Wikipedia:Non-free content review/Archive 45

File:Ff3cover.jpg

 * The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

This image is the Japanese cover for original release of Final Fantasy III. I'm planning to have File:Final Fantasy III Nintendo DS.jpg undeleted if anybody here agrees to replace the infobox image with the newer NDS box cover art. George Ho (talk) 20:02, 9 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Knowing the VG project guides for covers, you will need to check if that's right. We generally go with the first published cover image, not the most modern, unless there's some reason that the newer one may be better. --M ASEM (t) 21:08, 9 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Discussing in Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Square Enix. --George Ho (talk) 22:40, 9 February 2014 (UTC)


 * The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

File:Jimihendrix1969mug.jpg

 * The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

I am nominating this file for NFCR because its fair-use at Jimi Hendrix has been challenged. A recent FFD discussion (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Files_for_deletion/2014_January_8#File:Jimihendrix1969mug.jpg) was closed as no consensus, and an ongoing RfC at the Hendrix talk page has reached the point of diminishing returns.


 * Primary concerns
 * NFCC#3: There are currently six non-free files in use at Jimi Hendrix.
 * NFCC#4: There is no concrete evidence that this file has ever been published by, or with permission from, the copyright holder. In fact, the identity of the copyright holder has not yet been conclusively established.
 * NFCC#8: The photo is not the subject of any critical commentary in the article or in reliable secondary sources. Hendrix's arrest is extensively covered by RSs and in the article, but no explicit mention of the actual image can be found in any reliable secondary sources.

At the recent FFD, there was no clear consensus to delete. There also is currently no clear consensus to remove the image at Jimi Hendrix. Is this file appropriate for use in Jimi Hendrix? GabeMc (talk&#124;contribs)  16:51, 2 February 2014 (UTC)


 * To add a few things that have come up over and over in the discussion (but otherwise I'm going to stay out of providing an opinion):
 * The photo appears to have been taken by the Toronto Police on the arrest charges, and best as I've read Ontario law, it falls under crown copyright (unlike where in the US these may be PD by nature) - but if anyone can prove this free, this would help.
 * There is some knowledge that Jimi, coming to Toronto from a concern the day before (and wearing those clothes, including a deep purple vest, as in the shot), was like most other musicians at the time aware of drug busts, that Jimi at the time was avoiding drugs after previous experience, and he and his band took precautions but they still found something to make the arrest. There was comment that his outfit was "loud" in the subsequent court hearing. I note that I asked the closer at FFD to expand and they pointed to this aspect as a possible reason the file to be kept and thus closed no consensus for the talk page to determine it. --M ASEM (t) 17:13, 2 February 2014 (UTC)


 * Oppose inclusion per NFCC#3, 4, and 8. The image is not the subject of any critical commentary in the Wikipedia article; ZERO. There isn't even one reliable secondary source that discusses the photograph; NONE. The debate really should end there, IMO. In fact, no reliable secondary sources have been identified that even acknowledge that the mugshot exists. The file should be removed from Wikipedia until such a time that reliable secondary sources are identified that critically discuss the image, and critical commentary is added to the Wikipedia article giving the file contextual significance. GabeMc  (talk&#124;contribs)  17:06, 2 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Oppose inclusion It is a "cute picture" but on the issue of being essential to the article, it fails miserably. So far, no one has seriously disputed that it is "non-free" and thus on policy grounds it pretty much fails any test for inclusion. Collect (talk) 17:22, 2 February 2014 (UTC)
 * If it isn't free it can't be included. That's what your last sentence is saying. Correct? The purpose of this board is not to determine whether or not the image is free, as we are assuming that it is not. The purpose here is to confirm whether or not it meets the NFCC; the tests for inclusion. Doc   talk  05:20, 5 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Actually one purpose of this board is to consider if non-free may actually be free and thus removing the issues of NFCC with the image. I know this confirmation process is going on but until we get that word back, we have to assume the image is non-free. --M ASEM  (t) 05:54, 5 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Support Inclusion I support the retention and inclusion of this image for all the reasons I gave in the previous discussions which I include herein by reference. I have also contacted the Toronto Police Service directly and have been informed by Constable Victor Kwong, the Service's Media Relations Officer, that all booking photographs are produced by the Forensic Identification Services Unit to which he would forward my inquiry and then report back to me whether or not this image is subject to Crown Copyright protection, and if so whether it has been released to the Public Domain or is otherwise now free. Centpacrr (talk) 04:03, 3 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Support inclusion The Wikimedia Foundation's March 23, 2007 Resolution:Licensing policy does not forbid non-free images, if used for example, "to illustrate historically significant events". Our guideline on Non-free content states that otherwise compliant "Iconic and historical images which are not subject of commentary themselves but significantly aid in illustrating historical events may be used judiciously". I believe that the event is historic, the image is both iconic and historic, and that its use in this case is judicious.


 * Coverage in many Hendrix biographies shows that the arrest and trial were "historic". A respected biography by Shapiro devotes at least seven pages to the events, reporting that during the seven month period, Hendrix was "looking as if there was a plane crash" and "Jimi had a Sword of Damocles hanging over him for the rest of the year." Bandmate Noel Redding's autobiography reports that "the bust knocked any positive feelings Jimi was holding onto out of him" and that he "spent nearly nine months in agonised suspense before being acquitted". A lengthy 2012 article in The Torontoist makes it clear that his attire when arrested was noted as the subject of testimony at his trial, as did coverage in the Globe and Mail, December 9, 1969. This seven month period was important in a career as a major star that lasted only four years. The successful defense theory that he did not know that illegal drugs were in his luggage was bolstered by testimony that his attention seeking behavior at the airport including his attire was inconsistent with a heroin user smuggling drugs, as was the lack of drug paraphernalia and absence of needle tracks on his arms, all of which were discussed by reliable sources. The mugshot shows the attire that was the subject of that testimony seven months later. Jimi Hendrix now includes twelve sentences about the arrest and trial, and discusses the attire when he was arrested. This mugshot is the only known image that directly relates to this arrest and trial.


 * As for the iconic and historic status of this mugshot, this image appears on the cover of a book about mugshots by Pellicer. This book has been reviewed by the New York Times, which mentioned Hendrix first among sixteen famous people included in the book. It is also published in at least two books about Hendrix, one by Roby and the other by Jucha. An original print of the mugshot was auctioned at Christie's for $14,400 in 2006.


 * The image appears in professionally edited websites like The Torontoist, The Smoking Gun and Complex Style which says "Jimi's trippy gear was on full display in the ensuing mugshot." It has inspired works by artists such as Mary Gibney, Brent Ray Fraser and Rachel Schmeidler.


 * has called into question the the theory that the mugshot is copyrighted, stating in part at Talk:Jimi Hendrix that "Mugshots are defined as public records in Canada under §2 of The Municipal Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act (R.S.O. 1990, CHAPTER M.56)" and "When the authors in question are legally obligated to perform their creative effort, the Patents and Copyright Clause does not authorize a copyright," quoting a Canadian copyright law expert.


 * I have ordered copies of all the books that I have mentioned here.  Cullen 328  Let's discuss it  06:20, 3 February 2014 (UTC)


 * Support inclusion per Cullen who does an excellent and convincing job of reasoning and presenting the facts. Jus  da  fax   07:13, 3 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Obvious remove unless it can conclusively be proven free as it would not be detrimental to readers' understanding of the article to do so. It does not matter how "historical" it is. ✄ (talk) 12:51, 3 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Keep (and support continued inclusion). I am not impressed with the tactics that have been used to get rid of this image one little bit. Saying that it fails #4, or that if it isn't proven free that it can never be included, do not address the few NFCC points that can actually be argued against the image. The arrest "mental image", if you will, is well-documented, and I feel it would be detrimental to the reader's understanding (on the level of visual impact) to delete the image of this deceased individual where no reasonable substitute can be provided. Unless it can be shown that it significantly fails NFCC #2, I see no reason why an FU claim is not valid on all points for this image. Doc   talk  04:26, 4 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Straw-man. You say "unless it significantly fails NFCC2", defeat that argument (reasonably so; I agree the image passes #2) and then say that the image should be retained because of that. It doesn't work that way. Images must pass all the NFCCs, not just the ones you like. ✄ (talk) 09:59, 6 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Oppose inclusion -- per GabeMc. Unnecessarily Infringes copyright and offers very little in encyclopaedic value.   Cassianto Talk   00:46, 5 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Your statement at the "RfC", "As the image is copyrighted, it fails NFCC and therefore should not be included" is 100% incorrect. Have you even read the policy? "Other non-free content—including all copyrighted images, audio and video clips, and other media files that lack a free content license—may be used on the English Wikipedia only where all 10 of the following criteria are met." The claim that it is copyright infringement is also completely incorrect. Doc   talk  04:37, 5 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Oh dear, I suspect that if I had of supported in your favour, then you would have been content rather than initiate an argument both here and on my talk page. I shall say it again; the image is not free and it's use cannot be justified as other free images exist.  This image offers nothing in encyclopaedic value, is unattractive (IMO), fails to explain to the reader ANYTHING about Hendrix other than that he was in trouble with the police and because of those things, its inclusion somewhere in the depths of the article cannot be justified for its use under fair use.  You need to accept that.   Cassianto Talk   08:39, 5 February 2014 (UTC)
 * So it fails #1, #5, and #8. I does not "infringe" on copyright, unless you want to add #2. Where "attractiveness" for an image comes into play, I'm not sure. That seems mighty... subjective to interpretation. Doc   talk  08:53, 5 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Where did I say that unattractiveness was part on the criteria? Don't be impertinent.  Cassianto Talk   09:16, 5 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Support inclusion It was kept at the FfD for good reason as it passes all NFCC criteria and the assertion that it has "little encyclopedic value" is contradicted by the sources. Alanscottwalker (talk) 02:18, 5 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Do you mean the sources that describe the arrest, or the sources that describe the actual mugshot? Because I'll bet you a barnstar you cannot produce even one reliable secondary source that acknowledges the existence of the mugshot with in-line text. Books describe the arrest, but not the mugshot. GabeMc  (talk&#124;contribs)  02:22, 5 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Hey,, what part of "Iconic and historical images which are not subject of commentary themselves but significantly aid in illustrating historical events may be used judiciously" do you not understand?  Cullen 328  Let's discuss it  06:03, 5 February 2014 (UTC)
 * , once again are you casting doubt on the intelligence/comprehension skills of those who disagree with you, which is a cowardly tactic, IMO! I understand perfectly well what you are claiming, but I think your claim that this image is historical is patently absurd and embarrassingly self-serving. Of all the images of Hendrix, this is the absolutely least historical. Maybe that's why its only in two books about Hendrix and only one book about mugshots. The image is not historical, but if it was then you should be able to present a reliable source or two that actually describes it as such. Can you? Do any reliable secondary sources describe the image as historical? GabeMc  (talk&#124;contribs)  15:51, 5 February 2014 (UTC)


 * Continuing to object to the inclusion of this image on the specious grounds that "secondary sources" may not "acknowledge the existence of a mugshot" is both a red herring and a false tautology. The taking of mug shots (technically called a "booking photographs" or "arrest photographs") is a standard and mandated (either by statute, ordinance, or departmental regulation) element of the booking process in every jurisdiction in the United States and Canada (and most of the rest of the world) the purpose of which it to visually document how the arrested individual appeared at the time of his or her arrest. The fact that an arrest photograph of Mr. Hendrix was taken and exists thus comes under the category of assumed general knowledge and therefore a statement of those facts do not need to be specifically included in the text of the article beyond its caption any more than the fact he was assumed to have been a living human being, or that having been born in Seattle, WA, that he was a natural born US citizen. Centpacrr (talk) 06:58, 5 February 2014 (UTC)
 * To correct Alanscottwalker, it was "no consensus" at FFD. This is different from saying a "keep" at FFD. --M ASEM (t) 07:08, 5 February 2014 (UTC)
 * "No consensus to delete" in an FFD results in "not deleting" the image which is constructively the same thing as "keep" as the outcome is that the image is retained. Centpacrr (talk) 07:27, 5 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Yes, the default is to keep according to WP:NOCONSENSUS. This is further backed up by the Files for deletion/Administrator instructions, i.e.: "If the decision is Keep (including any variant such as "Redirect" or "No Consensus")...". No consensus is thusly described as a "variant" of Keep. Doc   talk  07:31, 5 February 2014 (UTC)
 * My point is that if the FFD closed "keep" it would be considered pointy to try to challenge that in other venues. A close of "no consensus" means that challenging the photo is still a completely legitimate option and not pointy. Mechanically, the result is like a "keep", but from process side, it is important to remember it was a "no consensus", not "keep" close. --M ASEM  (t) 15:50, 5 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Well, then don't try to correct my comment, when it already is correct. The image was kept, at the FfD, within reason and process. As for whether it makes sense to have the same conversation over, and over again, that seems doubtful. Alanscottwalker (talk) 16:54, 5 February 2014 (UTC)
 * "It was kept at the FfD for good reason as it passes all NFCC criteria" is a false statement, as neither "no consensus" nor the closer's additional comments support that statement, and is attempting to swing the discussion incorrectly. The FFD closed no consensus, period, with the closer recommending further discussion as a content-level discussion to determine to keep it or not. That's the accurate statement. --M ASEM (t) 17:06, 5 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Your the one making false statements. The image was kept at the close of the FfD, which is of course why it is still on the pedia, and it was kept pursuant to Wikipedia policy and process. The arguments for keep were that it passed all NFCC criteria, and those arguments were reasoned and supported by evidence - and deletion did not occur because of those arguments.  It is clear you don't like that outcome, but that was the outcome, as anyone can still see the image to this day on Wikipedia, as they have for the last many years.  -- Alanscottwalker (talk) 18:23, 5 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Absolutely wrong, this type of logic is not supported by policy. A FFD close of "no consensus" means that the closer was unsure if consensus was there to justify that all NFCC points were made, and that editors are free to re-challenge if the image should be deleted. Only a close of "keep" would have made it clear that all NFCC criteria were passed and that re-challenging that would be pointy and improper. Do not pretend that a "no consensus" keep is the same as validating that NFCC was met; the NFCC rationale remains in question. --M ASEM (t) 18:27, 5 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Many of your arguments are regularly absurd for the very reason that you are apparently unable to accept that others have different views. Here, the image was, under process and policy, kept on Wikipedia at the close of the FfD. Period. Anyone can see it, right now on Wikipedia.  -- Alanscottwalker (talk) 20:45, 5 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Absolutely, fundamentally wrong and shows a lack of understanding of the xFD processes. "No consensus" at FFD does not mean the closer has endorsed the image meets all NFCC criteria, only that whether it meets or doesn't meet is unclear and, in this case, the image is retained to allow more discussion as determined by the closer. If it was explicitly closed with a "Keep" rational, then what you are saying is true, but it was not. It was closed with a "No consensus". Do not keep pretending that it was a "Keep" closure. --M ASEM (t) 21:12, 5 February 2014 (UTC)
 * The file was kept on Wikipedia at the close of the FfD, so you are the one with a fundamental misunderstanding of the reality. Stop pretending it is otherwise. Alanscottwalker (talk) 22:05, 5 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Where in the closer's rational did "Keep" come up as the closing decision? That is the only way an xFD can be considered "closed as 'keep'", which is what you are trying to argue. Just because the image is retained due to a "no consensus" close does not equate to the same weight that as "keep" close does. This is a fundamental aspect of xFDs. --M ASEM (t) 22:10, 5 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Because the closer kept the file per the default, which was the exact same result from the previous FfD discussion, so FfD 1 and FfD 2 both resulted in keeping the file for use on Wikipedia. This result is well within Wikipedia policy and practice. Alanscottwalker (talk) 23:44, 5 February 2014 (UTC)
 * You clearly have no clue of the different between what "Keep" closes and "No consensus" closes are, in terms of how that impacts any further discussions about the nature of the file. All three AFD (this recent one and the two previous) were closed "No consensus" so there has never been a point where the consensus and admin close has said this file met NFCC or fails NFCC. That is what "no consensus" means. Just because the file was kept does not infer NFC was met, just as a "no consensus" decision at AFD does not mean the article passes notability guidelines or other concerns. You are twisting policy to try to invalidate this discussion. --M ASEM (t) 00:05, 6 February 2014 (UTC)
 * You clearly have no clue about what effect the default has, as it means the file is kept in constant use for years on Wikipedia pursuant to Wikipedia policy, because those who contend that it must to be removed have failed repeatedly to convince as a matter of the Wikipedia editors' consensus that it somehow needs to be deleted under policy. Alanscottwalker (talk) 01:46, 6 February 2014 (UTC)
 * The onus on making sure NFCC is met is on those wanting the keep the image; just because a FFD closed as "no consensus" with the file retained does not meant that consensus has determined that NFCC has been met, per WP:NFCCE. --M ASEM (t) 01:51, 6 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Again, MASEM, your position here seems to me to be a false tautology. As in legal procedure, the burden of achieving consensus in any deletion nomination must to assumed to be on the proponent of the action (i.e. removing an image or text) as, per WP:NOCONSENSUS, the failure to meet that burden in deletion discussions "...results in the article, image, or other content being kept." If the burden were on those who favored retention as opposed to deletion, no consensus would result instead in the content being deleted, not kept. Centpacrr (talk) 09:55, 6 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Just to clarify, as the closer of the FFD, Masem is absolutely correct here. "No consensus" meant just that—that there was no consensus either to keep or delete the file. The file was kept, but not because there was consensus to do so. To say that the file was kept per FFD is technically accurate but misleading. Masem is better representing the spirit of what that close meant. Regardless, I would urge editors here not to go off topic, i.e., stick to the question of the image's fair use in the article, rather than its previous FFD. --BDD (talk) 21:59, 6 February 2014 (UTC)


 * Update. - I just received my copy of Mug Shots: An Archive of the Famous, Infamous, and Most Wanted by Raynal Pellicer and it does not mention the mugshot with any in-line text. There is absolutely zero critical commentary directed at the image, and all it says about the trial is: "Hendrix stated in his defense that [the drugs] had been put there without his knowledge". There is no mention of his attire, and no mention of the actual image. GabeMc  (talk&#124;contribs)  22:36, 5 February 2014 (UTC)
 * As you have already conceded, "Iconic and historical images which are not subject of commentary themselves but significantly aid in illustrating historical events may be used judiciously". At least three books include the image when discussing the arrest and trial, at least three professionally edited websites include the image when discussing the arrest and trial, and at least three artists have used the image as inspiration for their works. The image meets the threshold, as it is historic, iconic and its use is judicious.  Cullen 328  Let's discuss it  05:30, 6 February 2014 (UTC)
 * There's no mention of these artists in the article in the section about the arrest, so citation needed. Also, what other sources do with images do not matter to us as they only have to worry about fair use; we have a stricter requirement of minimizing non-free. --M ASEM  (t) 05:59, 6 February 2014 (UTC)
 * There is absolutely no need to mention these artists in the article,, as the fact that these artists have used this image as source material is proffered only as evidence that the image itself meets the threshold as "iconic". Repeating an earlier point: Some images are more iconic and more historic than others. That does not mean that a somewhat less iconic image is not iconic, just because a highly iconic image is indisputably iconic. To me, the fact that the image has been published in books decades later, and used to illustrate the most comprehensive recent journalistic coverage of the arrest and trial (The Torontoist) published decades later, and used as source material by at least three artists creating works decades later, all adds up to iconic status for the image. Others clearly disagree, and my opinion on the matter has been derided by an editor who is determined to delete. Judging whether or not an image is "iconic" or "historic" does not involve rubber stamp criteria. Our goal of minimizing non-free usage is an admirable one, but that minimization involves weighing subjective judgments and informed personal opinions. And the WMF's resolution on this matter clearly does not forbid usage of non-free images in all cases. And the English Wikipedia's guidelines clearly allow usage of otherwise compliant iconic, historic images, even in the absence of critical commentary. Selection and inclusion of an image in multiple reliable sources covering an historic event is evidence of critical editorial judgment even when detailed discussion of the image itself is lacking. I have contributed to this project productively for a long time, though rarely in the NFCC area. My opinion is just as worthy as that of an editor bound and determined to eliminate the image from Wikipedia. But my opinion here has been characterized as "cowardly" and "patently absurd and embarrassingly self-serving", as if I was an idiot who was making money off the image (which I'm not). Those are the harshest accusations made against me in my 4-1/2 years of contributing to this encyclopedia. I see that NFCC screenshots of video games and other video media are routinely allowed in featured articles without any debate and not even a shred of critical commentary on those specific images. And then I see that usage of the only known image clearly illustrating an historic arrest and trial documented to have had a major impact on an exceptionally famous person is assailed, criticized, rejected, and taken from forum to forum to forum in an ongoing battle to delete - well, it is disheartening. Where has the WMF mandated that this is the path that we ought to take? Because I simply don't see it in the March 23, 2007 resolution.  Cullen 328   Let's discuss it  06:52, 6 February 2014 (UTC)
 * If you refuse to provide prove with sourcing that that image is considered iconic, then we can't even begin to consider it an iconic image, period. Original research and personal interpretation apply to image rationales as they apply to prose. --M ASEM (t) 07:02, 6 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Speaking to the general silence regarding video game screenshots (a hypocrisy I decry and maintain to be totally uneven), we have only NFCI#6: "Screenshots from software products: For critical commentary." This pitifully vague blanket rationale lets us include countless copyrighted images that have no place here, particularly in FAs. It's a total joke. The first sentence of NFCI#8 is no more valid than the second sentence of the NFCI#8. Doc   talk  07:15, 6 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Your insistence,, that usage of an image in reliable sources over decades does not show the image to be "iconic", and that what is required is a reliable source calling the image "iconic", is completely illogical when the guideline as written allows "Iconic and historical images which are not subject of commentary themselves". How else can we determine the iconic status of such images lacking commentary other than by analyzing their usage over time? And citing their usage by reliable sources is by no means "original research", as it is the exact method routinely used to demonstrate the notability of things here on Wikipedia. We don't require sources to say overtly that "this is iconic" and "that is notable" but rather, we infer the iconic status of an image by how it is used by reliable sources over time and the notable status of  a topic by how it is discussed by reliable sources over time. By your logic, I have the right to insist that every video game screenshot used on Wikipedia be discussed by a reliable source using the phrase "critical commentary". Or is your defense that "we've always done it that way"?  Cullen 328   Let's discuss it  07:34, 6 February 2014 (UTC)
 * An historical photo is pretty obvious that its historical (dated older than today), but when it comes to iconic photos, you cannot just present it and say "it's iconic"; if you can't provide sources, then the photo needs to be obvious beyond a doubt that it is iconic otherwise, which many have questioned here. Irregardless, lets assume that "iconic or historical" is met here so that NFCI#8 could apply without any further text talking about the image. Per the text at NFCI, we still have to evaluate all NFCC criteria, and that's where this fails by 2 of them: NFCC#3 (there'a already a lot of non-free on the page, as well as free images of Hendrix to show what he looked like and what he typically wore at concerts) and #8, part 2 (the removal of the image in no way impacts the reader's understanding of Hendrix or the details of the arrest and trial. If it were the case this was the only non-free media used on the page, I'd be sympathetic to the #8 issues and reason it could be kept due to lack of other non-free. If it were the case that #8 was met with rock-solid reasoning, then we can overlook the #3 issue and use the image. But reasoning for #8 being met, specifically on the harm to reader's understanding, has just not be shown. I've tried and tried hard to find a wiggle room way to get there, but now that Gabemc has proven that the one most likely source to have discussion on the photo has shown there is none, there's simply no way to make the image satify NFCC#8. If those that want to keep the image can provide a rock-solid reason why removing the image is harmful to understanding the whole article even considering all the other images of Hendrix there already, keeping it makes sense, but even I can't come up with even a flimsy reason in good faith to try to justify it. If there was sourcing discussing in depth the image or the visual aspects of the image, then there would be chance, but that's not apparently happening. (The few words from court to describe his attire as simply "loud" and "mod" do not make for in-depth discussion).
 * And to comment on the video game screenshots, the reason they are allowed (and feel free to review FAC's of FA video games for this) is because one image to show the game's mechanics and user-interface in the sourced gameplay section is discussing the visual nature of the work and how it is played (the equivalent would be sourced commentary on Jimi's appearance for the mugshot). It's not any specific screenshot being discussed but one representative work from the game that itself is the subject of discussion. So this is completely proper - for example, as I know this image has come up before, File:GermanPoliceTormentingJew.JPG itself is not an iconic photo on its own, but the reason we allow it as the article talks about the cruelty at these camps which is what this photo is demonstrating. We simply lack anything for this mugshot along the same lines. I've suggested before that if you encyclopedicly write about why he looks so pissed off (with sourcing and everything) then there's a chance you can justify it to be used, and even suggested a route forward to do this. --M ASEM (t) 07:59, 6 February 2014 (UTC)
 * One image is the norm for video games? How is, e.g., StarCraft still FA with its 5 unfree screenshots? Because NFCC#1 and #8 are satisfied with each image? Doc   talk  08:14, 6 February 2014 (UTC)
 * There is a cavaet with looking at FAs - until the Resolution and introduction of NFC in 2008, the FA process did not have a rigorous NFC examination (and I would agree there might be too many screenshots there). Starcraft was passed in 2006, so it is a legacy issue and fair game to be challenged at FAR if it is believed the NFC is improper. Since 2008-ish, an image check is a require part of every FAC review to make sure NFCC is met. --M ASEM (t) 15:24, 6 February 2014 (UTC)


 * Just an observation that four discussions in three different forums between 2011 and now (two of which are still open) about whether or not to delete this image have now consumed almost 52,000 words -- over three-and-a-half times the length of the Hendrix article itself -- without the proponents of its deletion being ever able to achieve the consensus of the community to delete it. Isn't it then about time for them to concede that there is in fact "no consensus" to delete it and it is highly unlikely that any will be achieved? That being the case I respectfully and earnestly suggest that the proponents of deletion accept the tenants of WP:NOCONSENSUS, that state that in such a case as this "...results in the article, image, or other content being kept" and let us then end this increasingly circular process. I'm just saying... Centpacrr (talk) 11:28, 6 February 2014 (UTC)
 * The thing is, non-free content requires an active consensus to include, and therefore if there is no consensus, it should be removed. ✄ (talk) 10:21, 7 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Where is that stated in policy? "Active consensus to include" - where? If this is not merely your interpretation, there should be something solid to link to that you can show us. Doc   talk  10:32, 7 February 2014 (UTC)
 * That will be the final bullet of WP:NFCCE. ✄ (talk) 17:34, 7 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Not really. Nothing about an "active consensus to include", unless you dismiss any attempt at a valid rationale as automatically invalid per the NFCC. Weak. Also: what's the difference between an "active" consensus and, I suppose, a "passive" consensus? Is that outlined in policy somewhere? Doc   talk  06:05, 8 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Support status-quo for the reasons listed above by editors far more eloquent than myself. This rather cynical forum shopping is very poor form indeed and should be considered when these discussions are closed.  Lankiveil (speak to me) 09:36, 7 February 2014 (UTC).
 * I couldn't agree more Lankiveil. These multiple forum shopped discussions, the first one of which began in 2011, have now exceeded more than 52,000 words (the equivalent of almost 100 single spaced typed pages) with no consensus achieved by the proponents to delete the image. Enough already. Centpacrr (talk) 14:45, 7 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Also agree and wondering at what point this gets called tendentious editing. We need to leave the mugshot in the article and move on. Jus  da  fax   22:22, 7 February 2014 (UTC)
 * BTW, it was Doc's idea to open this thread! Do you mean the non-free file that isn't iconic or discussed in the article? Based on which policy do you think it should remain? GabeMc  (talk&#124;contribs)  22:25, 7 February 2014 (UTC)
 * It was not my idea to conduct a major inquisition over this one image: I merely told you where the debate properly belongs instead of your RfC. Because instead of being a neutrally-worded effort to reach consensus, the RfC is a setup deliberately worded to remove the image. You know perfectly well why you didn't word it like a typical RfC. "Should we let the image exist in the article?" You can't word it like that, can you? I really don't wonder why that is at all. Doc   talk  23:39, 7 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Right, but you advocated to move it here and you didn't specify that if I did you would cry forum shopping, thus making the case for forum shopping as if it was set-up. Look, I'll call your bluff,, what if we both agreed to some RfC language that would be put in place in a new process and not changed mid-stream? I would agree that we could discount the previous discussions, and have one last honest attempt to set this right. What do you think? GabeMc  (talk&#124;contribs)  23:44, 7 February 2014 (UTC)
 * If the RfC was worded to ask the participant, "Should this image be in this article?", consensus could be interpreted by the closer from the responses. As it is worded, it is a foregone conclusion that no consensus=delete. So, yes, if the wording was changed to a neutral one, it would make a major difference. It could all be centralized there if there were no longer an unfair advantage. I only cried "forum shopping" as this remained open alongside the RfC, when the latter should have been closed. When a third board discussion popped up (not that you opened it), forum shopping became more of a concern. Doc   talk  00:08, 8 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Well, why don't you write the first draft and post it to the Hendrix talk page. I'll make some suggestions, as hopefully will others, and we can go from there? GabeMc  (talk&#124;contribs)  00:12, 8 February 2014 (UTC)
 * The final point of any draft, I have already provided. You can put in how it miserably you believe it fails the NFCC, etc. But you need to end it with a yes or no solicitation from the participants. "Should the image be in the article?" I really can think of no simpler way to pose the question more neutrally. Doc   talk  01:30, 8 February 2014 (UTC)


 * Oppose as it is just a mug shot, nothing extraordinary or iconic about it in the slightest. The reader's understanding of the subject's arrest is not enhanced by the image's inclusiuon, hence WP:NFCC #8 failure. Tarc (talk) 15:18, 9 February 2014 (UTC)


 * Fails NFCC#8. What question (literal or metaphorical) would a reader not be able to answer through having read the article but not having seen the image? None whatsoever, based on the all the above. There seems to be some doubt as to whether the image is, in fact, copyrighted.  If not, all well and good; if it is copyrighted, then NFCC#4 should be shown to be met, else it likely falls short of legal fair use. (I.e. the situation could be that we have a leaked photo, and a couple of books wrongly assuming it to be P.D.).—Aquegg (talk) 19:48, 9 February 2014 (UTC)


 * Note - The RfC that initiated this NFCR has been closed. There is no longer an issue with the image being in Jimi Hendrix, as it has been moved to Jimi Hendrix: Canadian drug charges and trial. Doc   talk  07:31, 10 February 2014 (UTC)
 * That doesn't resolve the NFCC#8 issues, and actually a terrible solution in the light of NFCC. Forcing article structure and prose to work in NFCC is pretty much wrong; you're creating undue weight on one aspect and we're still at the point that the image itself is not discussed directly, nor needed given free images of Hendrix. --M ASEM  (t) 14:35, 10 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Yea, I'd have to say that it strikes me as rather pointy to squeeze an article out of a rather trivial arrest just to justify the retention of an image. Tarc (talk) 14:45, 10 February 2014 (UTC)
 * The high profile public arrest, booking, seven months of being under indictment, and subsequent three day trial were clearly not "trivial" to Mr. Hendrix or his career, and this incident and subsequent associated events were then the subject of extensive published media coverage and have since also been discussed in books and biographies of Mr. Hendrix. While this may not be as prominent as the OJ Simpson arrest and murder trial, for instance, it is certainly far less inconsequential than many other similar events which have their own WP entries. Centpacrr (talk) 15:14, 10 February 2014 (UTC)
 * It wasn't high profile given how few sources discussed it - even considering media differences from today at the time. (Compare to Justin Beiber's recent arrest). And the problem is that all the text added to try to justify the image ballooned out this event. Yes, the event had an effect on his career and should be mentioned, but from the level of an encyclopedia summarizing it, can be done in a paragraph before moving on to how his career was affected. Instead, there's so much detail on the trial specifics just to try to inject a few words that point to how he was dressed at the time of arrest -- that's basically abusing NFCC. --M ASEM (t) 15:23, 10 February 2014 (UTC)
 * I've tossed it into the deletion fire; Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jimi Hendrix: Canadian drug charges and trial. Tarc (talk) 18:19, 10 February 2014 (UTC)


 * , are you seriously comparing this to Justin Bieber's recent DUI? Hendrix faced 14 years in prison for drug smuggling across international borders! GabeMc  (talk&#124;contribs)  19:18, 10 February 2014 (UTC)
 * You do know how bad DUI charges can be on a person's life nowadays? And it was more than just DUI issues here. --M ASEM (t) 19:25, 10 February 2014 (UTC)
 * GabeMc, Im not sure if you have been following the case, but Bieber is also facing deportation, from that fallout. Werieth (talk) 19:28, 10 February 2014 (UTC)
 * BFD. How about bringing heroin into a foreign country? Not a big deal for Mr. Hendrix? Justin Freaking Bieber... Doc   talk  19:39, 10 February 2014 (UTC)
 * , Hendrix faced 7-14 years in prison, which would have ended his music career. I assume Bieber would still be able to perform even if deported. GabeMc  (talk&#124;contribs)  18:53, 11 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Also, Bieber's mug shot was taken in Florida, where they publish all mug shots into the public domain. I can't "belieb" no one's put it in his article yet. Must be NPOV issues... Doc   talk  19:46, 10 February 2014 (UTC)
 * , I'm not entirely sure if this can be withdrawn according to the instructions at the top of the page. I'm not even sure you would want to do that as the filer. But I do know that the appropriate close as this is looking will eventually be one using the Non-free reviewed no consensus template. That would leave the DR and the AfD. And future FfD's. Doc   talk  05:08, 12 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Arguably the mugshot of an arrested but not-yet-proven-guilty living person might trip BLP issues because they do carry negative weight to start. --M ASEM (t) 05:35, 12 February 2014 (UTC)
 * If I were to upload the mugshot of "The Biebs" to the Commons using the PD-FLGov template, it's still going to remain at the Commons because it's free. It could be argued that it gives undue weight when added to the subject's article, but the fact that it is free changes the game immensely. FTR, I am not going to upload the mugshot. Doc   talk  05:48, 12 February 2014 (UTC)
 * No, even commons might delete it as BLP issues affect all Foundation projects, so it might be effectively argument as a problem. But I stress, "might"; I'm not aware of any cases that have tested this position. --M ASEM (t) 06:16, 12 February 2014 (UTC)
 * The Bieber mugshot would unquestionably be PD. The Commons is not going to just delete it for theoretical BLP issues over the fact that it is free. And it's really not a violation of BLP to illustrate a highly-publicized arrest of an international "superstar" with a free image. WP:PUBLICFIGURE states: "If an allegation or incident is noteworthy, relevant, and well documented, it belongs in the article – even if it is negative and the subject dislikes all mention of it." WP:BLPCRIME applies only to people who "are relatively unknown". I could further argue that WP:MUG shows that a Bieber mug could be used in the section of his article regarding his arrest. I don't really want to keep digressing from this particular topic, however. Doc   talk  06:50, 12 February 2014 (UTC)


 * The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

File:Haitian Patties.jpg

 * The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The article on which the image appears is about pastry, not the image. Any other image of pastry would work as well. Fair use does not seem to apply. Contrary to the uploader's assertion that the source is "relatively a free and open ended website", it is explicitly marked " © 2004–2014". Cnilep (talk) 05:11, 14 February 2014 (UTC)

Actually upon actually clicking its sourced link, you will find on the right hand corner about the picture that reads "Camie's Haitian Patties. A way of LIFE! The perfect snack!" Again, I fail to see how this is constructive. The source in question is YELP. S J


 * The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

File:Pinkie Pie and Cheese Sandwich.png

 * The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Fails WP:NFCC as used as decoration. Beerest 2 Talk page 02:24, 15 February 2014 (UTC)


 * The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

File:Ashghal logo.png

 * The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Is this PD-textlogo? I suspect that the things on the logo is text, but I'm not sure... Stefan2 (talk) 22:04, 6 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Appears to be PD per Public domain and I would argue any amount of creativity besides the fonts/typefaces is only de minimis and as such my guess is the United States copyright office would not register it. --  Toshio   Yamaguchi  21:18, 10 February 2014 (UTC)


 * The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

File:ARussianBeauty.jpg

 * The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Does this count as, or are there too many light effects in the photo? Stefan2 (talk) 22:16, 6 February 2014 (UTC)
 * What exactly is your problem here Stefan? It looks to me like an absolutely straightforward case of a book cover. Are you saying the photograph is too creative ("too many light effects") to qualify. When I look at your very many contributions to this forum I often don't follow what you're getting at. Here you seem to imply that either it's ineligible or that it's too "creative"? Can you clarify please. Coat of Many Colours (talk) 14:30, 7 February 2014 (UTC)
 * The current file is licensed as non-free, and he is questioning that. Given the simple nature of the image he is questioning the ability of it to be copyrighted. To me it looks like plain text on a red background, which would qualify it as pd-text Werieth (talk) 14:40, 7 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Qualifies as PD-Art IMHO. The photo is a slavish copy of the original uncopyrightable work. —Psychonaut (talk) 14:45, 7 February 2014 (UTC)


 * The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

File:ARCA-logo-300x177.jpg

 * The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Is this PD-textlogo? Stefan2 (talk) 22:28, 6 February 2014 (UTC)


 * Does this logo contain any particularly creative elements? I would say no (the stars are simple geometric shapes and the letters probably count as simple typefaces). Does the combination of the stars and the word into a single logo represent a particular creative or artistic step? I don't think so. As such I expect the United States copyright office would not register the logo and therefore it is below TOO and can be tagged with PD-textlogo. --  Toshio   Yamaguchi  21:24, 7 February 2014 (UTC)


 * The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

File:Alvarion logo.png

 * The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Is this PD-textlogo? Stefan2 (talk) 14:39, 7 February 2014 (UTC)


 * The logo essentially consists of letters and some simple geometric shapes. I don't think the combination of the two is enough to satisfy TOO. --  Toshio   Yamaguchi  21:27, 7 February 2014 (UTC)


 * The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

File:AliceAdams.JPG
<div class="boilerplate" style="background-color: #edeaff; padding: 0px 10px 0px 10px; border: 1px solid #8779DD;">
 * The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Is the long description in the "metadata" section a copyright violation? Stefan2 (talk) 14:58, 7 February 2014 (UTC)
 * It doesn't look like a paragraph that would normally be created by a reviewer, author, or publisher. It could easily be alt-like text added by the photographer. I don't think it is a problem at this point. --M ASEM  (t) 15:39, 7 February 2014 (UTC)


 * The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

File:Prince of Wales guarding his grandmother's coffin.JPG
<div class="boilerplate" style="background-color: #edeaff; padding: 0px 10px 0px 10px; border: 1px solid #8779DD;">
 * The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The rationale for using this non-free image is that it is a historically unique photograph. However, it fails to meet the litmus test of: "Could the subject be adequately conveyed by properly sourced text without using the non-free content at all?" Tóraí (talk) 21:53, 15 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Plus it's a commercial Getty image, so it fails NFCC#2, and the claim in the FUR that the "image itself is the subject of sourced commentary in the article" is, as so often, plain false. Speedily deleted per WP:CSDb. Fut.Perf. ☼ 22:45, 15 February 2014 (UTC)


 * The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Shooting of Trayvon Martin
Consensus is divided, so I'm closing it as no consensus to remove one or the other. See rationale below. SlimVirgin (talk) 05:17, 17 February 2014 (UTC) There's currently two images of Trayvon Martin in the articles Shooting of Trayvon Martin and Trayvon Martin, and there should probably only be one, per our rules on minimal use. One of the images was recently nominated for deletion at but since discussion was minimal I am bringing the matter here. Are two images warranted in the articles, or should there be only one, and if so, which one? -- Diannaa (talk) 06:14, 14 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Delete car photo. I agree there should only be one and it should be the one of him wearing a hoodie as that photo is iconic. In the Shooting of article, it is discussed about his wearing of the hoodie at the time of his shooting and how many people across the US rallied while wearing hoodies in support. -- Тимофей ЛееСуда .  10:47, 14 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Keep - Currently, as far as I know, there are only two images we have of Martin. I think there is contextual significance to both of these images to justify them both being used. The rationale for using the photo under review here is that it is presently being used for a visual depiction of the subject to illustrate for the reader an approximate age at the time he was shot and killed. And the hoodie photo is being used in context in relation to the protests, rallies and marches. They will only be used for the two articles, thereby minimizing their use. I see no reason to delete either one.-- Isaidnoway (talk)  04:33, 15 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Delete the one with him in the car. It fails WP:NFCC. It's a picture of Martin and it is not substantially different from the hoodie image.  Taylor Trescott  - my talk + my edits 22:29, 15 October 2013 (UTC

Keep. I'm not really seeing the logic here. The picture of Trayvon in a hoodie was used in the protest nationwide as a result of the accusation that the hoodie played a significant role in Zimmerman's decision to label him as suspicious. The car photo simply shows what he looked like before his death.


 * Delete the car photo, no reason at all for two non-free images per our policy. One works well enough. Mark Arsten (talk) 17:15, 17 October 2013 (UTC)


 * Comment I didn't follow this case too closely at the time, but this image discussion brings to mind editors' discussion surrounding the death of Mark Uganda. There, we have File:Mark-duggan.jpg (in the lead/infobox) and File:Kelvin Easton and Mark Duggan.jpg (a little lower down. Two years on, and there appears to be consensus for the retention of both pictures there. At the time of that discussion, WP:NPOV was cited, with the comment ... but this is an encyclopaedia and we're trying to maintain some degree of credibility by not taking sides. (I don't see the subsequent block of that user as invalidating the argument.) So a question we should also perhaps be considering in the case at hand is that of how representative of the subject as a person the hoodie photo is. If the media chose to use this iconic photo, such editorial decisions are generally more to do with selling of newspapers, etc. than of presenting the subject in the neutral fashion which we must always aspire to here on Wikipedia. -- Trevj (talk) 12:47, 12 November 2013 (UTC)


 * Keep The two photos are for different purposes, both of which are required for a comprehensive encyclopedia article. --Pmsyyz (talk) 05:48, 15 November 2013 (UTC)
 * What are the two different purposes that make each image required?  Taylor Trescott  - my talk + my edits 01:59, 16 November 2013 (UTC)


 * Keep both One (the hoodie) is important because of its use as an icon in the protests, the other (the backseat) as a much better photo of Martin. htom (talk) 15:33, 19 November 2013 (UTC)


 * Delete the hoodie image as it is freely replaceable. The image was used on public displays of outrage, yes, so that is what should be shown, are crowds of people with the sign. Which at least one free (CC-BY) one exists at flickr  (ETA that I also see the flickr uploader has also uploaded at least one on commons, so there's going to be no question about getting more from this); one I'm seeing has his parents talking (bonus points), and a nice image of the hoodie used on protest signs in a de minimus fashion; a portion already used in Trayvon's article.  The main profile one is okay and is the non-free that should be used on both pages. --M ASEM  (t) 15:38, 19 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Delete car photo. On the Travyon Martin article, both images are being used solely for identification purposes - the car photo in the "Digital footprint" section egregiously so and should both be removed. The Shooting of Travyon Martin article uses the car photo for identification only, while the hoodie photo is discussed in the text and so its inclusion does meet the NFC criteria. Masem's comment above is interesting, but looking at that flickr stream I don't see any photographs that, when used as a thumbnail in the article, are suitable for identifying the image in question that don't fail the de minimus requirements. A free image of the protests would be useable as well as the non-free image but could not be a replacement for it. Thryduulf (talk) 15:02, 1 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Well the one with Trayvons parents with signs with the hoodie photo around them (of which a crop to just the parents is used in the shooting article) would definitely be de minimus of the hoodie photo and show its use in protest while showcasing his parents. Hence why the car photo should be kept for clean NFC identification, and the hoodie deleted in favor of it being shown on protest signs as described in text. --M ASEM  (t) 16:29, 1 January 2014 (UTC)


 * Question: I agree that having two photos is unnecessary, but why is everyone here saying that the car photo should be the one that is deleted? I would prefer a natural photographic image over one that is digitally enhanced and altered with instagram effects. The addition of special effects to photographs adds a psychological disbalance POV-wise for the reader (official imagery of North Korean president Kim Il-sung are enhanced to make him appear majestic compared to natural photographs of him, compare this with this). I believe that the hoodie image is too unnatural, displays the subject in an artificial light, and that the car photograph is more suitable for an encyclopedia. The airbrushing in the hoodie image is very obvious: we're supposed to be an encyclopedia, not a glamour magazine. -- benlisquare T•C•E 09:52, 5 January 2014 (UTC)
 * As for my personal opinion, Keep car photo, delete hoodie photo, reason being that having two images violates WP:NFCC, and using an enhanced image violates WP:NPOV. -- benlisquare T•C•E 10:03, 5 January 2014 (UTC)


 * Keep both I looked and it seems we can have sourced commentary regarding both images so that would make both acceptable per the NFCC.-- The Devil's Advocate tlk.  cntrb. 17:30, 5 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Call the question This discussion has now been going on (intermittently) for more than 5 months, and throughout that time the article has articles have featured a confusing NFCC template (confusing because it doesn't specify what media is being discussed, even assuming that users understand what the template means).  I know there is WP:NORUSH, but it is time for someone to close this discussion by determining either that there was consensus, and hence to act on it, or that there was not, in which case to do nothing except to remove the confusing template from the top of the article articles. <span style="font-family: Gill Sans MT, Arial, Helvetica; font-weight:100;"> Dwpaul   Talk   03:24, 17 February 2014 (UTC)


 * Hi Dwpaul, I actually started trying to close this today, thinking it would be easy but it's not, so I gave up. Here's what I wrote before I stopped:


 * Thirteen people took part in the discussion. Both images are used in both articles. The hoodie image is the main one in Trayvon Martin, and the car image is the main one in Shooting of Trayvon Martin.


 * Keep both (5): Isaidnoway, Rob3gd, Pmsyyz, OtterSmith, The Devil's Advocate
 * Delete one (6 or 7): Diannaa(?), ТимофейЛееСуда, Taylor Trescott, Mark Arsten, Masem, Thryduulf, benlisquare
 * Unclear/other (1): Trevj


 * Of the seven suggesting one be deleted (assuming Diannaa is included):


 * Delete car (4): ТимофейЛееСуда, Taylor Trescott, Mark Arsten, Thryduulf
 * Delete hoodie (2): Masem, benlisquare
 * No preference (1): Diannaa


 * The consensus is tight; there's a margin of two in favour of deleting one rather than keeping both, and within the deletion group a margin of two in favour of deleting the image of Trayvon in the car.


 * That's as far as I got. What I have to wonder is why anyone would feel that one image had to be deleted. Both are widely used, neither are good quality, neither have copyright issues (in the sense that someone might object to their use). If we delete the car image, we have only the hoodie, which is perhaps a contentious choice. If we delete the hoodie, we delete the one that was most discussed. So neither option makes sense. It makes sense to me to keep both, but that's not where the consensus lay.


 * I really think the answer lies further afield: that we ought to rethink the extent to which we keep trying to enforce a non-free guideline that reaches conclusions like this. But this is not the place for that discussion. SlimVirgin (talk) 05:03, 17 February 2014 (UTC)
 * I'd point again that the hoodie photo is not discussed as much for identifying Trayvon but as its use in the protests, and to that extent we have plenty free media (as I've found on Flickr before) that use that photo on posters and signs in a de minimus manner alongside pictures of people rallying support for him. The simplest and fairest solution is to keep the car image (which is the most clear image of him) as the non-free and make sure that the rally/support images are used to show how his hoodie photo was used as a rallying image. That effectively keeps both photos and shows the reader how one was used effectively. --M ASEM  (t) 05:16, 17 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Also "neither have copyright issues (in the sense that someone might object to their use)" is not a reason we consider in NFCC. If it's copyrighted, it impacts our free content mission, so that's what's weighted. --M ASEM (t) 05:19, 17 February 2014 (UTC)


 * I've gone ahead and closed it as no consensus, because four months is too long, and I'm not sure I read Diannaa correctly. I assumed she was in favour of deleting one, but in fact she only brought the issue here after someone raised it elsewhere. That shifts the consensus slightly in terms of numbers, and editorially it would be difficult to choose between them for the reasons I outline above. In the longer term, it would be worth taking up Masem's suggestion of finding a free image of protesters with the hoodie image, and swapping that one. SlimVirgin (talk) 05:17, 17 February 2014 (UTC)


 * There is File:Justice for Trayvon & Byron Carter in Austin, TX.jpg, in case that helps. SlimVirgin (talk) 05:19, 17 February 2014 (UTC)

Alma Halliwell
<div class="boilerplate" style="background-color: #edeaff; padding: 0px 10px 0px 10px; border: 1px solid #8779DD;">
 * The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

This article contains two non-free images, namely File:Amandabarrie.jpg in the infobox and File:Alma sedgewick.jpg in Alma Halliwell. The use of both images might violate WP:NFCC. The second image also appears to violate WP:NFCC in this article. --  Toshio   Yamaguchi  12:42, 16 January 2014 (UTC)


 * One non-free character image on an article about a notable character is generally accepted for identification, so one of these is at least okay. I don't know enough about the show to judge which or if both can be used, though the article text doesn't suggest a lot about needing both images. --M ASEM (t) 18:44, 16 January 2014 (UTC)


 * The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

File:D. Harold McNamara.jpg
<div class="boilerplate" style="background-color: #edeaff; padding: 0px 10px 0px 10px; border: 1px solid #8779DD;">
 * The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The source "family archive" suggests that the image might not satisfy WP:NFCC. Stefan2 (talk) 22:57, 26 January 2014 (UTC)
 * This image should be deleted. Does WP:F9 apply to this image? If not, does another CSD apply? --  Toshio   Yamaguchi  20:43, 16 February 2014 (UTC)


 * The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

File:Premiere Networks logo.png
<div class="boilerplate" style="background-color: #edeaff; padding: 0px 10px 0px 10px; border: 1px solid #8779DD;">
 * The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

PD-TEXT logo. Levdr1 lp /  talk  07:16, 30 January 2014 (UTC)


 * The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

File:Cosphi not IEEE 1459.jpg
<div class="boilerplate" style="background-color: #edeaff; padding: 0px 10px 0px 10px; border: 1px solid #8779DD;">
 * The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Although this image is claimed to be under CC-BY-SA/GFDL, it is a screenshot of proprietary control software at a power plant.

Software screenshots says
 * "Because a screenshot of proprietary software is non-free, consider carefully whether it's really necessary to upload it."

Furthermore, it is only used on one article talk page, and Non-free content criteria says
 * "Non-free content is allowed only in articles (not disambiguation pages), and only in article namespace, subject to exemptions."

The exceptions are found at Non-free content, and use on an article talk page is not among the exceptions.

Also see: --Guy Macon (talk) 03:48, 1 February 2014 (UTC)
 * The interface there would be too simple to have copyright protection (What UI elements there are standard electrical symbols), and thus as long as we're talking things in the US, this would be fine. --M ASEM  (t) 04:00, 1 February 2014 (UTC)
 * The geographical location of the display is unlikely to be in the US (given the location of the uploader who is known to be Canadian). DieSwartzPunkt (talk) 12:47, 1 February 2014 (UTC)
 * If we are talking Canada, its threshold of originality appears to fall somewhere between the US and the UK (Originality in Canadian copyright law) and likely would be still be okay. We can even play it safer and crop that image to just the data that's showing the powerfactor issue, limiting it to simple font and text, and thus would clearly be free in Canada. --M ASEM (t) 15:29, 1 February 2014 (UTC)


 * This line of discussion seems to have become effectively moot. The copyright status is not the primary driver behind the nomination for deletion, but became a secondary issue.  The image serves no purpose in supporting any article.  Its sole reason for upload was to leverage one editor's point of view into an article (every one else who contributed to the discussion disagreed with the assertion.  The image portrays an impossible combination of parameters (as detailed at the file page itself), hence the original nomination for speedy delete as G1.  The need for the image at the talk page where it is used has been mitigated by the addition of a textual representation.  The discussion has ended, but the textual representation preserves the logical flow of the discussion should anyone wish to read it (it will shortly be archived anyway).  DieSwartzPunkt (talk) 11:53, 2 February 2014 (UTC)


 * I suggest that we wait until the deletion discussion is resolved, and if it survives make the edit Masem suggested. --Guy Macon (talk) 21:49, 3 February 2014 (UTC)

Not Canada. Picture was shot in the 50 Hz part of the world. Absolute value of power factor exceeds 1, which is not allowed by anyone's interpretation of power factor. --Wtshymanski (talk) 22:59, 4 February 2014 (UTC)


 * Point about geography noted, but I believe the discussion is still moot for the reasons given. The invalid power factor display was part of the reason for the original nomination for speedy delete (criterion G1).  Let's wait and see what happens.  DieSwartzPunkt (talk) 13:14, 5 February 2014 (UTC)


 * The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

File:Coat of Arms.gif
<div class="boilerplate" style="background-color: #edeaff; padding: 0px 10px 0px 10px; border: 1px solid #8779DD;">
 * The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Fails WP:NFCC because it can be replaced with a free version. The copyright in coats of arms usually lies on the specific depiction of the heraldic elements by the artist but not on the description. I.e. these arms can be redrawn and published under a free licence. De728631 (talk) 22:46, 2 February 2014 (UTC) De728631 (talk) 22:46, 2 February 2014 (UTC)


 * It seems this image has the wrong copyright message added to it: "This logo is an official seal of a governmental entity or one of its government agencies...", but this is a Medieval monastic order, not a governmental entity or agency. The image may be copyrighted, but not for the reasons stated for the file. Arms Jones (talk) 14:21, 3 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Then just tag it with {{subst:rfu}}. Someone else can make a free replacement based on the same blazon. --Stefan2 (talk) 16:28, 3 February 2014 (UTC)


 * The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

File:KJMQ logo.png
<div class="boilerplate" style="background-color: #edeaff; padding: 0px 10px 0px 10px; border: 1px solid #8779DD;">
 * The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

This logo is also PD-textlogo? -- Тимофей  Лее  Суда . 02:40, 3 February 2014 (UTC)
 * I too think the United States copyright office would likely refuse registration, though I am not 100% certain, depending on whether the letters/typefaces belong to a single uniform font or not. Even if they do not, the whole logo might lack the amount of creative and artistic authorship necessary for registration. --  Toshio   Yamaguchi  20:54, 3 February 2014 (UTC)
 * One uniform font doesn't matter; the Catalogue of Copyright Practices they use specifically excludes handwriting and calligraphy.--Prosfilaes (talk) 19:58, 4 February 2014 (UTC)


 * The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

File:Warhol-Campbell Soup-1-screenprint-1968.jpg
<div class="boilerplate" style="background-color: #edeaff; padding: 0px 10px 0px 10px; border: 1px solid #8779DD;">
 * The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Fails WP:NFCC in numerous articles. Stefan2 (talk) 22:27, 4 February 2014 (UTC)


 * Arguably, of any work of pop art, this is the one that should easily be able to be justified in works beyond the work itself and on the painter's article (Warhol). It is a staple example of Pop Art, probably the most recognized one, and thus likely can be justified in 20th Century Painting as a representative sample of pop art there. It's also a prime example of Appropriation and even that other article that currently fails #10c. I'm 90% sure that if it's failing in the other articles listed, the rationale can easily be met with sourcing given much a legacy of that work (and the related soup can works) have. --M ASEM  (t) 22:35, 4 February 2014 (UTC)

Per above, the image is especially needed in Pop art as well as the Warhol article...Modernist (talk) 22:42, 4 February 2014 (UTC)
 * I agree with Masem above, it's also important to Appropriation and 20th Century painting as well, the essential Warhol...Modernist (talk) 12:53, 7 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Why does Stefan2 think it fails WP:NFCC in numerous articles? Coat of Many Colours (talk) 14:16, 7 February 2014 (UTC)


 * The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

File:WJRR logo.png
<div class="boilerplate" style="background-color: #edeaff; padding: 0px 10px 0px 10px; border: 1px solid #8779DD;">
 * The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Armbrust insists on using higher resolution version of this non-free logo. I contend that a lower resolution version is perfectly acceptable and better conforms to WP:NFCCP, namely "minimal extent of use". Levdr1 lp /  talk  18:33, 5 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Levdr1lostpassword, is correct, WP:NFCC requires minimal usage a 468×342 for a logo thats displayed at ~150px is way overkill. Werieth (talk) 18:37, 5 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Update Larger version deleted. Tagged as non-free revision for seven days.   Levdr1 lp  /  talk  04:08, 16 February 2014 (UTC)


 * The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

File:Canadian ePassport Cover (2013).JPG
<div class="boilerplate" style="background-color: #edeaff; padding: 0px 10px 0px 10px; border: 1px solid #8779DD;">
 * The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Fails WP:NFCC, except in Canadian passport. Stefan2 (talk) 18:42, 9 February 2014 (UTC)
 * (Commenting as uploader) The image has been removed from the two pages where the use of the image failed NFCC#8 and the resolution has already been lowered by User:Theo's Little Bot. Its continued use in Canadian passport is important for allowing readers to visually identify the passport (i.e. the subject of the article), and there is no possible way to obtain a free equivalent due to Crown Copyright. RA 0808  talkcontribs 06:49, 18 February 2014 (UTC)


 * The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

File:CWOAR Azteca Hotel Logo 2014.png
<div class="boilerplate" style="background-color: #edeaff; padding: 0px 10px 0px 10px; border: 1px solid #8779DD;">
 * The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Source page is protected by copyright and give no evidence that the logo is free for download. <span style="font-family:'Old English Text MT',serif;color:green">The Banner <i style="color:maroon">talk</i> 20:55, 9 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Tagged as failing WP:NFCC and WP:NFCC. Also tagged with "no evidence of permission" on Commons. --Stefan2 (talk) 22:44, 9 February 2014 (UTC)


 * The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

File:CWOAR Safari Hotel Logo 2014.png
<div class="boilerplate" style="background-color: #edeaff; padding: 0px 10px 0px 10px; border: 1px solid #8779DD;">
 * The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Source page is copyright protected. No proof that uploader had the right to use it on Wikipedia. <span style="font-family:'Old English Text MT',serif;color:green">The Banner <i style="color:maroon">talk</i> 21:08, 9 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Tagged for violation of WP:NFCC. Also tagged as "no evidence of permission" on Commons. --Stefan2 (talk) 22:46, 9 February 2014 (UTC)


 * The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

File:Pacific Street Docks Ferry Boat 1860s San Francisco LibraryCode AAC-2278.jpg
<div class="boilerplate" style="background-color: #edeaff; padding: 0px 10px 0px 10px; border: 1px solid #8779DD;">
 * The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

If this image from the 1860s really is unfree, then it is presumably also replaceable by a free image. Stefan2 (talk) 16:30, 11 February 2014 (UTC)
 * I have researched this era of the Barbary Coast's Pacific Street extensively and can NOT find a free replacement photo, because not many photographs were made and preserved from that era of the Wharf at the End of Pacific Street. If someone can prove me wrong, please post a link to that photo of the Wharf at the End of Pacific Street and I would be happy to use that instead. Further, the photo is likely to be in public domain because of its amateurish nature, the writing upon the surface of the original un-cropped photo [ see http://sflib1.sfpl.org:82/record=b1017169~S0 ], and the poor exposure and processing of that photo which I corrected with an image-processing software application. Its source, the San Francisco Public Library's History Center, has also not found a copyright owner and has given Wikipedia permission to use that photo in the Barbary Coast article. The photo is 150 years old, the photographer is dead, and it was a personal photo that was never published.James Carroll (talk) 18:53, 11 February 2014 (UTC)


 * PD, creation + 120 years. Even if the photographer was discovered it would still be PD, life + 70. Thincat (talk) 09:00, 12 February 2014 (UTC)
 * But the uploader claims that the file is unfree, so maybe he has other information, i.e. first publication 1923-2002 with full formalities. --Stefan2 (talk) 15:08, 12 February 2014 (UTC)


 * So what is the outcome here, please? The image is not Fair Use because it is Public Domain and will be deleted or what?
 * The trouble is that the editors affected by these discussions, the editors who have uploaded the images, are not necessarily all that au fait with the issues deliberated by the people who live here (to say nothing of the argot they deliberate them in). The domestic fug is frankly pretty well overwhelming (do you guys ever change your sheets?)
 * What I see here is an image which the uploader has plainly gone to considerable effort to ensure that it complies with Wikipedia regulations. It's easy to see why a casual inspector might well surmise user:Stefan2 is merely being obstructive here. Believe me it's not edifying when you peep behind the scenes. I urge editors here to be more supportive. Coat of Many Colours (talk) 09:53, 12 February 2014 (UTC)
 * If it's PD, we tag it PD, let it stay, and likely tag as a move-to-commmons. --M ASEM (t) 15:12, 12 February 2014 (UTC)
 * It seems like we are in agreement that the photo belongs in the article, the issue is what is the best way to accomplish that. I have a handful of similar historic photos that SF Library has granted permission, and I really need to have them included in the 3 articles that I have committed to for this winter. It'd be great if we could get this and the other photos processed as Public Domain, then I could ask SF Library for more detailed scans as well. But if Fair Use is the only path, then I would be ready to live with that. To further complicate my situation, photo-admin Stefan2 has taken a personal interest in me after an earlier discussion about a submitted photo that he insisted had to have its resolution reduced [ https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:International_Settlement_1940s_San_Francisco_Pacific_Street_FaceWest_Crp1.jpg ]. With this photo submission, Steph2 made this non-free tag and complaint just 25 minutes after I submitted the photo and admits that my name "caught his eye." You can read our discussion at the bottom of on his talk page [ https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Stefan2#Do_You_Have_a_Bot_which_Stalks_my_Photo_Submissions.3F ]. If you have an suggestions, please write them on my talk page. If I could have submitted this as PD, try to give me a rough idea how to do that. James Carroll (talk) 16:03, 12 February 2014 (UTC)
 * As I told you, I found the file because I was looking at recent uploads at Special:Listfiles. --Stefan2 (talk) 16:09, 12 February 2014 (UTC)
 * You should probably forward the permission to the ORTS so that it's better documented through that. --M ASEM (t) 16:54, 12 February 2014 (UTC)
 * While OTRS would be helpful, I really don't see that in cases like this it should be a requirement. There ought to be a less confrontational way of dealing with images that are almost certainly PD but, if they are not, are usable as fair use in some contexts. At present we have a Catch 22 with the added problem that, if PD is accepted here, the image will generally be forced to Commons where it may get deleted by a consensus of a different small group of opinionated people. I can see that it is ultimately good to resolve that an image templated as non-free is really PD. However, that should not be achieved by treating the image as a punch bag. Thincat (talk) 09:46, 13 February 2014 (UTC)
 * The reason I initially picked Fair Use over PD was because of the following responses to my questions on the Media Copyright Questions forum,
 * https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Media_copyright_questions&oldid=593509662#Photo_Permission_Form_of_San_Francisco_Public_Library and
 * https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Media_copyright_questions&oldid=590007832#Recommended_Text_for_Permissions_Field_in_Summary_part_of_Photo_Upload_for_Public_Domain_Photos James Carroll (talk) 15:31, 13 February 2014 (UTC)
 * You seem to have done everything by the book but where has it got you? The initial comment "it is presumably also replaceable by a free image" seems an unlikely presumption to me. For a photo of this sort of era, if someone did find something else they thought was PD, it is likely its status could also be challenged with some suitably crafted hypothesis. Thincat (talk) 18:51, 14 February 2014 (UTC)
 * I agree. The "Replaceable" provision in the requirements for Fair Use seems the most problematic of the group because there is not any kind mechanism to measure whether or not there are similar images out there. As such the determination of Replaceable-ness becomes extremely subjective and can vary enormously among different photo-processors. Further, there is no consideration in the Replaceable Requirement for the fact that the older a photo is, the less likely that a replaceable image might exist in Public Domain. Wikipedia should really consider dropping the Replaceable Requirement, at least in some cases.
 * It has been 7 days since this complaint was made, and it's looking like we have a clear consensus here that the image should remain, because it is NOT replaceable. I'll wait a few days and then ask an admin to complete the closure procedure on this issue. James Carroll (talk) 23:19, 18 February 2014 (UTC)
 * The image should be fine. If it's truly PD, there's no issues; if it's non-free the argument it being replaceable is not applicable - there might be other pictures but we can't retake the same picture as this one shows today so it's not possible to create a new image. If sometime later someone finds a free replacement image, we can deal with it then, but per NFCC#1 if creation is not possible we don't consider the chances of one already existing. It's probably good to treat this as non-free and irreplaceable until we can prove it PD. --M ASEM (t) 00:27, 19 February 2014 (UTC)
 * I agree with your strategy. Masem, I see that your are an administrator so could you perform the Close Discussion procedure and do whatever is necessary to change the templates (see above). If so, when would you want to perform the Close Discussion procedure for the photo? Thanx. James Carroll (talk) 00:42, 19 February 2014 (UTC)


 * The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

File:Ahora quien.ogg
<div class="boilerplate" style="background-color: #edeaff; padding: 0px 10px 0px 10px; border: 1px solid #8779DD;">
 * The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Violates WP:NFCC in Amar Sin Mentiras. My edit removing the file from the article for violating WP:NFCC was reverted without explanation by User:Ernestogon. --  Toshio   Yamaguchi  21:32, 17 February 2014 (UTC)

Hello, I replaced the rationale link to Amar Sin Mentiras, due to the lack of an article about this single song.--Ernestogon (talk) 21:44, 17 February 2014 (UTC)


 * Thank you for fixing the link. --  Toshio   Yamaguchi  21:49, 17 February 2014 (UTC)


 * The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

User:Ɱ/sandbox7
<div class="boilerplate" style="background-color: #edeaff; padding: 0px 10px 0px 10px; border: 1px solid #8779DD;">
 * The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Fails WP:NFCC. Stefan2 (talk) 16:41, 18 February 2014 (UTC)
 * As a note, #9 is 100% objective and should not even require discussion to take appropriate action. --M ASEM (t) 17:04, 18 February 2014 (UTC)


 * The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

File:Book Cover, The Squirrel Wife, 1971 first edition publication, written by Philippa Pearce, illustrated by Derek Collard 18-01-2014.jpg
<div class="boilerplate" style="background-color: #edeaff; padding: 0px 10px 0px 10px; border: 1px solid #8779DD;">
 * The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Backcover fails WP:NFCC. Stefan2 (talk) 16:11, 19 February 2014 (UTC)
 * The back cover definitely needs to be trimmed out of it. The cover use is otherwise okay for a (apparently) notable work. --M ASEM (t) 16:33, 19 February 2014 (UTC)


 * That would be true if it was shown separately. The entire cover is being shown and lends to the overall effect. The image should be reduced. If you disagree, crop out the back, reload it and be done with it. --evrik (talk) 16:34, 19 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Anybody familiar with Microsoft Office Picture Manager? I used it to crop out the back cover. George Ho (talk) 19:34, 19 February 2014 (UTC)


 * Problem solved. --evrik (talk) 22:30, 19 February 2014 (UTC)


 * The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.