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 Explicit (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) A file with this name on Commons is now visible. AnomieBOT⚡ 02:01, 13 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

File:James F. Reilly.jpg (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Neum (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log). 

superseded by File:James Reilly.jpg (brightness, crop are slightly different) Magog the Ogre (t • c) 01:48, 5 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete, redundant to other JPG file. Salavat (talk) 14:40, 7 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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 2018 June 14. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 16:08, 14 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

File:Bros2017.JPG (delete | talk | history | links | logs)

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.

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 2018 June 14. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 16:10, 14 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

File:Flickr screenshot.png (delete | talk | history | links | logs)

File:DeviantArt screenshot.png (delete | talk | history | links | logs)

File:Facebook user page (2014).jpg (delete | talk | history | links | logs)

File:LinkedIn homepage.png (delete | talk | history | links | logs)

File:Polygon screenshot.png (delete | talk | history | links | logs)

File:Pornhub main page screenshot.png (delete | talk | history | links | logs)

File:Reddit screenshot.png (delete | talk | history | links | logs)

File:Twitter Home Page (Moments version, countries without dedicated feed).png (delete | talk | history | links | logs)

File:Yahoo partial screenshot 2017.png (delete | talk | history | links | logs)

File:YouTube homepage.png (delete | talk | history | links | logs)

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.

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. None of the "keep" !votes are policy based, whereas the "delete" ones are. Randykitty (talk) 06:57, 13 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

File:Dimitrios Pagourtzis booking photo.jpg (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Tutelary (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log). 

Per precedent (1, 2, 3), the use of a non-free image of the shooter in an article about the shooting incident, as opposed to an article about the biography of the shooter, violates WP:NFCC#8 as the image does not increase the understanding of the shooting, nor would its removal be detrimental to that understanding. ℯxplicit 02:38, 26 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep I know I'm obviously biased because I uploaded this file. But I do not agree with precedent that school shooters' images should be summarily deleted from the respective articles about the shootings. Often times these people do not qualify for their own article under WP:BLP1E and as such, their name redirects to the shooting article. Yes, while the image of the shooter doesn't increase their understanding of the shooting itself, it's important to know that these school shootings are getting younger and younger all the time. There's a psychological profile to be had which has been the discussion in academia. I argue that because the suspect's name Dimitrios Pagourtzis redirects to the shooting article. It is as a result technically two Wikipedia articles--1 on the shooter, and 1 on the suspect. As a result, NFCC #8's criteria is satisfied if my theory about the two article in one is correct. Even if someone attempted to create a biography of the shooter, it would likely be quickly redirected to the article on the shooting, and rightfully so. If that's going to remain Wikipedia policy, then we shouldn't have to be kept on the limits of being forced to follow the NFCC criteria for the shooting, but rather treating the article as if it's 2 in 1 for the purposes of NFCC. Tutelary (talk) 15:24, 27 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete for the reasons given by Explicit. I don't see this particular non-free use being very different from the the ones deleted via the prior FFD discussion Explicit has noted. If it's important to know that persons committing these school shootings are getting younger and younger all of the time, then that is something which needs to be covered and supported by citations to reliable sources to be anything other than WP:OR. Moreover, any general interpretation about the age of these shooters would be much more appropriate for an article like Mass shootings in the United States or School shooting, etc. than is an article about a specific inciddent.

Now, if there are reliable sources which specifically point to this particular photo as an example of this and critical commentary along those lines can be added to this article, then non-free use might be justified; otherwise, I don't see the context required by WP:NFCC#8 to justify non-free use being provided. The reader does not need to see a non-free image per WP:FREER to understand that the shooter was young any more than they need to see the photo to understand that the shooter was white or male. So, once again unless there is something particular about this image or the subjects appearance and sourced commentary about such things in the article, then I don't think this should be kept. Academia can discuss the psychological profiles of these shooters all it wants. If information about how this relates to this particular incident is published in an reputable academic journal, then article content reflecting that discusison may be possibly added to the article, and a non-free image might be used in support. Non-free images should really be added to support specific article content when ommting the image would detract from the understanding of that content. Non-free images shouldn't be added in the hope that the reader might interpret the images in a particular.

Finally, I don't see any two-for-one allowance possible under the NFCC, especially for a redirects of the name of the shooter to the article about their crime. Non-free content use policy requires that each use satisfy all ten non-free content use criteria and there are no allowances given for perceived or potential uses. If someone wants to try and write an article about the shooter, then the use of this image could possibly be used there instead if all the criteria are met. -- Marchjuly (talk) 00:39, 6 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment Readers (me included) would appreciate the picture showing the shooter. The BIO article of the shooter may not survive on its own, so the pic is in the incident article. It is a welcome addon to the intro of the shooter in the article. IMHO I do not agree with the comment that it has no encyclopedic value or does not increase the understanding of the shooting. --DBigXray 16:56, 10 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - I appreciate the uploader's (Tutelary's) rationale to use the image. However, I'm not convinced enough that treating the article like a 2-in-1, i.e. some article with a mini-bio section, is a sufficient rationale to keep the image. Moreover, the uploader admitted that the image doesn't significantly increase the understanding of the shooting event itself. If a reader already understands the event without the image, then why need this image? Is the visual face of the shooter needed to show who the shooter is? Are readers not trusted enough to understand the shooting event without this image?

  One of Wikipedia's primary goals is open content, yet NFCC may allow some exceptions per all criteria. The image content is neither "open" nor free to use, so it must meet all criteria for an exceptional use. Unfortunately, even when deleting the image, most readers would already understand the article content and the subject. Therefore, the image would fail NFCC. Whether the image is replaceable and whether it is encyclopedic are debatable. Nevertheless, the purpose of enforcing the NFCC is making the content free and open, i.e. very free to share, use, and commercialize, under the assumption that readers are capable enough to understand the article without a non-free content.

  Well, searching a free image of the shooter wouldn't be easy; the nature of the event is disturbing, so I would assume that others would be reluctant to make photographic content open to everyone. However, the image can become an open content if this image would be still pursued. --George Ho (talk) 08:19, 11 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - Neither the name nor the photo of a juvenile should be in the article, be it before or even after they are convicted. --Jax 0677 (talk) 18:07, 11 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Because wikipedia is not censored. Off course we want to see the shooter. JMK (talk) 17:09, 12 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete It has been established in many deletion discussions that we do not have non-free pictures of shooters in articles about shootings. The picture only goes into the article about the shooter. If there's no article about the shooter (for example because of WP:BLP1E), then there's no place for a picture of the shooter on Wikipedia. --Stefan2 (talk) 18:29, 12 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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 2018 June 14. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 16:10, 14 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

File:Walter Runciman.jpg (delete | talk | history | links | logs)

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.

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 2018 June 14. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 16:12, 14 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

File:British Columbia Highway 3.svg (delete | talk | history | links | logs)

File:British Columbia Highway 5.svg (delete | talk | history | links | logs)

File:British Columbia Highway 113.svg (delete | talk | history | links | logs)

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.

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

The result of the discussion was: no consensus. Seems like we don't have a consensus on the copyright status here. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 16:11, 14 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

File:Flag of Pocatello, Idaho.svg (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by AxG (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log). 

According to flag.pocatello.us: "Businesses and individuals who would like to utilize the flag design can find image files and color specifications at flag.pocatello.us". Does it mean that it's free to used by anyone? Xeror (talk) 11:49, 5 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Change to ((PD-textlogo)) - it's very simple Ronhjones  ^(Talk) 18:28, 5 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

((PD-simple)) might be more appropriate in this case if it is determined to fall below the TOO. Salavat (talk) 14:44, 7 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep as is. The statement on flag.pocatello.us is too vague, it's impossible to determine if commercial use is allowed. This also looks too complex ((PD-simple)). ℯxplicit 00:21, 13 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Businesses are in some sense acronym to commercial use. If they provide image files and color specifications, their intention for allowing commercial use is obvious to me.--Xeror (talk) 04:08, 14 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep as is It is unclear for what purposes businesses and individuals can use the flag. For example, can it be modified? It also looks too complex for ((PD-ineligible)). --Stefan2 (talk) 11:39, 13 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • From flag.pocatello.us: “We’ve heard about interest about the design being used for t-shirts, hats, and even socks,” said McDougall. “We’re looking forward to seeing what everyone can come up with.” It seems modifications are intended to be allowed.--Xeror (talk) 04:08, 14 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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 as F9 by RHaworth (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 21:13, 5 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

File:MV Sinar Kudus.jpg (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Indonesia124 (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log). 

File not being used in any constructive way. File would have no obvious value being hosted on Commons. Kailash29792 (talk) 16:44, 5 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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 Explicit (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 02:01, 13 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

File:North africa.gif (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Skafis (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log). 

poor quality map, better quality maps available on Commons Jon Kolbert (talk) 17:30, 5 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete, orphaned with no obvious value. Salavat (talk) 14:44, 7 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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 as F7 by Explicit (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 02:01, 8 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

File:Eduard Irimia in Forbes Romania.jpg (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by ILoveCasablanca (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log). 

This has no valid use on Wikipedia as it can't be used to depict the person in it (which was the intent of the uploader) and even if it's shrunk to be compliant, it would be an orphan as there is no other use for it (it's certainly not the best photo to represent the publication either.) CHRISSYMAD ❯❯❯¯\_(ツ)_/¯ 17:44, 5 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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 as F9 by Anthony Appleyard (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 00:00, 6 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

File:Sameksha Singh Sony tv Porus.jpg (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Sonuverse (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log). 

Taken from the subject’s Instagram account, no evidence of permisssion to reuse. Beeblebrox (talk) 20:35, 5 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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 Explicit (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 02:01, 13 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

File:Billelofficial.jpg (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Billelaggab (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log). 

Photo actually came from here: https://www.facebook.com/billelofficial/. Obvious flickrwashing is pretty obvious. EXIF shows this photo came from Facebook, brand new Flickr account, no other photos, etc. Majora (talk) 20:41, 5 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete, orphaned with questionable licensing. Salavat (talk) 14:47, 7 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete no encyclopaedic value --DBigXray 17:03, 10 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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