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

The result of the discussion was: keep in both articles. — ξ ^xplicit 03:11, 24 December 2015 (UTC) reply

File:Peace for Paris fairuse 99px.jpg ( delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by .js ( notify | contribs | uploads | upload log).

Non-free image being used in Jean Jullien and Reactions to the November 2015 Paris attacks. Image has a non-free use rationale for each usage, but these are very basic rationales which are not really sufficient enough for WP:NFCC#10c or WP:NFCC#8. The image seems OK at first for "Jean Jullien" since he is the designer and the image is discussed in a bit of detail.; The problem, however, is that the I don't think Jullian is notable enough for a stand-alone article per WP:BLP1E, and that the article is a likely candidate for an eventual merge or redirect into "Reactions to November 2015 Paris attacks". I think a better nfur is needed for the "Paris" article and that the image should be removed from "Jean Jullian". -- Marchjuly ( talk) 06:34, 20 November 2015 (UTC); [Post edited by Marchjuly to strike out comments about notability of Jullian per the comments below. -- 08:01, 23 November 2015 (UTC)] reply

It is a bit hard as a not-native speaker and totally new to the "fair use" uload to fully understand these issues. This request sounds to me like a deletion request for the article, not for the image? I regard this image a benefit for the articles, no matter if it will be used in one or more related lemmas. And am in contact with Jean Jullien an his agent who support this "fair use" (see c:Commons:Deletion requests/File:Peace for paris 2015.jpg). But if "we"(WP) don't want it let's kick it out and dont waste too much time on it, do we? -- .js ( talk) 08:07, 20 November 2015 (UTC) PS. what does nfur stand for? reply

I have improved the NFURs ( non-free use rationales), Marchjuly. I agree with .js in that this is not the place to discuss the notability of the article on Jean Jullien and it has no relevance to the non-free use issues here. Given that we presently have an article on Jean Jullien, do you think the rationale holds? What about the rationale for November 2015 Paris attacks? I'm willing to improve them if you spot any problems still. Cheers, Finnusertop ( talk | guestbook | contribs) 08:17, 20 November 2015 (UTC) reply

Considering that this image is specifically discussed in both articles it's used in, I'd say it meets WP:NFCC#8 in both articles. NFCC#10 wise the rationales need to point out that the whole size, not just a portion, are used. Jo-Jo Eumerus ( talk, contributions) 08:53, 20 November 2015 (UTC) reply

It is cropped a bit, the original paper/photograph is exactly square 960x960 and has more (unpainted) paper frame around it, so I don't know if this still counts as whole size or cropped? -- .js ( talk) 09:22, 20 November 2015 (UTC) reply

Just for clarification, I was just trying to say that if the image was to be removed from one of the two articles that it would be best to do it from the Jullian article since that one seems ,IMO, to be a likely candidate for a merge or redirect. It sort of reminded me of the discussion for Wikipedia:Non-free content review/Archive 67#File:Gabon FA.png so I thought it was something worth pointing out. It wasn't my intention to turn this FFD into a AfD discussion about the Jullian article, so sorry if it came off as such. I think the nfurs are much better than before, so I think each usage is OK per NFCC#8. -- Marchjuly ( talk) 09:40, 20 November 2015 (UTC) reply

• FFD is not for discussing whether Jean Jullien is notable or not. If there is a dispute about the article's notability, then AFD is a better place to discuss this. This discussion should only concern the inclusion of the file, not the deletion or merging of any articles. There is some discussion about the picture in both articles, so it may be suitable for both of them. -- Stefan2 ( talk) 16:28, 22 November 2015 (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.