person. Furthermore, image fails to meet WP:NFC requirement that non-free images substantially aid in understanding of the subject, and ommision hinders. His appearance in this image seems not to be addressed in the article as having anything to do with the shooting; image doesn't really "help," and serves only an aesthetic purpose. --EEMIV (talk) 16:04, 14 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Comment: Not anymore. This particular snapshot has been discussed in reliable sources, so we need this snapshot. WhisperToMe (talk) 19:51, 19 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete: WP:NFCC seems fairly clear about this. While I don't really agree with the policy, I don't see any reason to make an exception here. --MZMcBride (talk) 16:57, 14 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Comment: Now it needs to say "Keep as per NFCC#1" because now we have sources discussing this particular snapshot in detail. WhisperToMe (talk) 19:51, 19 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete: Images do not get a free pass from Non-free content policy just because it may be more difficult to find a free picture than use a non-free one. As stated above, OTRS release from the holders could work, but we do not keep images that violate policy indefinitely pending some possible response. As EEMIV also notes, an image of the shooter is not so important as to undermine the entire article without it; fails the "significance" threshold required by images justified by claim of fair use. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ( talk ) 17:22, 14 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Comment: Now that RSes discuss this particular image, we need to have this special image to help illustrate the mugshot. Secondly images do get a "free pass" once it is established that it is highly unlikely and almost impossible (not just "difficult") that a free image will be provided (relatives saying no or deemed to be inappropriate to contact, suspect to be in prison for a long time, etc) WhisperToMe (talk) 19:54, 19 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Comment: Firstly every article about a person warrants an image of that person. This is an automatic necessity. Secondly, WP:NFCC says "Non-free content is used only where no free equivalent is available, or could be created, that would serve the same encyclopedic purpose." - After a reasonable effort is made to determine whether a free photo of this man exists or could be procured is completed, if there is still no free photo, we say "there is no free equivalent."
 * If you want to say "but there can be a free equivalent!" Go e-mail the Loughner family and ask for a freely licensed photo. I very much doubt that they would want that, but try.
 * WhisperToMe (talk) 00:20, 15 January 2011 (UTC)
 * delete non-free image of living person where replacement is actually likely (someone has a picture of him somewhere that they would be willing to release). That said, if we ever cover the picture itself in any detail (even in the article) then I'd say we could use it here. Hobit (talk) 18:03, 14 January 2011 (UTC)
 * For the record, I think we _should_ be able to use non-free images in cases like this (widely available image from government agency when no other image is available), but that's not policy at the moment... Hobit (talk) 18:06, 14 January 2011 (UTC)
 * The frequently heard opinion that policy generally disallows fair use images of living people is false. WP:NFC, only a guideline, disallows "Pictures of people still alive, groups still active, and buildings still standing; provided that taking a new free picture as a replacement (which is almost always considered possible) would serve the same encyclopedic purpose as the non-free image." "Almost always" is not always. People in high security prison cells are the exception to the implicit assumption that BLP portraits are replaceable because people can be approached and photographed. And a new photo would not serve to illustrate Loughner as he looked at the time of the shooting. Finally, people argue that a free image might at some point be released or taken (under unlikely circumstances). While we cannot rule that out, we do have a legitimate interest, recognized by actual law, to fairly use the available unfree photo as long as we cannot, practically speaking, replace it.    Sandstein   19:43, 14 January 2011 (UTC)
 * There is no evidence that anyone has taken any steps to attempt to get a recent free image that we can use. "Practically speaking" it would be very easy to contact various acquaintances that have been identified in the news to see if they had a recent photo they would be willing to donate. Active Banana    (bananaphone  19:50, 14 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Update: Several posters stated that they have entered correspondences in order to find free photos. WhisperToMe (talk) 01:01, 15 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Who are the acquaintances? Did they take the photos themselves? Do they want the picture plastered all over Wikipedia? We have the know that the acquaintances exist, we have to know how to contact them, that they themselves produced the photos, and that they want the photos to be posted. WhisperToMe (talk) 00:18, 15 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Keep Image was taken by a government agency and released for media use. I don't see a scenario where the photographer of the picture would want it removed.--Jojhutton (talk) 20:31, 14 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Comment The image under discussion was taken by a state agency. It doesn't qualify for the license available for federal agency pictures. In a perfect world with no laws or rules, I would agree with you Jojhutton the fact that the picture was taken by any gov't agency would be good enough, but in a perfect world, we would not be arguing debating this; we would simply post some of the newly discovered pics from Walgreen's --KeptSouth (talk) 21:33, 14 January 2011 (UTC)
 * The state is a government.--Jojhutton (talk) 21:42, 14 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Everybody and his mother have been running this photo. There's no reason for wikipedia not to run it. Let's try not to make wikipedia look stupid and paranoid. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 00:13, 15 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Comment policy or not, you don't really think you can delete this, do you? Prodego  talk  00:16, 15 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Comment has anyone e-mailed the following people yet?
 * Randy Loughner (father)
 * Amy Loughner (mother)
 * Ashley Figueroa (ex-girlfriend)
 * Kelsey Hawkes (ex-girlfriend)
 * All are identified in media reports as people who know/knew Loughner.
 * These people may have free photos of Loughner.
 * WhisperToMe (talk) 00:23, 15 January 2011 (UTC)
 * I have some feelers out, nothing back yet though. I should be able to get one given some time. Not contacting family at this stage though, I don't feel that is fair. Still hopeful we can get a release on this image --Errant (chat!) 00:46, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

You have absolutely got to be kidding - this has all been a bad joke leading up to this horrible punchline.

But just let me sure I've got this straight - in order to avoid the possibility that we might be breaking copyright law by publishing a picture that was released by the U.S. Marshals Service (according to TIME Magazine) and has been published freely by 1000's of well established newspapers, TV stations, and magazines (e.g. TIME, PBS, NY Times) and has appeared tens of thousands of times on the internet, you are going to contact family and friends of of Loughner and intrude on their privacy during a time of great personal stress, to ask for a "copyright free" photo to publish. If you are serious - SHAME! If you aren't serious, it's time to say HA-HA, funny joke. Smallbones (talk) 01:53, 15 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Excellent comment, Smallbones. Unfortunately, parts of this debate have deteriorated into the sort of obsession with navel gazing over policy that can only hold up the development of an article and make Wikipedia look silly to outsiders. Copyright is largely about preserving the financial value of material. Can anyone who showed their detailed knowledge of WP:NFCC by voting delete point to an example where a police department sued for copyright infringement over the non-fair use of a mugshot that it had released to the world's media?-- ♦Ian Ma c M♦  (talk to me) 07:11, 15 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Well, if contacting family and friends is not a reasonable move, then there are no more steps we can take before we say "We have done all reasonable steps to find a copyright free photo. We don't see one, so we say that 'no free photo exists'." If there is consensus that doing so is unreasonable, then we strike through every "delete" rationale that says "a free photo has to exist somewhere."
 * I have no shame in saying "if you are arguing that we haven't done enough to get free photos of Loughner, then the next step is to contact family and friends." At this point we would have already found a free photo of Loughner on Flickr if there was one. If contacting them is not reasonable, then we strike through every delete rationale that says "we haven't done enough to find free photos of him."
 * At this stage I think it's highly unlikely that any of them will be willing to give a free photo of him. Until we get a free photo, we must assume that no free photo exists of him.
 * WhisperToMe (talk) 03:01, 15 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Comment "Until we get a free photo, we must assume that no free photo exists of him." Really? Somehow this seems like reverse logic to me and counter to more or less all of the WP policies on posting images. KeptSouth (talk) 08:02, 15 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Comment: After you have made a reasonable effort to find the free images, yes. It is not reasonable to always hold up the idea of "a free image can be made, a free image can be made" when one doesn't come and in all likelihood will not come (person in prison for life (or likely will be in for life), person who was notable as a child who is now grown up). WhisperToMe (talk) 04:14, 17 January 2011 (UTC)


 * It is better to say that it would be inappropriate to contact his friends and family at the current time. In any case, the mugshot illustrates his brush with the law, for which he is best known and without which the article would not exist in the first place.-- ♦Ian Ma c M♦  (talk to me) 08:08, 15 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Contacting family and friends at a time like this all over a free image would make wikipedia and the editors look bad, and ianmacm I dont think the article would be deleted if the mug shot went away. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 06:00, 17 January 2011 (UTC)
 * He meant that without the "brush with the law" that lead to his notability, the article would not exist. WhisperToMe (talk) 06:09, 17 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Comment Preliminaries have been skipped.
 * 1. Has anyone asked the sheriff's department for a release?
 * 2. Has anyone asked for a copy of the federal booking photo which would be a free image?


 * The uploader should have done this or addressed this in his rationale. Instead all he says is "the subject is in police custody...not curently possible to make a freely licensed current photograph". This rationale is inadequate and does not address the question of whether an attempt was made to get a license for the sheriff's dept photo or to get the free image booking photo taken by the feds. Apparently, this still hasn't been done. Without these basic inquires, I don't see how we can say the policy should be changed or that an exception should be made to policies which Wikipedia says are more restrictive than copyright laws. KeptSouth (talk) 08:18, 15 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Keep - This could be seen as a "special case" and by that I believe we should keep this photo of the shooter because without it the article will not be as good. And has some users above here writes another free photo will probably be available in the future so until then we could have the current one.--BabbaQ (talk) 18:12, 15 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Keep per arguments above. And it wouldn't be a bad idea to revisit the issue of the WP copyright status of mug shots -- it might be good to declare them presumptively PD, as government business that should be public. Pete Tillman (talk) 19:02, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

Ok, I have heard nothing back so far in response to my queries, but am continuing to dig, I have a friend in the rough area who has promised to go to the sherrifs office and ask outright :) so perhaps that will get us an answer. I can understand the lack of response though, I bet things are busy... in terms of the above arguments, I want to make a few points. Ultimately there is no rush over this. It is literally days after the incident and we can hardly hope to have a neutral and comprehensive article about this event in such a time. And there is no reason why we should have. There is no particularly burning reason we must have an image of him right here right now. No reason it has to be taken as close as possible to the event (what does it matter - now, were it of the event itself, that is an entirely different matter!). I cited Bradley Manning above - the exact same thing happened over that. A non-free image was initially used, after a lot of fuss it was eventually deleted for all the reasons I support above - amid lots of cries of censorship and "you're spoiling the wiki" and "you deletionists" and "what does it matter". Now we have a very nice, properly released image for use in the article thanks to the efforts of some editors. I fail to see why we cannot take the same approach as this. It may prove impossible to get a free image - but a few days is nowhere near enough time to determine that. Call it months or even a year to be sure of this (though I doubt it will take that long to get a free image!). The correct approach is to follow policy (carefully agreed on policy), remove the image and figure out what to do next about getting what we need --Errant (chat!) 19:46, 15 January 2011 (UTC)
 * That other people are using the image is irrelevant, rather than make an exception for this image you should use that activity by others to change policy on a wider scale. Exceptions don't work and they are a slippery slope. More to the point you will need input from the foundation for such a change to policy wording, I think, because "fair use" has legal implications we can't ignore
 * The license status of the image is unknown. We have tried to track that down with no success, sadly, without knowledge of it we usually assume it is unlicensed for our use
 * If a free image can plausibly take in the future (which some of the above keep voters agree might happen) our policy is extremely explicit; the picture has to go. If a free picture can plausibly be obtained then there is no way for us to legally use the image
 * The arguments of "what police force has ever sued for..." is a red herring; it doesn't matter, that they could is problem enough. The foundation has asked us to take care of images for this reason.

The integrity of this photo is questioned as it is edited? watch = http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O6OtS_O6GGY — Preceding unsigned comment added by Art1st24 (talk • contribs) 22:21, 15 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Keep: There is no free equivalent, this photo was taken and released by a US govt agency: US Marshals Office and WP has one million other mugshots --Hutcher (talk) 02:56, 16 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Delete Fair-use image of a living person. It is replaceable. (It's not good that he's in prison, but c'mon, policies are law :P) Diego Grez (talk) 17:41, 16 January 2011 (UTC)
 * RE: policies are law - this statement is completely wrong, and folks misunderstanding the meaning of Wikipedia policies and guidelines are the crux of the matter here. Please carefully read the chronologically first rule of Wikipedia WP:IAR word by word.  You might also read What "Ignore all rules" means.  I'll quote from the second. "Don't follow written instructions mindlessly" and "The spirit of the rule trumps the letter of the rule."  The purpose of "fair use" and copyright rules is to protect Wikipedia from being sued for copyright violations.  The only way for Wikipedia to be sued for copyright violations on this photo is if everybody else who published this is also sued, e.g. the New York Times, the Washington Post, AP, Reuters, TIME Magazine, and 1000's of other respectable, establishment media companies.  That is an impossibility.  So we may include the photo, while staying within the meaning and spirit of the rules, as long as the the photo adds to readers' understanding - and that seems as obvious to me as the first part.  If you are going to quote rules, you need to understand WP:IAR.  Now please don't go citing IAR everyday in every minor dispute.  I use it about once a year, and this is the most obvious case I've seen for it.  Smallbones (talk) 22:19, 16 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Ouch, while I agree with the basis of your comment (about policies not being law) this is utterly incorrect: The only way for Wikipedia to be sued for copyright violations on this photo is if everybody else who published this is also sued. You've made a huge leap of assumption there. Examples of how it could be different? The image license is unknown - it could be licensed for media usage, in which case we would be the only ones using it under fair use. The others may have legal fair use claims. Or, more likely, they just choose to sue WP and not anyone else (there is no requirement for them to sue everyone, look at how patent trolls work...). In addition I think we need to be minutely careful over invoking IAR, this does not to me seem an obvious case for it's use (in fact, I'd cite it as a clear example of inappropriate use). IAR is designed to cut through instruction creep (such as the comment you replied to) not to subvert an important piece of policy because it'll probably be ok (FWIW I bet it would be fine, but we have been asked not to take the risk). IAR is something that should be invoked on minor issues, on a daily basis when common sense dictates. Not at a community level discussion. -Errant (chat!) 01:41, 17 January 2011 (UTC)
 * No, there is zero chance of being sued on this. Following the sense of the rules, rather than the letter, is more important with major issues rather than with minor ones. Smallbones (talk) 02:22, 17 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Agreed, copyright lawsuits are usually the work of media rights holders, eg Viacom International Inc. v. YouTube, Inc., not county sheriffs' offices. I have got more worries over a meteorite crashing into my house than a lawsuit over this. It is time to WP:IAR and have a look at how mugshots are used to prevent this sort of sidetracking from happening again.-- ♦Ian Ma c M♦  (talk to me) 09:47, 17 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Comment: I have expanded the article with a summary of the media coverage the photograph has received. The photograph is now also required for readers to understand that commentary about the photograph. I have expanded the fair use rationale accordingly.  Sandstein   18:00, 16 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Well, I'm not certain that content will ultimately stay in, looks a little uncomfortable to me (i.e. you really need to find a source that discusses the media reaction to the photo). However, if it does, please remember that the fair use image has to accompany the text, so would have to be moved from the infobox to satisfy FUR --Errant (chat!) 18:09, 16 January 2011 (UTC)
 * The paragraph cites two top-tier media sources that discuss the media reaction to the photo: NYT, WaPo. The content is under discussion at Talk:Jared Lee Loughner.  Sandstein   18:17, 16 January 2011 (UTC)
 * If we have RSes that discuss the particular photo, that's a speedy keep, and a request to quickly close the discussion. WhisperToMe (talk) 06:10, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

Keep: unless you can take a picture of him in prison. its under fair use anyway.--201.230.110.15 (talk) 18:40, 18 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Comment: I find the length and excruciating detail of this deletion discussion separates the discussion of this photo from virtually all other deletion discussions - especially when the main complaint is copyright. Pursuant to WP:IAR and the points made by a number of editors concerning not only that a plethora of news organizations that have used this photo repeatedly but also that the arguments made in favor of deletion seem to be, over and over, individuals reciting wikipedia guidelines as if the guidelines they recite are gospel while ignoring both the fact that these are GUIDELINES rather than commandments, and that there are guidelines that directly contradict those cited by individuals in favor of deletion.  While "Ignore all rules" is the broadest of these examples, it is one of the most applicable.  That this discussion has gotten this long is something that all on its own suggests that the image should be kept, or at the very least that this is a far more complex issue than most (especially those who think that one guideline or another "clearly" states that this image "must" be delted) commentators appreciate.  Spiral5800 (talk) 06:52, 17 January 2011 (UTC)
 * IAR isn't applicable here. Genuine disputes should be resolved through discussion on-wiki, not by fiat. Trying to sidestep this issue isn't the answer here and there's nothing wrong with a lengthy discussion. Your comment "that this discussion has gotten this long is something that all on its own suggests that the image should be kept" makes no sense. --MZMcBride (talk) 20:11, 17 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete under WP:NFCC and WP:NFCC per EEMIV and David Fuchs' arguments to these effects. —   Fourthords  undefined | 03:05, 19 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Comment: Since RSes now discuss the mugshot in particular, the rationale from David Fuchs is outdated. Plus I stated that non-free images do get "a free pass" if obtaining a free image for a person is almost impossible and highly unlikely (not just "difficult") WhisperToMe (talk) 19:54, 19 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep. It is fine, as it was released to the public.--Epeefleche (talk) 05:20, 19 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep. The article contains discussion and commentary on this image, as a key component in the narrative of Laughner's arrest and public response.  Therefore the image can and should be kept under fair use, akin to the use of a screenshot in Citizen Kane.  Even if a free image were obtained, it would not be a suitable replacement for this image. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 15:58, 19 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Comment; FWIW I have recieved a reply - the image was released publicly following a Freedom of Information Act request, after a little more digging the image copyright is retained in this case. So fair use applies; given we have critical analysis of the image in the article I may now support keeping it. --Errant (chat!) 16:11, 19 January 2011 (UTC)
 * No Way: You've been pov pushing against this image from day 1 and you can't control it against consensus on the basis of some email from a buddy of yours. Also this reeks of OR and I don't think we want the police controlling Wikipedia content. Mr.Grantevans2 (talk) 16:50, 19 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Email from a buddy of mine? email the sherrifs department yourself if you want confirmation, seems I was the only bothered to. Reeks of OR? Err not at all.. we can ask if the image is licensed... that is the whole fucking point of having this discussion. BTW even had I not emailed, or if you do not accept my word on the email then we still assume the image is non-free because no license has been provided showing it as freely licensed Police controlling wikipedia? Where do you get this from :P of course they can control whether the image is freely licensed or not... --Errant (chat!) 17:00, 19 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep - It seems to me that a group of editors are using WP:NFCC to try and delete a picture that might violate WP:MUG. This seems a little disingenuous. NickCT (talk) 18:11, 19 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Comment Active Banana and Errant have made 21 seperate comments during this discussion promoting their position. I have not participated in enough of these discussions to know if there's any point at which such a battering ram type approach is considered disruptive. I certainly find it to be distractive from the comments of the rest of the Editors. Can or should anything be done abouit it? Mr.Grantevans2 (talk) 20:29, 19 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Bullshit; every comment I made in this discussion was to address a new point or to reply to someone. And I dislike the isinuations coming from you; we have accusations of POV pushing and "battering" discussions. What do you want "done" about it? If you think there is an issue, you could, you know, raise it with me. And instead of posing questions as a poor form of rhetoric take it to a noticeboard. --Errant (chat!) 20:49, 19 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete. This shouldn't be controversial (in fact it meets CSD F7). The default position of WP:NFC is that an image of a living person is replaceable. Just because a free alternative can't be found or created right now doesn't mean that one doesn't exist (and that's policy). Dozens of non-free images of living people are deleted under F7 every day. Even putting the image-specific policies aside for the minute, the image runs straight into WP:MUG. HJ Mitchell  &#124;  Penny for your thoughts?   22:12, 19 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep This mugshot (and this mugshot in particular) is a necessary addition to the article because it has significantly changed the way people view the shooter (as discussed by reliable sources). A photo either obtained from his family or taken later would not replace this photo, as those photos do not have/would not have the same historical importance. --Banana (talk) 23:26, 19 January 2011 (UTC)
 * No more so than a non-free photo of a band at a concert or any of the other images that are deleted without ever darkening the door of FfD. HJ Mitchell  &#124;  Penny for your thoughts?   01:03, 20 January 2011 (UTC)
 * I did a brief search, but could not figure out what kind of photo you were referring to (possibly because these images are deleted without discussion here?). Could you give me an example of a similarly influential image that was deleted?--Banana (talk) 02:27, 20 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep. This photograph was released to the public from a government agency. Do you REALLY BELIEVE the sheriff or department is going to sue Wikipedia over use of this? When they released it to the public, they implicitly released it to Wikipedia as well both technically and with their best intentions in mind. Do you people have nothing better to be doing??? Anonywiki (talk) 01:09, 20 January 2011 (UTC)
 * beliefs without any proof is an assumption, and when you assume.... Active Banana    (bananaphone  13:59, 20 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep. This shouldn't even be discussed. Of all the companies that are using this photo, you think that we are going to get sued? Even if this isn't for the public. This is ignorance at its best.Wolfbane184 (talk2me) 00:16, 21 January 2011 (UTC)  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wolfbane184 (talk • contribs)
 * Comment: I note that an awful lot of the comments here are of no value; "keep until something better comes along" is contrary to NFCC#1, which requires that non-free content is not used if it is replaceable, not non-free content is not used if it is replaced, and "keep, it's free" are useless unless this can actually be demonstrated to be free. Until this image is confirmed as free, it is subject to the non-free content criteria just like any other image. As such, the two key questions to ask are "could this image be replaced by a free image of the subject?" - If yes, then it should be deleted, regardless of the outcome of the second question - and "does this image add significantly to the articles in which it is used? Clearly, for the article on the subject, yes. For the article on the event, probably not- what he or his mugshot looked like are not significant to the event as a whole, which could easily be understood without such an illustration. I hope the closing administrator will have the sense to ignore the "OMG WE AREN'T GONNA GET SUED" nonsense and assess the use of this image with reference to only the applicable policies (primarily the NFCC...) J Milburn (talk) 16:16, 21 January 2011 (UTC)
 * The purpose of the policy is to discourage other websites from using fair-use photos on wikipedia beyond their intended usage. In this case, everybody and his mother has this picture, and the reasoning behind the policy evaporates. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 16:37, 21 January 2011 (UTC)
 * 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 media's talk page or in a deletion review).  No further edits should be made to this section.

File:Wknoll.gif

 * 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: Wrong forum. The file is on Commons. Please nominate it for deletion there if you still feel it should be deleted. AnomieBOT ⚡ 22:13, 13 January 2011 (UTC)
 * File:Wknoll.gif ([ delete] | talk | [ history] | links | [ logs]) – uploaded by Tylermccluney ( [ notify] | contribs | uploads).


 * do not own Underworldtm314 (talk) 21:49, 13 January 2011 (UTC)
 * 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 media's talk page or in a deletion review).  No further edits should be made to this section.