Wikipedia:Files for discussion/2018 December 4



File:Ruth Brown Snyder mugshot.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: Relicensed to non-free. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 08:33, 12 December 2018 (UTC)
 * File:Ruth Brown Snyder mugshot.jpg ([ delete] | talk | [ history] | links | [ logs]) &#x20;– uploaded by Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) ( [ notify] | contribs | uploads | upload log).

http://www.deathhousebarber.com/photo_gallery/Sing_Sing.htm says "All Rights Reserved" Ron h jones (Talk) 22:29, 25 October 2018 (UTC)  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 * Keep. The "all rights reserved" cannot be construed to cover this photo, in which the website owner owns no copyright: it is a near-certainty that the website owner did not take the mugshot at Sing Sing prison or acquire any rights from the New York Department of Corrections. The use here, of a historic mugshot image, comports with Wikipedia guidelines as set out in WP:MUG. TJRC (talk) 23:03, 26 October 2018 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 10:12, 2 November 2018 (UTC)  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 09:59, 10 November 2018 (UTC)
 * keep According to the article the photo was taken for her transfer to Sing Sing in 1927 (after 1923). But this would make it a work of US government employee, as his duty; then it goes under USGOV license. This instance would be opposite of en:Licence laundering, and c:Licence laundering. — usernamekiran (talk)   03:26, 13 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Although I agree with your "keep" (as noted above; the copyright claim to the website clearly does not cover the pre-existing photo to which the web site author holds no copyright), this is not under USGOV. The mug shot is a work of the New York state government, not the United States government, and therefore the § 105 exception to copyright does not apply. See Copyright status of work by the U.S. government: State, territorial and local governments. TJRC (talk) 23:34, 14 November 2018 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 09:38, 18 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Delete per . There is nothing by which to conclude that this is the work of the federal government rather than the likelier state government. – Finnusertop (talk ⋅ contribs) 23:06, 18 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Wait, what? My position is "keep". What does "Delete per TJRC" mean? TJRC (talk) 23:58, 18 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Based on "this is not under USGOV. The mug shot is a work of the New York state government". What makes you think it can be kept? – Finnusertop (talk ⋅ contribs) 19:40, 19 November 2018 (UTC)
 * See my "Keep" !vote above. TJRC (talk) 21:45, 19 November 2018 (UTC)
 * WP:MUG is about living persons. And the article already has one non-free image for the purpose of identification, so this one fails WP:NFCC. – Finnusertop (talk ⋅ contribs) 06:35, 20 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Again, this nomination is simply the nominator misunderstanding that "all rights reserved" on a website that includes the historical mug shot has any application to that mug shot. It doesn't. "All rights reserved" doesn't even mean anything; it's an obsolete bit of text that was once used to preserve copyright protection for works originating in one North or South American country in other North or South American countries, under the now-extinct Buenos Aires Convention.
 * The photo is almost certainly public-domain. It has no notice and has been published prior to the time (pre-1978) when notice on published work was a requirement to have copyright; and even if it had had notice, there is no evidence that the state of New York ever claimed copyright over it, much less renewed its copyright in 1955, as was a requirement to extend copyright past the initial 28-year term. There is no reason to delete this photo based on a purported copyright from a web site owner who has no copyright interest in the photo, or from anyone else.
 * Whose copyright do you believe this is infringing? TJRC (talk) 19:46, 20 November 2018 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 07:22, 26 November 2018 (UTC)  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: Need an new explicit copyright license if the current one doesn't work

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 07:17, 4 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Comment; I have removed the PD-USGov-DOJ (it was the work of an employee of the New York State government, not of the United States government) and added a Non-free use rationale. TJRC (talk) 03:29, 5 December 2018 (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:Pink Floyd - all members.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 - seems to be a strong consensus that this photo, as opposed to separate photos of individual band members, is required for the reader's understanding of the topic. --B (talk) 00:15, 13 December 2018 (UTC)
 * File:Pink Floyd - all members.jpg ([ delete] | talk | [ history] | links | [ logs]) &#x20;– uploaded by SilkTork ( [ notify] | contribs | uploads | upload log).

Since two of the band members are deceased, it's no longer possible to obtain a photo of all five of these men together in one place. However we do have compatibly licensed photos of each individual person, so in my opinion the image fails WP:NFCC #1. Please see Talk:Pink Floyd for discussion that's already taken place about this image. File:Pink Floyd 68.jpg (a photo from the same photo shoot) was deleted in December 2009 as F7: Invalid fair-use rationale. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 14:07, 18 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Keep: there exists no free image of the band that would serve the same encyclopedic purpose (it's from the only photo-shoot of all five members). It satisfies all WP:NFCCP criteria. Coldcreation (talk) 14:21, 18 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Delete, there are plenty of free images of Pink Floyd. It is not necessary that a photo include everyone who was ever in the band. If that is desired, a montage can be used. Seraphimblade Talk to me 14:25, 18 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Keep - Per who said There is no free equivalent photo of the original Pink Floyd lineup, due to the death of two original members.  -  FlightTime  ( open channel ) 14:27, 18 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Keep - impossible to find a free image with all the members. Would be like having an image of the Beatles with no John Lennon. So historical that it seems that there's only one image of this nature ever produced.--Moxy (talk) 15:11, 18 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Keep. This has come up for discussion previously. This meets WP:NFCC #1. " no free equivalent is available, or could be created, that would serve the same encyclopedic purpose". The photo shoot from which is came is documented as being the only one in which all members of the band are present, and it marks an historic turning point in the band's history. Its historic and encyclopaedic value is about as high as you can get. It can't be created today as not all band members are alive, and those that are wouldn't be willing to get together for a photo. While it is possible to have individual photos, and even to put these together to show the individual members in a montage, that is not at all the same as having an actual at the moment in time image of all the band members together at a significant point in their history. By all means replace the image in the lead with montage, if that is felt appropriate, but "Pink Floyd - all members.jpg" has a powerful and irreplaceable encyclopedic value that it is our function and duty to use, and meets legal requirements, so should be used within the article to mark that turning point in the band. It is secondary that it can also serve as a lead image, but it is handy that it does. But please don't mistake its position in the article as being the totality of its value. The image meets United States legal doctrine of fair use, and Wikipedia's own non-free content criteria. SilkTork (talk) 15:19, 18 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Keep per SilkTort. It easily passes WP:NFCI#8; in a slightly tongue-in-cheek metaphor, it would be equivalent to using a Ford Fiesta to illustrate the Ford Escort article, because "it's all Ford" ... ——  SerialNumber  54129  15:24, 18 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Keep Even more historical/encyclopedic significance is in the fact that this is the one of the few photographs in existence where all members were present. That alone should merit the photo's inclusion somewhere in the body --- if it wasn't already perfect as the infobox picture. --Ilovetopaint (talk) 18:06, 18 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Delete, If it is not a free image, we shouldn't have it here, as a matter of principle. This image (and 3 or 4 others of the group as a 5 piece), is found all over the web, so it is not like we're preserving the image from going extinct or something. Someday it will be a free image, and Wiki can include it then. Until then, we shouldn't have it here. Mark Froelich (talk) 00:08, 19 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Just to be clear....you have found 3 or 4 other images with all 5 of them.....was very surprisedto fin them too....been a long time since I looked...wow great pics -Moxy (talk) 04:04, 19 November 2018 (UTC)


 * Comment:


 * 1) The image is considered fair use in United States copyright law and also complies with the Non-free content criteria.


 * 1) It is used for a purpose that cannot be fulfilled by free material (text or images, existing or to be created).


 * 1) It has a valid rationale indicating why its usage would be considered fair use within Wikipedia policy and U.S. law... per WP:F. Coldcreation (talk) 07:18, 19 November 2018 (UTC)
 * *Comment: Coldcreation, how do you know that US copyright law even applies here, on an image which was likely taken in the UK? Do you know who took this image? Mark Froelich (talk) 00:25, 20 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Of course US copyright law applies here. This is not French Wikipedia, or even UK Wikipedia, or any other European Wikipedia. In this case, it makes no difference where the photo was taken or who the photographer was, US copyright law applies. The policies of this Wikipedia platform, including WP:NFCC, are base on US copyright law. See U.S. fair use factors and Copyright law of the United States, specifically Copyright limitations, exceptions, and defenses. Coldcreation (talk) 00:51, 20 November 2018 (UTC)
 * *Comment: Coldcreation, thank you for your response. However, you didn't answer either of my questions. My question was "How do you know US copyright law applies here?". Your answer of "Of course it applies here" doesn't answer the question. Nor did you answer the question "Do you know who took this picture?" The reason I asked that is because if the owner of the copyright of this image is willing, perhaps the image may be made free content, thus ameliorating all of our worries. The Non-free content page WP:NFCC you pointed me to has, under its "Page in a nutshell," the summary "Respect the rules of non-free content and only use non-free content as a last resort."  This does not seem to be a "last resort" sort of situation. Again, thank you for your reply. Mark Froelich (talk) 02:51, 20 November 2018 (UTC)
 * If you read below you will see that User:FlightTime and User:TJRC also answered your query. 06:16, 20 November 2018 (UTC) Coldcreation (talk) 07:44, 20 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Coldcreation, no they haven't. And it seems that you're unwilling or unable to answer my questions, as I've asked you twice now. (By the way, please sign your comments. It makes for easier discussion.) As the page WP:NFCC points out, Wikipedia uses "more narrowly defined criteria than apply under the fair use provisions in United States copyright law." My question dealt with Wikipedia policy, and whether or not it strictly follows US copyright law. If I were interested in Wikipedia being challenged on this matter--which in all likelihood they won't be--I would've probably asked about the Berne Convention. (Though the Wikimedia Foundation is based in California, international copyright law would likely come into play as the work in question was probably created in the UK.) Again, thank you for your attempt at a reply. I will not bother you any longer, as this is clearly going nowhere. Mark Froelich (talk) 07:32, 20 November 2018 (UTC)
 * It doesn't matter, it's the non-free rational thats in question. There's non-free images all over the project, it's the rational that determines if it's used or not. -  FlightTime  ( open channel ) 00:35, 20 November 2018 (UTC)
 * U.S. copyright law applies because copyright law is territorially limited. The photo is covered by UK copyright in the UK; and US copyright in the US. Wikipedia servers are located in the US, so any claimed copyright infringement is of the US copyright and governed by US law. TJRC (talk) 00:50, 20 November 2018 (UTC)


 * Comment Further to a few comments above, there don't seem to be any free pictures of Syd Barrett at all (the only one tagged as free now has a deletion tag which seems obviously correct - the Flickr user claims to have taken it at a date after Barrett's death); so, if it's agreed that Barrett needs to be featured, a photomontage does not seem an option either. TSP (talk) 11:57, 19 November 2018 (UTC)
 * I think that's an interesting point to make; however, the main reason for keeping is that it is a photograph of a unique and historic moment in the band's history which cannot be recreated, and for which there are no free alternatives, thus meeting all the requirements for use of a non-free image. Even if there were free pictures of Syd Barrett available so enabling a montage to be created, that would not (and should not) influence the decision to keep this one. I think once people see that rationale we can close this discussion, and it should not need to be raised again. The photo is not being used because it's convenient to have a picture of all members of the band (though that is helpful), but is used because of its historic and encyclopedic value. SilkTork (talk) 16:37, 19 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Agreed. The real question here not the image status, it's if the community can reach a consensus that the non-free rational is valid. -  FlightTime  ( open channel ) 17:04, 19 November 2018 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 07:24, 26 November 2018 (UTC)  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 07:18, 4 December 2018 (UTC)


 * Keep clearly meets NFCCP, and illustrates a pivotal point in music history. People having an issue with NFCCP should raise a centralised RfC to overturn it, not eat away at it one image at a time. Andy Mabbett ( Pigsonthewing ); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 12:02, 4 December 2018 (UTC)


 * Keep per SilkTork's explanation. Use of the photo is more than justified under fair use and the NFCC criteria, given the photo's unique historical significance. The free images of the band from the 60s–70s don't serve the same encyclopedic purpose that this image does, and it's nearly impossible to imagine someone unearthing a genuine free photo of this lineup: it captures lightning in a bottle, showing the band at such a critical (yet brief) transitional period in their development. Out of curiosity, I poked around to see if I could find more information on the origins of the image—for example, how do we know for sure the image was taken in January 1968, and has anyone identified the photographer? Here's what I could find, for anyone interested: The book Echoes: The Complete History of Pink Floyd (links to Google Books) by Glenn Povey reprints a photo that is clearly from the same photo shoot (all five members are there and the outfits match) on p. 78–79. The caption on p. 78 reads: "The short-lived five piece line-up of Pink Floyd. Within a few days of this photo being taken, Barrett made his final appearance with Pink Floyd in Hastings on 20 January 1968." In addition to Povey's suggestion that the photo was taken only days before 20 January 1968, calendar of the band's activities on p. 90 indicates that this line-up only existed between 1 January and 25 January 1968, making it virtually certain the photo was taken during this month. Unfortunately, the photographer goes uncredited in the photo caption. The "acknowledgements" section on p. 368 (couldn't link to this page but you'll find it if you search "acknowledgments" within the book), which credits every photo with a known author and promises to correct new editions with appropriate credits if a photo's precise source became known. Most likely it was a label promo or something, but it doesn't seem anyone knows for sure. (A promising lead that turned into a dead-end: that calendar notes that the band got a write-up in the January edition of a magazine called Beat Instrumental. It turns out that issue is available via the site issuu, but the photo doesn't appear there—or alongside any other mention of Pink Floyd in that magazine between 1967–68.) —BLZ · talk 00:54, 7 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Delete. A short-lived lineup of band members that released few if any recordings together and played a small number of shows before imploding. I'm sure fans of the band, with good reason, wish that this set of its most famous members had cohered, but they didn't. This image doesn't identify the group in any meaningful sense -- it's not the original lineup, it's not the longest-running or most familiar lineup, it's not the lineup that recorded the most famous music -- it just doesn't meet NFCC policy requirements for the purpose it claims to be used for. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo). Treated like dirt by many administrators since 2006.   (talk) 12:15, 11 December 2018 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it.</b> 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:Siouxsie and the Banshees voices.jpg
<div class="boilerplate ffd vfd xfd-closed" style="background-color:#f3f9ff; margin:1em 0 0 0; padding:0 10px 0 10px; border:1px solid #aaa;">
 * 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: relisted on. B (talk) 12:19, 13 December 2018 (UTC)


 * File:Siouxsie and the Banshees voices.jpg ([ delete] | talk | [ history] | links | [ logs])
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. <b style="color:red">Please do not modify it.</b> 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:4OD Screenshot.png
<div class="boilerplate ffd vfd xfd-closed" style="background-color:#f3f9ff; margin:1em 0 0 0; padding:0 10px 0 10px; border:1px solid #aaa;">
 * 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 without prejudice - as the reasons that the image was nominated for deletion (high-resolution, hidden by default) have been resolved, this ffd is closed as keep. --B (talk) 00:18, 13 December 2018 (UTC)
 * File:4OD Screenshot.png ([ delete] | talk | [ history] | links | [ logs]) &#x20;– uploaded by Kelvin 101 ( [ notify] | contribs | uploads | upload log).

Violation of WP:NFCC. There is no need for 582 × 4,390 pixels in the article. A small crop, keeping only the top part, would serve the same purpose. Furthermore, the image is hidden by default in the article, suggesting that it's so unimportant that it isn't needed at all. Stefan2 (talk) 21:16, 23 November 2018 (UTC)




 * Keep - Cropped the image, All tv-related screenshots here are collapsed, Personally I believe it meets NFCC #8. – Davey 2010 Talk 09:38, 24 November 2018 (UTC)
 * With the cropping and pixel reduction, I think that it looks fine for WP:NFCC purposes. However, due to the fact that the image is hidden by default, the placement in the article indicates that the image is so unimportant that you can easily understand the article without seeing the image by default. In other words, removing the image wouldn't be detrimental to the understanding of the article as, due to the layout, lots of people won't see the image at all. --Stefan2 (talk) 20:28, 25 November 2018 (UTC)
 * I've uncollapsed it too, Touching on above I believe the last issues were around the length of the image which was causing the infobox to be expanded to like half the screen article or something, Dunno but now that it's cropped there's no reason to collapse. – Davey 2010 Talk 15:05, 26 November 2018 (UTC)

<div class="xfd_relist" style="border-top: 1px solid #AAA; border-bottom: 1px solid #AAA; padding: 0px 25px;"> Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 07:19, 4 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Keep. Satisfies NFCC after improvements were made. – Finnusertop (talk ⋅ contribs) 00:57, 5 December 2018 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. <b style="color:red">Please do not modify it.</b> 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:Dril.jpg
<div class="boilerplate ffd vfd xfd-closed" style="background-color:#f3f9ff; margin:1em 0 0 0; padding:0 10px 0 10px; border:1px solid #aaa;">
 * 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: Deleted - given the size of the discussion, I feel that this debate deserves something more than just deleting it and letting the bot tag the discussion as closed. Brandt Luke Zorn does a very goot job of laying out the case that Twitter avatars are an important part of your branding and that most media will embed your full tweet rather than just the text in their article. (I think sometimes this is because that's the API that Twitter gives you as opposed to an intentional editorial choice, but that's neither here nor there - clearly when someone does make an editorial decision, they do include the full Tweet with avatar.) But Wikipedia is not "most media" - we are a free content encyclopedia and we use content under a claim of fair use only when "its omission would be detrimental" to the reader's understanding. "Other websites do this" does not mean "you cannot understand the topic if the website doesn't do that". You also brought up a very interesting point about Twitter's terms of service. I actually went and looked it up to see if their terms gave us anything resembling a free content license and unfortunately their terms say it is a non-sublicensable, revocable license, so Twitter having a redistribution license doesn't help us. Deleted per WP:NFCC. --B (talk) 23:12, 12 December 2018 (UTC)
 * File:Dril.jpg ([ delete] | talk | [ history] | links | [ logs]) &#x20;– uploaded by Ajfweb ( [ notify] | contribs | uploads | upload log).

Non-free file being used in a WP:DECORATIVE manner in dril. This type of non-free use does not comply with WP:NFCC, WP:NFCC, WP:NFCC and WP:NFCC. Regarding NFCC#10c, a separate specific rationale is needed for each use, not one rationale for multiple uses; there's no reason to use the same file six times in the same article per NFCC#3a so it's highly unlikely five more additional rationales can be written. Using the image once in support of sourced critical commentary about itself might be acceptable per NFCC#8 (see WP:NFC), but it's not needed in any of the tweet examples since they can be incorporated as quoted text into the article without using Tweet and then the actual tweets cited in support per NFCC#1. Maybe the additional uses were added after the article's GA review, but being used in a GA doesn't exempt the file's use from WP:NFCC. -- Marchjuly (talk) 01:07, 23 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Delete Fails WP:NFCC  the images add no "significant increase" in understanding. <b style="border:1px solid #dfdfdf;color:green; padding:1px 3px;background:#FFD">Ron h jones </b>(Talk) 04:03, 23 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Delete per Ronhjones. Salavat (talk) 01:48, 24 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Strong keep — There are so many policy misstatements that I'm not sure where to start, and so far everyone voting is just citing a policy with a conclusory statement that it "fails" some policy with no analysis or explanation. So I'll go in order, policy by policy, through Marchjuly's nomination text:
 * WP:DECORATIVE is literally a subsection of a policy called Arguments to avoid in image deletion discussions; the bare fact that an image could be seen as serving a "decorative" function is not, in and of itself, a substantive policy argument.
 * The image complies with NFCC#1 because there is no free equivalent of that image that exists or could be created. Marchjuly does not at all follow up on their citation of NFCC#1 so I don't know what he's suggesting.
 * Regarding NFCC#3a, Marchjuly has said "there's no reason to use the same file six times in the same article per NFCC#3a"—but is that true? No. In fact, NFCC#3a is not about use of files at all, it is about number. NFCC#3a says "Minimal number of items. Multiple items of non-free content are not used if one item can convey equivalent significant information." This policy is about when there are multiple copyrighted images that serve redundant purposes. dril makes subtle changes to his avatar over time, but if I had gone into the Internet Archive, downloaded each version of dril's avatar that he was using as of the time of each tweet quoted, and then uploaded each of those images and used them with the era-appropriate tweet, that would be excessive under NFCC#3a because the subtle differences would not be noticeable enough or significant enough to justify the multiple files.
 * Marchjuly's argument about NFCC#3a is actually a NFCC#3b argument, because that policy is about "Minimal extent of use"—in other words, how a single copyrighted image is used, and ensuring that it is used only to the extent necessary to convey encyclopedic information. So, let's reexamine the argument. Marchjuly said "there's no reason to use the same file six times in the same article per NFCC#3[b]"—but is that true? Does NFCC#3a say "there can never, EVER be a reason to use the same image six times in the same article"? No. This policy's most immediate and practical relevance is about ensuring that the file uploaded to Wikipedia is a minimal representation of a copyrighted work—for example, ensuring low resolution, etc. I don't see any objection to the resolution of this image, just its use within the article. This policy is about minimizing use of copyrighted content to the extent necessary, but it does not define a minimum because it's a context-specific analysis. And that context-specific analysis takes us to...
 * ... NFCC#8, because that's the policy that sets a standard for use of an image in an article. It says non-free content may be used "only if its presence would significantly increase readers' understanding of the article topic, and its omission would be detrimental to that understanding." So this all boils down to two prongs to assess: first, whether a non-free image's presence significantly increases reader understanding, and second, whether its omission would be a detriment. Both of these are true. Marchjuly asserts that the image is not necessary because the quotes could be incorporated into the article as blockquotes, not in tweet templates that simulate the design of embedded tweets. But we can't rely on Marchjuly's ipse dixit because his observation that the image could be absent is not the same as a substantive argument about the effect of the image's absence.
 * Removing the image from the quotes would severely diminish readers' understanding of dril. It is, overwhelmingly, the preference of writers and web designers to embed tweets when quoting or discussing tweets, rather than to copy-paste the text only. This is important because it reflects a publishing norm, an expectation of the presentation of tweets in general. Even the highly formal New York Times, when writing on the topic of Twitter humor, chose to embed tweets rather than to quote the text alone (one dril tweet is embedded in that article, and multiple tweets by Donald Trump and @Horse_ebooks are embedded—suggesting that fair use doesn't cross over into copyright violation through repetition in this context). I'm not saying Twitter avatars should be included across Wikipedia with copyrighted avatars in general, but most article aren't about tweets. This is an article about tweets, so presenting the tweets in a natural, native format—one that is uncontroversially used by third-party publishers on the web all the time—is an appropriate application of fair-use doctrine.
 * This presentation extends beyond the medium of the web: dril's book, an anthology of his best tweets, uses a mock-tweet format that includes his avatar with every single tweet (two examples taken from the book and published in a Vice review). You'll notice several differences between the format of an embedded tweet and the version used in dril's book: for example, the date and tweet stats (likes, retweets, interactions) are missing. But one key component remains: the avatar. This means that the author of dril, as a matter of authorial intent, presents his tweets in their native format: as tweets, and alongside his avatar. This speaks again to a key issue that tweets are not mere snippets of text, but "posts", a distinction that makes a difference. Twitter avatars are strongly associated with the voice or personality of an account. Several sources in a range of contexts discuss the link between avatar and persona, but just for starters here's a marketing guide that says "Your company is not choosing just a picture. You’re choosing a voice for the account, a personality, a strategy!"; a Recode article noting that "the Twitter 'egg' [ the former default avatar image is now associated with Twitter trolls, the kinds of users who create accounts simply to harass and bully others."]; and a New Yorker profile of @NeinQuarterly, another Twitter writer, which discusses his avatar as an element of his persona. Beyond the general association between tweet and avatar, dril's avatar in particular is iconic and extremely closely associated with the author and his voice. It's simply not the same to read a dril tweet without the avatar. If pressed, I will produce sources that support the strong identification of dril (and his writing) with his avatar; many of these sources are already included in the article, although not necessarily discussing Nicholson because there already is ample text on the topic.
 * tl;dr: I think the big conceptual hurdle is that the avatar is essentially part of the "textual" quotes, which are not merely textual at all. The avatar and the text go hand-in-hand. Notice that Wikipedia policy does not require a fair-use rationale for every blockquote—even though it could! After all, the same fair-use standards apply, right? To remove the avatar would diminish reader understanding because:
 * it would cut against publishing norms on the web for embedding tweets;
 * it would contradict the author's intent for the presentation of his tweets, which are not mere text snippets but "posts" that require the accompanying avatar;
 * it would deprive the reader the powerful association between dril and the avatar—and especially, dril's voice and the avatar—because the link between the two is essential;
 * the tweets simply don't "read" the same way without the avatar there; as an example, ask yourself how the "no" tweet would look without the avatar and whether there is a difference in tone, connotation, and other qualities in the absence of the avatar that detract from a general reader's ability to understand the overall meaning of the tweet. This, by the way, also satisfies Marchjuly's concern about WP:NFC, because this is a situation where "only by including such non-free content, can the reader identify an object, style, or behavior, that is a subject of discussion in the article."
 * WP:NFCC: As soon as I post this comment, I will update the image to include a rationale for each use of the image. I hope this resolves the issue, since it seems to be the only genuine beef with the image. Again, the argument that an image can never be used multiple times within the same article is contradicted by the text of NFCC#10c itself: "The name of each article (a link to each article is also recommended) in which fair use is claimed for the item, and a separate, specific non-free use rationale for each use of the item." There are two possibilities: "each article" and "each use" mean the same thing, in which case only one fair use rationale is required for all the uses in dril; or "each article" and "each use" are distinct, which means that multiple uses of a single copyrighted image in a single article must be permissible under appropriate circumstances, so long as multiple rationales are included for each use.
 * Last point: Marchjuly reflexively raises WP:ITSGA, even though no one had tried to use the article's GA standing to assert a basis for keeping the image. I agree with the premises of ITSGA as a guideline, and I believe the image and its current usage stand independently on their own merits on strict policy grounds, not on whatever status the article has reached based on a past review. But since the issue has been raised: just for the record, Marchjuly could have easily checked, which already used the image in each quoted tweet times. The issue of file usage was also brought up in the GA review at Talk:Dril/GA1. Again, I urge anyone reading to assess the image usage on the merits of policy, not on whether it happened to have been used at the time of a GA review. But I do think it's disingenuous to presume that a file must have been added after a GA review—something which could have been easily checked!—as a drive-by method of discrediting its usage, then preemptively shooting down any possible replies on that point with a guideline that never would have been relevant in the first place if the nominator hadn't raised the issue!
 * In conclusion: I don't want to see other votes unless there are substantive counterarguments to what I've written above, since it should be clear I've taken a fair amount of time to draft up this case for the image's inclusion on Wikipedia. I didn't just cite policy and say "it violates these requirements" or "it meets these requirements"; I actually did the work of analyzing what these policies actually ask of us, and how and why this image meets these policies. Don't just say you don't agree with my interpretation of policy, but have some kind of evidence that anything I've said here is incorrect. If you want to disagree with my point that Twitter avatars are essential to understanding the person or voice of a Twitter account, please find a source that says avatars are totally irrelevant to understanding an entity's voice or persona Twitter. If you think that dril can't possibly be that closely associated with his avatar, please find a source that says "dril's avatar is a blurry image of Jack Nicholson, but this image is totally irrelevant to his voice, not closely associated with the author or his work, and not at all an important part of understanding his persona." You might personally feel these things are true; you may not like that Wikipedia policy could permit multiple uses of the same image in any context, as a matter of aesthetic preference or whatever; but it's simply not true to say that this image or its current usage actually violates any policy. There is more than enough justification to include the image. Thanks, —BLZ · talk 20:06, 27 November 2018 (UTC)


 * I've now updated the rationale, describing each usage of the image in the article and providing an in-depth explanation of the necessity of using dril's avatar to accompany those tweets, in accordance with Wikipedia policy. Dril.jpg image is now, almost certainly, one of the best-researched image pages on Wikipedia with one of the most thoroughly justified rationales. The image description is now 14,907 bytes, which includes my already extremely thorough research into the authorship and possible copyright interests in the image. I don't think I've ever encountered another non-free image page on Wikipedia with as much description as this one has. I've worked harder on this image description than some mainspace articles I've written. Please, if you still think it should be deleted, provide more than a perfunctory remark. —BLZ · talk 21:00, 27 November 2018 (UTC)
 * I appreciate your (you=BLZ) clarification of the multiple uses of the file in the article, but I just don't agree with your assessment. While it's true that a non-free file can be used multiple times, there's really no justifiction for using it more than once in the same article, particularly in a case such as is being done in this case, per NFCC#3a (my reasoning has nothing to do NFCC#3b). If dril's twitter avatar is something which has been discussed in reliable sources, then it's fine to include a non-free version of the avatar near relevant sourced critical commentary about it and use the file once. Using it once and then referring to it in other parts of the article is where NFCC#1 applies because text is acceptable a a free equivalent for an image per WP:FREER; so, even if the file is used once as the subject of sourced critical commentary, there still no real need to use it any more times in tweet templates since the content of the tweet itself can be supported by a citation to the actual tweet for verification purposes. The avatar can be referred to as many times as needed throughout the article, but the reader really only needs to see it once. The example Donald Trump's tweets being used by the NYT seems to confuse fair use and non-free content use. Wikipedia's non-free content use policy has been purposely designed to be much more restrictive than fair use and the NYT, etc. is not subject to Wikipedia's policy and guidelines. Lots of major media associations use copyrighted content per the concept of fair use in ways that would never be acceptable per relevant Wikipedia policy, but that's not how we assess non-free content use on Wikipedia.If you want to argue that Wikipedia should follow publishing norms on the web when it comes to non-free content, then you're going to have to propose that on WT:NFC because the current policy clearly doesn't agree that it should.As for the GA review, I saw the GA review before nominating the article, which is why I mentioned WP:ITSGA. I don't agree with the assessment given on the non-free content use. I'm sure it was given in good faith, but I don't think it was something based strongly in policy. It's true that a non-free use rationale was provided for one use of the file and it was a very thorough justification for one use of the file, but the lack of non-free use rationales for the other uses is something that someone who has experience reviewing non-free files would've almost immediately noticed. The GA reviewer doesn't appear to have sought any outside input from those typically assessing non-free content use at WP:MCQ or WT:NFCC and perhaps if this had been done the problem with the other uses in the tweet templates would've been pointed out as a issue. So, what this discussion is hoping to determine is whether there exists a consensus in support these multiple uses. As I posted in my original post, it might be possible to justify one use of the file per WP:NFCCP; so, it might not be necessary to delete the file outright; however, there's no way to justify six uses of the file in the article and the other five need to be removed regardless of whether they now have individual non-free use rationales. Finally, if you want to let others know about this discussion like you did at User talk:Premeditated Chaos and or comment on it like you did at User talk:Ajfweb, please try to do so by avoiding WP:CANVASS. You can let others know about this FFD using Please see if you want like was done at article's talk page and WT:NFCC. The uploader Ajfweb was already notified of this discssion, so your post on their talk page is pretty much an clear example of WP:CANVASS. -- Marchjuly (talk) 01:40, 28 November 2018 (UTC)
 * For what it's worth, I appreciate them informing me of the discussion a second time, because at the time I was first notified of the discussion, I believe it didn't yet actually exist. &mdash;ajf (talk) 00:11, 29 November 2018 (UTC)
 * This FFD was started here. You were notified here. BLZ's posts on your's and PMC's user talk pages were made almost 5 days after the FFD was started (and you were notified) and after two other editors and including BLZ had already posted WP:!VOTES. A courtesy notification/reminder (if necessary) could have simply been given with a link to the discussion and a neutral statement. -- Marchjuly (talk) 00:58, 29 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Keep — Like BLZ here I believe that the image is necessary to express dril's voice, and is used as part of quoting dril, so it must be understood in that context. I feel the repeated use of the image is justified insofar as the repeated quoting of dril is; the avatar is an inextricable part of the context of dril's tweets which are quoted. I don't believe that a tiny blurry JPEG accompanying a tweet is worth such a massive number of words that its reproduction is problematic in a way reproducing the words of the tweet is not, but at the same time it's worth enough words that not reproducing it means the tweet loses some of its voice. &mdash;ajf (talk) 21:52, 27 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Keep (For full transparency, I was aware of this discussion since I have both the dril article and BLZ's talk page on my watch list, but for the purpose of transparency I'll note that BLZ dropped a line on my talk page about this as well, since I am the GA reviewer and a fan of dril.) I don't think there's anything I can say that BLZ hasn't articulated in detail, but I will say that I specifically agree that removal of the avatar significantly alters the nature of the tweets as creative content. For an equivalent, imagine the phrase "Ceci n'est pas une pipe" without the pipe. It's not the same piece of content at all. dril's tweets are the same - without the avatar embodying dril's voice/persona, they don't retain the impact the author intended. &spades;PMC&spades; (talk) 01:44, 28 November 2018 (UTC)
 * As I posted above, using the file once can probably be justified per WP:NFCC in support of sourced critical commentary about the avatar. All stuff about the avatar embodying dril's personality, etc. can be added to dril with an example of the avatar located nearby (perhaps added to the image gallery for comparison purposes) or in a single tweet template with used as an example to show how it appears in a tweet. However, I still don't see any reason for the additional uses in all of the tweet templates; the reader's understanding is not siginifcantly increased by these additional uses and the meanings of the tweets aren't any less understandable if the avatar is not seen each time. If dril regularly changes their avatar and these changes are discussed by reliable sources, then perhaps additional non-free versions of it could be added to the article for comparison purposes, but just to use the avatar in a tweet template does seem WP:DECORATIVE and excessive. -- Marchjuly (talk) 02:09, 28 November 2018 (UTC)
 * I don't speak French; so, I had to look up "Ceci n'est pas une pipe" to see you were probably making a reference to The Treachery of Images. I think that's is an interesting point to make about justifying a single use of an image in an article. At the same time, I don't think it would be NFCC-justifiable to use the same file of the pipe in the "Treachery" article more than once in the article (per NFCC#3/3a) or possibly in other articles (per item 6 of WP:NFC); moreover, even if it were OK for that particular file, WP:OTHERIMAGE doesn't mean that it would be default OK to repeat that for other files in other articles. The "Treachery" article also uses external media as sort of an alternative form of presentation (NFCC#1) of non-free content so as to try and minimize non-free use instead of uploading those videos and adding them to the article. If each of these tweets had its own stand-alone article, like the "Treachery" painting, then it could possibly argued that the entire tweet (including the avatar) was needed for primary identification purposes in the article and also possibly that multiple uses of the same file in other stand-alone articles about individual tweets would be OK for the same reason. Furthermore, if the avatar itself had its own stand-alone article, then it would also seem appropriate to use it for primary identification purposes in the main infobox or at the top of that article. The question then would be whether any additional uses of the file (if there were any) within the bodies of those articles would be also be policy-compliant. "FFD" used to be "Files for deletion" before WP:PUF and WP:NFCR were merged into it, but it's now "Files for discussion". When it was "Files for deletion", it was mainly a question of "keep" vs. "delete"; however, in the case of "Files for discussion" and non-free content, outright deletion is only one possible option and removing a file from a particular article or removing a particular use from an article to make a file's non-free use compliant with relevant policy is also something to consider. I'm not really stating that the file needs to go altogether (even though that is an option), only that just a single use of the file in the article appears to be policy compliant and justifiable. -- Marchjuly (talk) 01:29, 1 December 2018 (UTC)
 * PMC wasn't making a point about image usage in the article The Treachery of Images, she was making a point about the painting itself by way of analogy. That point is: sometimes the full meaning of a text is only apparent because it is juxtaposed with an image. Without the effect of the juxtaposition, the meaning is either absent or incomplete; we have a door without a key. The Treachery of Images is an example of this semiotic phenomenon. Consider the isolated sentence "Ceci n'est pas une pipe". "This is not a pipe". OK... What is not a pipe? That doesn't mean much at all as a standalone sentence, it just signals that some empty referent—whatever "this" is—is "not a pipe". Now consider the painting. "This is not a pipe", underneath an image of a pipe. But that is a pipe... isn't it? It looks like a pipe—you know, a pipe used for smoking. Is Magritte (the artist) lying to us? Is he taking the piss? But wait a minute... Maybe Magritte's telling the truth. After all, it's not a pipe; it's an image of a pipe. Ohh, okay! So he's not lying; it's not really a pipe, after all. But even that is not the full meaning! The full meaning is achieved through the friction of the viewer's initial confusion ("but that is a pipe! isn't it?") giving way to realization ("oh wait... it's actually an image of a pipe"). Magritte's full meaning is subtextual; in juxtaposition, the subtext of the sentence sentence becomes clear. Note that it becomes clear, not is clear. What if Magritte had written "This is not a pipe, it's just an image of a pipe" under the image of the pipe? The meaning would be more literal, more obvious, but it would lose the profundity that can only be achieved in contemplation of an initially surreal or bizarre statement whose meaning is not self-evident. In other words, the meaning becomes clear in the hard work of thinking about what the juxtaposition means. The true message is "an image of a thing is not the thing itself; representation is not reality"—a message that seems obvious, yet we take it for granted at our peril, because it is all too easy to confuse mere representation with reality.PMC's point is that the juxtaposition between the text and the image is sometimes necessary to fully understand the text, as is the case for The Treachery of Images. Nothing about the painting as it is seen on Wikipedia, nothing about repetition of The Treachery of Images either; it's just cited as an illustrative example of that phenomenon of juxtaposition of image-text creating meaning that would not exist otherwise. Analogously, the meanings of dril's tweets are not self-evident and rarely literal. They're a sort of surreal form of microfiction, or perhaps aphorisms. When dril is first encountered by a reader on Twitter, his tweets are discovered by chance amidst the stream of all the other tweets. But the text either makes no sense or is seen, dimly, as an off-kilter joke. Each time you encounter one of his texts in its intended setting (whether on Twitter or in his book), that face is always there staring back at you. The short texts are never separated from the image. Over time, the persona afixed to the texts reminds us that the texts have a coherency. However strange and unrelated his messages are, they are at least linked by a unified voice.dril even had the opportunity to separate image from text when he published his book. He could have listed each tweet as text alone in a list, divorced from that image. Yet he didn't; even when he had total creative control and was untethered from the display requirements imposed on users at Twitter.com, he still made the decision to always juxtapose image and text. When we see one of his puzzling tweets, we always see the face; we remember the persona of dril, which accumulates in our mind, impression after impression, as a sort of un-self-aware male voice, emanating from some bizarro universe that is not quite our own. It is revealed gradually over time, and the face is the common thread that unites all the disparate messages. When the text of a dril tweet stands alone, it is naked and incomplete; the specter of the speaker, the reminder of the persona, is not there, the tone is not the same. For someone familiar with dril, it doesn't feel the same to read them that way. Thus, the juxtaposition of that blurry face—a slightly disassociated specter of Jack Nicholson, almost cartoonish, smiling smugly yet serenely back at the reader—is strongly suggestive and generates additional meaning that does not exist otherwise. Think of the image as though it were a character or grapheme, a rare emoji that only the author can type; his signature, not separate from his text, but fully part of every text, the face that announces his arrival.If the above doesn't make sense or sound implausible to you, that's fine. I'm explaining knowledge to you secondhand that you could only organically acquire by becoming a certain type of Twitter addict; to use another metaphor, listening to someone explain how to see the image hidden inside an autostereogram ("you have to relax and unfocus your eyes a certain way") is not the same thing as seeing the hidden image (can you see the three-dimensional shark hidden inside this seemingly random grid of colored dots?). You may or may not "get it" in the abstract, but that's the explanation all the same, and the explanation is no less true if you don't get it/don't see it yourself. The full meaning of dril's avatar is like an esoteric knowledge reserved for the so-called "extremely online", but its specificity does not make it less true. dril is niche, yes, but he is meant to be read a certain way. The Wikipedia is a place to read about dril, not to read dril directly, but we should faithfully quote him when we present and explain his most notable tweets. If we're trying to represent them fully and accurately, that does mean including the avatar. If we don't believe or understand the juxtaposition, then we don't see the purpose or informational benefit created when his short text is presented next to the avatar, and so repetition of the image fails NFCC#8. —BLZ · talk 03:08, 1 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia is technically a place to read about what reliable sources say about dril rather than just a place to read about dril. So, if reliable sources are discussing the avatar, then content about this discussion (e.g., the juxtaposition you refer to as it pertains to dril) can be added to the article and then a non-free image can possibly be added in support. If dril writing about himself or someone else writing about dril wants to use the avatar each time a tweet is referenced, then they can and it’s not really Wikipedia’s concern. I posted somewhere already in this discussion about this, but the mission of Wikipedia and the mission of dril or whomever are not the same. The WMF has laid this out this out in their Exemption Doctrine Policy resolution, and the NFCC are an attempt made by the (English) Wikipedia community to comply with that resolution. The EDP resolution is not start at unlimited fair use and then work backwards in restricting non-free content use; it’s start at zero non-free content use and then only allow it to be used as an exception when it complies with established policies. All of the stuff about the image-text juxtaposition may be a reasonable justification in a Wikipedia context for a single use of the avatar is this article (if that’s what reliable sources are saying and not just a WP:SYN or WP:OR interpretation of what people experience when reading dril’s tweets), but not for using it every time a tweet is added to the article, at least not in my opinion. — Marchjuly (talk) 04:23, 1 December 2018 (UTC)
 * I apologize if my behavior was perceived as canvassing. I only intended to remind two editors who are knowledgable of the subject matter that they had an opportunity to comment. I did not reach out to any other users who had edited the page, only these two. I was aware that you had notified ajf, but I was concerned that she may have missed the notice or not understood its significance. Routine, generic notices delivered by template are often skimmed over or ignored by Wikipedia users. I wanted to give her a more personal heads-up to impress upon her the importance of this discussion.
 * Please read these responses to points you've raised since my first comment:


 * —BLZ · talk 08:10, 29 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Forgive the random order of my response, but I'll try to address your comments without repeating myself too much. My comment about WP:DECORATIVE has to do with uses 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, and 7 . A single use of the avatar seems fine per WP:NFCC if it's the subject of sourced critical commentary or being used as a representative example of dril's tweeting style. Even a single use of the avatar in a tweet template would be OK since it could be seen as an example of everything you're saying about dril's avatar being his voice, etc. However, one use is more than sufficient to convey that information to the reader and the subsequent uses are in my opinion decorative and excessive.The content of the subsequent tweets can be added as a cited quote per MOS:QUOTE or using the tweet template, and can be understood just as well without the avatar in my opinion per NFCC#1; so yes, I think the first tweet example is probably not a problem per WP:FREER, but the subsequent examples are in my opinion.I'm not confusing NFCI and NFCC, so I'm not sure what makes you believe that. NFC#CS is an interpretation of NFCC#8 and how NFCC#8 has been applied to non-free content use in various FFD/WP:NFCR discussions over the years as well as various WP:MCQ and WT:NFCC discussions about non-free content use. This is not my personal interpretation, but an interpretation established by the community over a number of years; so, making reference to such a thing seems appropriate to me. The closing admin, whoever (whomever?) that turns out to be, will read through this discussion and evaluate what has been posted, and then base their close on which ones most closely reflect relevant policy. If my arguments are not really in sync with current policy, then they will be evaluated as such and not given as much weight as those which are.As for using avatars accompying a tweet, this may be the style adopted by various media outlets when reporting on or using tweets in articles, but again that doesn't mean Wikipedia needs to do the same. The goals/objectives/missions of media outlets like the NYT, etc. are not the same as Wikipedia's mission to produce perpetually free content for unlimited distribution, modification and application by all users in all media. The policies and guidelines of these media outlets regarding the use of non-free content were not developed in response to wmf:Resolution:Licensing policy. (Just for reference, there are quite a few other Wikipedia's which don't allow non-free content to be used at all) So, for (English) Wikipedia's purposes, one example of seeing the avatar together with critical commentary about it (e.g., why it was choosen, how it represents dril's voice, etc.) seems fine per the NFCCP, but there's no need for five additional examples of seeing the avatar since there's no real new encyclopedic information being provided to the reader in my opinion.We can continue to go back and forth on this, but will probably never convince the other to change their position. If others are swayed by your arguments and the consensus of this discussion turns out to be in favor of these additional uses, then the article will stay as is; if not, then the additional uses will either be removed or the file deleted altogether. -- Marchjuly (talk) 09:15, 29 November 2018 (UTC) [Note: Post amended by Marchjuly since the file in question is actually being used seven times, not six. -- 01:41, 30 November 2018 (UTC)]
 * "Furthermore, the threshold is not, strictly speaking, whether it is possible to understand the subject matter of the page by relying upon text alone, without the use of the image. Criterion 8 requires that the absence of the image "would be detrimental" to understanding the text. Thus, the issue is not whether the text alone can explain the concept at all, but whether it can explain it as well, without the image." — WP:DECORATIVE. —BLZ · talk 17:27, 29 November 2018 (UTC)


 * Delete There is only one non-free use rationale instead of the required separate, specific rationale for each use as required by NFCC#10c. Even if there were, NFCC #3 and #8 are not satisfied as explained by Marchjuly in more detail than I am going to go into. One use could be justified if there is critical commentary on the image itself, not the repetitive and unnecessary use in Tweet. Repeats of the iamge don't increase the reader's understanding of the article topic. —&thinsp;JJMC89&thinsp; (T·C) 05:23, 30 November 2018 (UTC)
 * I could create completely distinct non-free use rationales for each use; the reason I haven't done so is that the majority of points (e.g., Description, Source, Author, the fact that the image is low-resolution, etc.) would be wholly redundant. I estimate that each added rationale would repeat 10k–11k characters of text, without any need to change or tailor the repeated text for each use (after all, the author remains the same regardless of where I use the image on the page, right?), adding 70k characters to the image page. That said, I have named each use with specificity, explaining why those tweets are considered important within the scope of dril's writing and thus it's especially important to present those quotes as closely as possible to the style they are encountered (on Twitter itself, in most secondary sources as embedded tweets, and even in print) to enhance reader understanding.Regarding NFCC#3: that criterion requires that "[m]ultiple items ... are not used if one item can convey equivalent significant information." I've explained why each use conveys additional significant information: the juxtaposition of the image and text is essential to a full understanding of dril's voice and understanding dril's voice is essential to understanding those quotes, since they are of greater cultural import than other tweets on the page. NFCC#3 does not forbid multiple items outright, and it doesn't forbid multiple items where one item would suffice to convey some information; it only forbids multiple items where one item suffices to convey equivalent information.Regarding NFCC#8: you've said it's "repetitive", "unnecessary", and "don't increase the reader's understanding of the article topic". You also cite to Marchjuly's comments, saying that they have explained it better than you are willing to. I've had difficulty parsing Marchjuly's responses to see where he makes a case that the image fails NFCC#8; I understand that he doesn't like that it's used multiple times, but I don't see where he makes a case that the juxtaposition doesn't provide additional information. With respect, could you at least point me to which parts of Marchjuly's comments you found to be most on-point and persuasive? I understand that your time to consider this matter is limited, but I would greatly appreciate any extra insight into your perspective. —BLZ · talk 21:11, 30 November 2018 (UTC)
 * I've already posted a lot, so (trying once again to not repeat too much) I'll try to summarize. In my opinion, using the image one time in support of critical commentary about why dril chose it or how the avatar represents his choice of his "voice", etc. seems fine. Perhaps it could even be used in a a tweet template as an example of his twitter style. It could also be possibly be added as a fifth image to the Multiple image being used in dril where a comparison seems to be being made. However, a single use of the file is more than sufficient in my opinion to convey such information to the reader. I don't agree with your apparent assertion that the avatar should be seen each time a dril tweet is used in the article. The reader already understands from context that it's tweet made by dril, and can sufficiently understand the content of the tweet as well as any associated commentary about it without seeing the avatar each time; so, this is why I don't see any additional encyclopedic information being provided by these subsequent uses. Moreover, the argument in favor of this type of non-free use seems to imply (at least it seems that way to me) that if more tweets are added to the article, then the avatar would, of course, also need to be added as well for those tweets to be properly understood. Such an approach seems completely contrary to WP:NFCC (which encourages us to keep non-free content use minimal) and WP:NFCC (which encourages us to use free equivalents, text or alternative ways of presentation included, whenever possible). NFCC#3a may say "Minimal number of items", but that doesn't mean (again in my opinion) using a single item multiple times in the same article is OK just because it doesn't explicitly say it isn't. Seven files each being used once in the same article, and one file being used seven times in the same article amounts to (again in my opinion) the same amount of non-free use. So, if one of the goals of the NFCC is to keep non-free use minimal, then it needs to be assessed whether these additional items or uses are significant improvements to the reader's understand so that omitting them would be detrimental to that understanding. I don't think they are with respect to this file, but again that's just my opinion. -- Marchjuly (talk) 23:22, 30 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Delete as unnecessary to understanding the article's topic IAW the eighth non-free content criterion. —   fourthords  &#124; =Λ= &#124;  19:30, 30 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Can you articulate what, specifically, makes you feel that it is "unnecessary" to understanding the character's voice? I've made an affirmative case for why it is necessary for the select uses, citing secondary sources that comment on the nature of the character and the presentation of his text. No one has been able to argue why it's not necessary, other than to express their personal opinion on the matter, unmoored from any analysis of the context. I was wondering what made you feel this way—perhaps you found a secondary source on the topic that I had overlooked, for instance. —BLZ · talk 21:11, 30 November 2018 (UTC)
 * You don't need to "ping" me. Doing so won't accomplish anything, and my watchlist is still working. I didn't say anything about a character's voice, so I cannot elaborate on what you're asking.  Are you saying there are reliable sources that explicitly say this NFC is essential to understanding the topic?  If so, those sources should be implemented in the article alongside the image, and prose should be written to explain and summarize the sources.  —   fourthords  &#124; =Λ= &#124;  21:32, 30 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Apologies for the ping. I usually use them as a matter of course when replying and I didn't realize they could be seen as rude. —BLZ · talk 22:45, 30 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Oh no, I didn't interpret anything as rude. The Notifications system is simply disabled on my accounts, so attempting to use it for contacting me just won't work.  I was just letting you know in case you made further replies.  That's all; no hard feelings!  —   fourthords  &#124; =Λ= &#124;  16:04, 1 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Delete. BLZ asked me at my talk page to look here, and did so in a very thoughtful way, so I do not at all feel there was anything approaching canvassing. But when I looked at the page, the image is being used in order to reproduce a series of Twitter postings. The informational value of those postings resides in what they say, not in the way that they look. And there is already a comparable image in the infobox in the lead, so readers already know more or less what the avatar looks like. Also, we don't need to inform readers what Twitter postings look like. So what I would suggest is to present the words from those postings as block quotes or something like that. That would convey all of the needed information just as well, without a need for a non-free image. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:07, 30 November 2018 (UTC)
 * thank you for weighing in. Although naturally I'm disappointed in the conclusion you came to, I understand and appreciate your response. I feel I've made the most compelling case I could that the juxtaposition of avatar and tweet conveys additional tonal information in dril's case. That said, I can also see that this is a fairly novel application of fair-use rules, and displaying nonfree Twitter avatars is not a position that I'd advocate across the board wherever any tweet is quoted on Wikipedia (for instance, I don't think it would be necessary to use Donald Trump's copyrighted Twitter avatar when displaying his tweets at "Donald Trump on social media" because his tweets are not considered for the same literary qualities like tone). But it was always a sui generis case and it looks like consensus is tipping away from me.
 * For the record, the template does not require the use of an avatar image, so the only change to the page would be that the avatar would disappear; there'd be no need to rearrange the quotes themselves. Anyway, thank you to Ajf, since it was her idea to include it in the first place; I was initially felt hesitant to include the avatar before coming around to feeling that it was the right decision. Most of all, I'm going to mourn the time I spent fleshing out the "Author" section of the image rationale—I don't think anyone had gotten to the bottom of that image's origin before, and I'm proud of the work I did there to assess the copyright/rights-holder situation. But if this is it, so be it. Maybe Wario is a libertarian after all. —BLZ · talk 22:40, 30 November 2018 (UTC)

<div class="xfd_relist" style="border-top: 1px solid #AAA; border-bottom: 1px solid #AAA; padding: 0px 25px;"> Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 * Comment I'm replying to Marchjuly's comment above down here, for the sake of keeping the conversation somewhat tidy. In reply to your concern that "if more tweets are added to the article, then the avatar would, of course, also need to be added as well for those tweets to be properly understood". I think that does follow from my argument, although from my perspective the minimal use would still be achieved because the total number of blockquotes is naturally limited by the general standards at WP:QUOTEFARM. According to my view, the avatar is best understood as a coextensive part of the quote. But use of the avatar is reserved for the "significant" tweets, the ones that are blockquoted. The reason these tweets are being highlighted is that they are particularly significant within dril's oeuvre, for one reason or another, and have been subject to significant secondary commentary that merits discussion in the article. Thus a full understanding and contextual presentation is more vital for these tweets than it would be for less significant tweets that are quoted in-text (e.g., "how do i get cowboy paint off a dog .", which is mentioned in passing immediately following "no"). So from my position, if another one of his tweets were to cross that threshold of significance and warranted being quoted and discussed in the article text, that tweet would need to be accompanied the avatar by virtue of crossing that threshold of notability. If a tweet of his does not cross that threshold of notability, then in turn it's not essential for it to be presented in a fully native/natural manner that captures the image's affect.I wrote the above just to explain my overall view; I don't wish to argue at this point, only to be understood. As I noted in my reply to Tryptofish above, I'm willing to concede that my overall view is fairly novel and, it would seem, not a view that other Wikipedians are willing to accept at this time. One last point is that what I've advocated for dril is far from my POV on the inclusion of any and all Twitter avatars on Wikipedia. Even for other figures notable only through Twitter, most could not justify a repetition of a copyrighted avatar. It's based on my view of dril as a sui generis, quasi-literary figure, whose writings are typically surrealistic and bizarre (and thus are more in need of context clues like the avatar's expression than writings with self-evident meaning would be), for whom visuals are a key part of his work (he is an illustrator, after all), and whose avatar has achieved a rare iconic status recognized by several secondary sources. Needless to say, any one of those qualities (let alone all of them together) are absent for nearly all other Twitter users. I felt that the rareness and narrowness of this rationale might help, but in the end maybe it's too specific to be cognizable.With all that said: it looks like consensus is tipping away from me at this point, so it's just about time to be gracious in defeat. I'm happy to discuss how a full deletion can be avoided by reducing usage instead. Most users in this discussion have said that the image could be kept if the image is limited to one usage (at least 5 out of 9 users by my count, including the 3 unconditional "keep" voters). I think the best way to minimize use would be to use the avatar within one tweet, most logically the "no" tweet, the first one seen in the article. By virtue of its nondescript content, "no" most pressingly requires the avatar's presence to be understood and appreciated for what it is; even if the informational benefit of the image is not evident alongside the other tweets, I think the difference between image/no image is be clearer when the text alone simply reads "no". I'd also provide some sourced commentary about the Jack Nicholson avatar immediately below the "no" tweet. Since the "no" tweet is found in an introductory section, it would make sense to introduce and explain the avatar and its significance to the reader at that stage. It probably wouldn't be appropriate in the multi-image for the reason that the similarity between dril and those figures is not (strictly) a visual one, it's a holistic comparison of their character, voice (word choice, tone, etc.), and attitude. —BLZ · talk 01:22, 1 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Adding the file to the multiple images template seemed like it might work for both contextual and formatting reasons, but it was just a suggestion. In addition, if the consensus is to use the file in a tweet template, the first tweet (whichever one that is) that appears in the article might be the best place to do so. Is there a particular tweet where dril mentions his avatar or reveals it for the first time? Is there a particular tweet in which reliable source discussing dril first took note or commented on the avatar? These might also provide a way to try better incorporate the avatar and a tweet using it into the article; otherwise, the avatar could probably be simply added as simple file markup near any sourced critical commentary about it. The reason I think sourced critical commentary is important has to do with WP:VNT and WP:OR. Any unsourced claims or interpretations might be challenged or removed as being written in Wikipedia's voice; so, if article content relevant to the file is removed, then the connection between file and article content is also removed or at least severely weakened, which in turn could lead to the image also being challenged or removed. -- Marchjuly (talk) 02:04, 1 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Have you actually read my comments in full at any point in this process? You just said "the first tweet (whichever one that is) that appears in the article". Gosh, which one could that be? Go back and read the last paragraph of my last response. I've bolded the part that you would have seen if you'd read it; it's an idea I discuss for the next several sentences, elaborating on the reasons this would make the most sense, none of which you've responded to. Even if I interpret your message more generously, by "whichever one that is" you meant "the first-appearing tweet, even if that becomes a different one rather than 'no'". But that still wouldn't be responsive to what I said because it doesn't engage at all with the reasons that "no" in particular would be served by the avatar image. So I might as well have not said anything about that. Who cares.Instead, you veer wildly off-course to suggest looking for a dril tweet where he announces "hello world! starting today, my avatar is Jack Nicholson! hope you like it!" or a source proclaiming "today's dril tweet reminds us, more than ever, that his avatar is Jack Nicholson." As if either of those utterly banal hypothetical sources would do anything more than tick off some box. I've already said that his avatar has always been the same, and my position has been that the avatar is associated with all of his tweets, equally, in general. Why would I have said anything I've said up to now if there existed "the famous Jack Nicholson tweet", some silver bullet that contradicted my entire argument by isolating its importance to one tweet in particular?You can see I'm taking the time to write out my thoughts, to put forth an effort to convey ideas about a topic that matters to me, right? When you perform rote recitations of entry-level Wikipedia policy, you're talking down to me as if I have no familiarity or grasp of basic Wikipedia policy (hey look, I just pipe-linked a random WP essay inside of a sentence). When you reply in ways that show you haven't bothered to read what I've written, ot makes me feel like this whole effort is futile. No matter what I say, I'm talking to a brick wall. The fate of my work on this site is being decided by people who won't try to understand the topic or engage with me or think critically about how an article on an unfamiliar topic can or should be presented—work I've spent hours on, and the deciders have considered for perhaps a few idle minutes each. I'm trying to present this topic the best way I can, and I've spent a lot of time to do that; I may not be right about every decision I make, but I've thought really hard about the topic—and yes, site policy—to figure out how it should be done.I didn't want to break this whole process down, but this is extremely discouraging. I have to pray that you'll read one out of every three lines I write every time I reply—I'm unsure whether this will be one of the ones you read, or just half-read as you prepare to fire off another round of WP:SOMETHINGs at me. Let's just delete the image already if you care so little. Right now it just feels like we're just going to circle the drain: my words will go in one ear and out the other, you'll continue talking down to me; we'll eventually arrive at some tepid solution, only for you to decide "hmm well, that doesn't exactly conform to my interpretation of WP:WHATEVER" anyway. I'd rather rip the bandaid off and end this literalistic discussion than continue wasting time like this. —BLZ · talk 06:00, 1 December 2018 (UTC)
 * tl;dr: My position has always been that omitting the image would remove an informational benefit and be a detriment to reader understanding, so what we're discussing are hypothetical compromises where a detriment is introduced to the page. If this conversation isn't going to be productive anyway—if even my attempts to mitigate the damage are received by a brick wall—why should I care which specific detrimental form the change takes? It's a waste my time and yours. I'm out. Delete. Whatever. Thank you so much for improving the encyclopedia by removing my imminently harmful and ever-so-clear violation of policy. —BLZ · talk 06:09, 1 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Delete – The uses slightly reinforce the fact they appear in simulated tweets. But this does not significantly increase reader understanding of the article topic as required by NFCC#8. The fact that the New York Times includes the avatar is not relevant, for they have to comply only with fair use law—not NFCC. If reliable sources have discussed the avatar itself, and if paraphrase of that discussion were added as sourced commentary in the article (I don’t see it there now), then we might consider whether a use of the avatar adjacent to that sourced commentary would significantly increase understanding of the commentary. But frankly I doubt even that would be helpful given the small size and low resolution of the image. —teb728 t c 09:21, 1 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Keep per User:Brandt Luke Zorn's analysis, which is both extremely thorough and wholly convincing. ——  SerialNumber  54129  11:12, 1 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Are you suggesting the file should be kept for all seven current uses, some of these uses, or just one use? All are possible outcomes, so it would help to know which one you support. -- Marchjuly (talk) 12:02, 1 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Keep and use but once in the article. Playing Solomon, I do think that the avatar is essential to conveying the meaning here (Anyone remember The medium is the message?) but the multiple uses are only incrementally more helpful than one; so minimally so as to be unjustifiable. Xymmax So let it be written   So let it be done  18:55, 3 December 2018 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 07:19, 4 December 2018 (UTC) All rights reserved. This book or any portion thereof may not be reproduced, used, or looked upon by human eyes under any circumstance whatsoever, lest you be crushed like a rat by the full fury of God our lord.
 * Given a new opportunity to talk about this image, I want to stress some new angles. I emphasize that I believe this image and its current usage meet all 10 criteria of WP:NFCCP, and that if it is judged not to meet all 10 of those criteria by the community at large, it would be far better to delete the image altogether than to keep it hobbling along in a different, incomplete usage. It's certainly not worth the time to haggle and dispute to arrive at some jury-rigged usage that had not been envisioned at the outset, at least in my judgment.
 * This image upload is a great example of Wikipedia's collaborative spirit: I created and wrote the majority of the article dril (about the Twitter user), but the image (the user's avatar) was uploaded by ajf to accompany quoted tweets within the article. Although I had considered the possibility of doing so, it was only after ajf was bold that I realized that this was the correct move, had been the correct move all along, and that my prior, more conservative attempts to approximate the image's effect had been a disservice to the reader.
 * So, again: while I stress that I believe the image meets all 10 criteria of WP:NFCCP, and I will gladly answer any questions about any individual criterion, I want to refocus attention on one in particular: WP:NFCC.
 * WP:NFCC: "Non-free content is not used in a manner that is likely to replace the original market role of the original copyrighted material." Why do I raise this criterion, why now? It has not been raised in the conversation up until this point. I think there's a strikingly obvious reason that it's been sidestepped: this is the single criterion that the image most readily meets. Now, I'm not attempting to argue that just become the image meets just one criterion that it therefore deserves to survive on that basis alone. However, I think that examination of this criterion may give some helpful perspective to the overall conversation. If we consider this criterion thoughtfully, we may avoid unneeded conflict when considering other criteria.
 * In any non-free content discussion, an important factor is the respect for the rights-holder's opportunities to make commercial use of the image. The policy is this way whether I justify it or not, but let's examine why Wikipedia/Wikimedia sets this criterion. It makes sense because it goes to the heart of why there's such a thing as intellectual property law at all: we (society, the government, whoever) have decided it's important to reward creative innovators in the sciences and arts with a limited monopoly over their content so that they may reap the rewards of their efforts. It's easy to copy ideas, so we decided if you make a brand-new idea, you should get to sell it without others being able to freely "steal" the idea.
 * We come now to the question of the "original market role of the original copyrighted material": the original market role of dril's avatar. Before we go any further, the image is (I would argue) a transformative derivative work. After all, dril's avatar is a modification of a photo portrait of Jack Nicholson taken by Martin Schoeller (see the "Author or copyright owner" section of Dril.jpg for more info, since I did bother to track it down). So as a preliminary matter, dril's avatar is not a wholly original work of art: it is a parody, or otherwise transformed artwork (via effects like blurring, compression, etc), adapted from an uncontroversially copyrighted artwork (the original photo portrait). Side note: if we were to include only one iteration of the image, as has been (very) tentatively proposed, it would make far more sense for it to be a version of Martin Schoeller's original photo portait of Jack Nicholson that dril appropriated, not dril's highly blurred and over-compressed avatar.
 * dril uploaded this avatar, this transformative work of art, to Twitter. As such, it is subject to Twitter's terms of service, including the following terms:
 * By submitting, posting or displaying Content on or through the Services, you grant [Twitter] a worldwide, non-exclusive, royalty-free license (with the right to sublicense) to use, copy, reproduce, process, adapt, modify, publish, transmit, display and distribute such Content in any and all media or distribution methods (now known or later developed). This license authorizes us to make your Content available to the rest of the world and to let others do the same. You agree that this license includes the right for Twitter to provide, promote, and improve the Services and to make Content submitted to or through the Services available to other companies, organizations or individuals for the syndication, broadcast, distribution, promotion or publication of such Content on other media and services, subject to our terms and conditions for such Content use. Such additional uses by Twitter, or other companies, organizations or individuals, may be made with no compensation paid to you with respect to the Content that you submit, post, transmit or otherwise make available through the Services.
 * Now, these terms are not to be mistaken as a forfeit of an author's copyright, nor are they a free license like Creative Commons. However, they are an important indicator of the—look at this, I'm going back to Wikipedia policy language!—"original market role of the original copyrighted material." What Twitter policy indicates is that rights-holders uploading their works to Twitter should be prepared to have their works reproduced without compensation, not just by Twitter but by other entities. Described by Twitter policy in general terms, these entities would presumably include (1) retweeters who are not part of Twitter Inc. itself but whom are incidentally using Twitter as a platform and (2) wholly non-Twitter and off-Twitter entities who embed or otherwise republish/adapt content originally published on Twitter.
 * What does the above mean? That dril did not reasonably expect to profit off of the mere republication of his avatar, which he freely uploaded to Twitter and could thus reasonably expect (under the terms of service, at least) to be republished by Twitter or virtually anywhere (not without limits, but in principle, virtually anywhere) without compensation.
 * Again, that fact alone does not extinguish dril's right to profit off the avatar. But when he did have an opportunity to profit off the avatar and assert his copyright, what did he do? A few months ago, dril self-published the book Dril Official "Mr. Ten Years" Anniversary Collection, a printed compilation of his 1500 "best" tweets, each alongside his avatar (minus 70 tweets presented alongside a new original illustration). That book contains the following copyright notice:
 * © 2018 DRIL
 * Note that dril asserts, at a base level, ownership over his work under copyright law. This is not in dispute. However, beyond his bare assertion of rights-holding, his copyright notice devolves into characteristic surreal nonsense: not only are reproductions and "uses" (of any kind, apparently) outright forbidden, but no "human eyes" may regard his work "under any circumstance whatsoever." Under what penalty? Reproductions, uses, or humans whose eyes may have seen this work shall be "crushed like a rat by the full fury of God our lord." So no one can use or even look at his work, and as an enforcement mechanism, God will strike reproducers, users, and lookers down as vermin. This is all clearly nonsense; not only nonsense, but a parodic disavowal of the seriousness or import of copyright notices. Clearly, dril doesn't care all that much about reproduction, use, or viewing of his work. Again, the work is formally copyrighted, there's no doubt about that. But when it comes to—get ready, I'm about to hit you with Wikipedia policy language in its original unadulterated setting—the "original market role of the original copyrighted material," it's clear that dril is not that much concerned with rigorous enforcement of their copyright or compensation for its reproduction, use, or viewing. To the extent that he is, this image is low-resolution under WP:NFCC and does not interfere with dril's ability to make commercial use of the image. Combine this with the original, basic Twitter license.
 * All of this is to say: not even multiple reproductions within a single webpage are at all likely to replace the original market role of the original copyrighted material. Indeed, multiple uncompensated reproductions within a single webpage—even a webpage hosted outside of Twitter.com—are explicitly contemplated under Twitter's license. And when dril had the chance to assert a more rigorous—or at least, an ordinarily rigorous—copyright, he instead deferred and made a joke. What should that tell us? That frankly, the stakes of this conversation are not so high. This is not a major publisher breathing down Wikipedia's neck. This is a single user of one social media site with fairly lax terms of service. This user may have achieved some remarkable notability and critical commentary, but frankly it's not disastrous to their commercial interest in their work if it's reproduced a few extra times within a single webpage. It was explicitly contemplated by Twitter that such reproduction would freely happen, and Twitter didn't even think of all the other safeguards Wikipedia put in place (the other 9 criteria of WP:NFCCP—for example, Twitter doesn't care what resolution others use to republish dril or any other user's content, while Wikipedia makes sure it is low-resolution.) Indeed, reproducing the image multiple times within the article is more likely to enhance, rather than detract, from understanding of the rights-holder's work, per my arguments elsewhere on WP:NFCC; using the image only once, or not at all, would more likely detract from readers' understanding of the subject matter. —BLZ · talk 09:32, 4 December 2018 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. <b style="color:red">Please do not modify it.</b> 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:Ponglomerape Logo.png
<div class="boilerplate ffd vfd xfd-closed" style="background-color:#f3f9ff; margin:1em 0 0 0; padding:0 10px 0 10px; border:1px solid #aaa;">
 * 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: Withdrawn. Per comment by User:Salavat. (non-admin closure) Ifnord (talk) 00:27, 5 December 2018 (UTC)
 * File:Ponglomerape Logo.png ([ delete] | talk | [ history] | links | [ logs]) &#x20;– uploaded by Wadeshida ( [ notify] | contribs | uploads | upload log).

Non-free image (logo) not used in any article. Ifnord (talk) 18:22, 4 December 2018 (UTC)
 * , unused non-free files should be tagged with subst:orfud (orphaned non-free images) instead of being listed here at FFD. Orhaned non-free files will then be deleted within seven days. Salavat (talk) 23:58, 4 December 2018 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. <b style="color:red">Please do not modify it.</b> 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:IT&
<div class="boilerplate ffd vfd xfd-closed" style="background-color:#f3f9ff; margin:1em 0 0 0; padding:0 10px 0 10px; border:1px solid #aaa;">
 * 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 A file with this name on Commons is now visible. AnomieBOT ⚡ 02:02, 12 December 2018 (UTC)
 * <span class="plainlinks nourlexpansion lx ffd-file" id="File:IT&#39;S RED....! (GAZE-VI) Oil painting by Rajasekharan.jpg">File:IT& ([ delete] | talk | [ history] | links | [ logs]) &#x20;– uploaded by Rajasekharan Parameswaran ( [ notify] | contribs | uploads | upload log).

The Commons file this shadows,, is a more complete picture and is newer, leaving this cropped duplicate unnecessary. Steel1943 (talk) 21:54, 4 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Delete, redundant to Commons file. Salavat (talk) 23:59, 4 December 2018 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. <b style="color:red">Please do not modify it.</b> 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.