The result of the discussion was: Delete.
Many of the keep arguments have been discounted for poor or lack of rationale, and there were also four from unregistered users, which are traditionally given less weight. In particular, "it does no harm" is neither a reason for keeping nor necessarily true, as in the past we have had cases where NFCC#2 has come into play on non-free images; most famously on JD Salinger. We also had an argument that "NFCC says to use non-free photos in one place... this is the one article that discussed the person depicted" and that the picture is "iconic". This is so confused as to policy that I am unable to take it into account either. Nor can I take into account "literally every photo of people on Wikipedia doesn't add anything" nor "people ought to know what police look like without viewing a wiki [sic] page".
On the deletion side, we have a "per nom" which I give lower weight to, but the nominator, User:Stefan2, and User:Marchjuly have made the point that the image does not significantly increase readers' understanding of the article topic (which, remember, is a series of crimes, and not the person depicted in the image) and its omission would not be detrimental to that understanding. This point has been made successfully by the "delete" side and has not been successfully refuted; it therefore follows that deletion is the correct outcome.
As with all my deletion discussion closures, I have carefully considered my position and all the arguments before closing, and if you feel my closure does not follow deletion process, please list directly at Wikipedia:Deletion review. I waive the requirement to consult with me prior to doing so.
Stifle ( talk) 10:19, 25 April 2016 (UTC)
Per Wikipedia:Files for discussion/2015 November 26#File:Chris Mercer.jpg, an image of a perpetrator does not help readers grasp the killings done by the perpetrator himself. In fact, a reader may understand the killings without this image and search this image outside Wikipedia. Other discussions similar to this resulted in "delete"; this image may share the same fate. George Ho ( talk) 18:44, 13 February 2016 (UTC)
It doesn't add anythingseems to be the very definition of decorative use which is something not allowed at all for a non-free image such as this per WP:NFCC. There's a difference between the way Wikipedia treats a freely licensed photo of some old king and a non-free photo of some old king. The former can be pretty much used anywhere on Wikipedia if it satisfies WP:IUP and there's a local consensus to use it; the latter, however, must comply with WP:NFCCP for each use, in addition to WP:IUP and there being a local consensus to use it. -- Marchjuly ( talk) 22:09, 24 March 2016 (UTC)
The result of the discussion was: Delete; deleted as G7 by Cryptic ( talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 07:06, 25 February 2016 (UTC)
Just to make sure this "temporary image" does not become permanent: This image has been created for discussing which image to use on Planet Nine and has been posted on Talk:Planet Nine. The leftmost image is one that has been repeatedly deleted from Commons and Wikipedia because there is no evidence that it's freely licensed (it does not fall under the scope of {{ PD-NASA}} or the IPAC image policy because its creation seems independent from them, see Commons discussion). The others may or may not qualify as derivative works of that one ( Commons discussion). Thus, we cannot keep this image for long as it's likely a non-free derivative work. Jo-Jo Eumerus ( talk, contributions) 14:55, 21 February 2016 (UTC)
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 ⚡ 07:05, 29 February 2016 (UTC)
This image may violate WP:NFCC#8 as it isn't contributing much to understanding the subject of United States Military Academy. It also shadows a Commons file. Jo-Jo Eumerus ( talk, contributions) 15:14, 21 February 2016 (UTC)
The result of the discussion was: Delete; deleted by Explicit ( talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 07:05, 29 February 2016 (UTC)
In my opinion fails WP:NFCC#8. It shouldn't be two difficult to describe a head with an extra face on the back of it - for sure JKR managed to do it - and so this doesn't add anything significant to the article. BethNaught ( talk) 19:22, 21 February 2016 (UTC)
The result of the discussion was: Keep. The images have been removed from the list articles and have (now) adequate non-free use rationales. Stifle ( talk) 10:21, 25 April 2016 (UTC)
Non-free logos being used in Green Party (Czech Republic) and Severočeši.cz in addition to List of political parties in the Czech Republic. non-free use rationales have been provided for each usage, but WP:NFCC only seems satisfied for the stand-alone articles about each respective organization. Files are being used in a table of parlimentary parties in "List of political parties in the Czech Republic". Such usage is generally not-allowed per WP:NFTABLES (and WP:NFLISTS) because it tends to primary decorative and does not contextual significance required by WP:NFCC#8. The other images in the table are freely licensed from Commons so they are not subject to the NFCC. If these two are too simple to be eligible for copyright protection ({{ PD-logo}}) or can be converted to a free license (for example, {{ PD-ineligible}}, {{ PD-USonly}} {{ PD-Czech}} or {{ PD-CzechGov}}, etc.), they can be used in the same manner as the freely locensed ones. If they stay non-free, however, then I suggest keep for the stand-alone articles and remove from the list article. For reference, I think the files can be linked to as was previously done in a previous version in the same article, but they should not be displayed. -- Marchjuly ( talk) 21:53, 21 February 2016 (UTC)
The result of the discussion was: Delete; deleted by Explicit ( talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 07:05, 29 February 2016 (UTC)
Fails WP:NFLISTS. Stefan2 ( talk) 23:08, 21 February 2016 (UTC)
The result of the discussion was: Delete; deleted by Explicit ( talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 07:05, 29 February 2016 (UTC)
Fails WP:NFLISTS. Stefan2 ( talk) 23:09, 21 February 2016 (UTC)
The result of the discussion was: Delete; deleted by Explicit ( talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 07:05, 29 February 2016 (UTC)
Fails WP:NFLISTS in Internet censorship and surveillance by country and I'm not sure that it is needed in Internet censorship in South Korea either. What does a page with text in Korean add to the average English Wikipedia user who can't read the text? Stefan2 ( talk) 23:22, 21 February 2016 (UTC)
The result of the discussion was: Delete; deleted by Explicit ( talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 07:05, 29 February 2016 (UTC)
All FURs are incomplete and thus invalid. The picture additionally seems to fail WP:NFCC#8 in all articles for which there is a FUR. Additionally, the file seems to fail WP:NFCC#10c in a bunch of articles. Stefan2 ( talk) 23:48, 21 February 2016 (UTC)
The result of the discussion was: Delete; deleted by Explicit ( talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 07:05, 29 February 2016 (UTC)
Fails WP:NFCC#8. Stefan2 ( talk) 23:49, 21 February 2016 (UTC)
The result of the discussion was: Delete.
Many of the keep arguments have been discounted for poor or lack of rationale, and there were also four from unregistered users, which are traditionally given less weight. In particular, "it does no harm" is neither a reason for keeping nor necessarily true, as in the past we have had cases where NFCC#2 has come into play on non-free images; most famously on JD Salinger. We also had an argument that "NFCC says to use non-free photos in one place... this is the one article that discussed the person depicted" and that the picture is "iconic". This is so confused as to policy that I am unable to take it into account either. Nor can I take into account "literally every photo of people on Wikipedia doesn't add anything" nor "people ought to know what police look like without viewing a wiki [sic] page".
On the deletion side, we have a "per nom" which I give lower weight to, but the nominator, User:Stefan2, and User:Marchjuly have made the point that the image does not significantly increase readers' understanding of the article topic (which, remember, is a series of crimes, and not the person depicted in the image) and its omission would not be detrimental to that understanding. This point has been made successfully by the "delete" side and has not been successfully refuted; it therefore follows that deletion is the correct outcome.
As with all my deletion discussion closures, I have carefully considered my position and all the arguments before closing, and if you feel my closure does not follow deletion process, please list directly at Wikipedia:Deletion review. I waive the requirement to consult with me prior to doing so.
Stifle ( talk) 10:19, 25 April 2016 (UTC)
Per Wikipedia:Files for discussion/2015 November 26#File:Chris Mercer.jpg, an image of a perpetrator does not help readers grasp the killings done by the perpetrator himself. In fact, a reader may understand the killings without this image and search this image outside Wikipedia. Other discussions similar to this resulted in "delete"; this image may share the same fate. George Ho ( talk) 18:44, 13 February 2016 (UTC)
It doesn't add anythingseems to be the very definition of decorative use which is something not allowed at all for a non-free image such as this per WP:NFCC. There's a difference between the way Wikipedia treats a freely licensed photo of some old king and a non-free photo of some old king. The former can be pretty much used anywhere on Wikipedia if it satisfies WP:IUP and there's a local consensus to use it; the latter, however, must comply with WP:NFCCP for each use, in addition to WP:IUP and there being a local consensus to use it. -- Marchjuly ( talk) 22:09, 24 March 2016 (UTC)
The result of the discussion was: Delete; deleted as G7 by Cryptic ( talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 07:06, 25 February 2016 (UTC)
Just to make sure this "temporary image" does not become permanent: This image has been created for discussing which image to use on Planet Nine and has been posted on Talk:Planet Nine. The leftmost image is one that has been repeatedly deleted from Commons and Wikipedia because there is no evidence that it's freely licensed (it does not fall under the scope of {{ PD-NASA}} or the IPAC image policy because its creation seems independent from them, see Commons discussion). The others may or may not qualify as derivative works of that one ( Commons discussion). Thus, we cannot keep this image for long as it's likely a non-free derivative work. Jo-Jo Eumerus ( talk, contributions) 14:55, 21 February 2016 (UTC)
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 ⚡ 07:05, 29 February 2016 (UTC)
This image may violate WP:NFCC#8 as it isn't contributing much to understanding the subject of United States Military Academy. It also shadows a Commons file. Jo-Jo Eumerus ( talk, contributions) 15:14, 21 February 2016 (UTC)
The result of the discussion was: Delete; deleted by Explicit ( talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 07:05, 29 February 2016 (UTC)
In my opinion fails WP:NFCC#8. It shouldn't be two difficult to describe a head with an extra face on the back of it - for sure JKR managed to do it - and so this doesn't add anything significant to the article. BethNaught ( talk) 19:22, 21 February 2016 (UTC)
The result of the discussion was: Keep. The images have been removed from the list articles and have (now) adequate non-free use rationales. Stifle ( talk) 10:21, 25 April 2016 (UTC)
Non-free logos being used in Green Party (Czech Republic) and Severočeši.cz in addition to List of political parties in the Czech Republic. non-free use rationales have been provided for each usage, but WP:NFCC only seems satisfied for the stand-alone articles about each respective organization. Files are being used in a table of parlimentary parties in "List of political parties in the Czech Republic". Such usage is generally not-allowed per WP:NFTABLES (and WP:NFLISTS) because it tends to primary decorative and does not contextual significance required by WP:NFCC#8. The other images in the table are freely licensed from Commons so they are not subject to the NFCC. If these two are too simple to be eligible for copyright protection ({{ PD-logo}}) or can be converted to a free license (for example, {{ PD-ineligible}}, {{ PD-USonly}} {{ PD-Czech}} or {{ PD-CzechGov}}, etc.), they can be used in the same manner as the freely locensed ones. If they stay non-free, however, then I suggest keep for the stand-alone articles and remove from the list article. For reference, I think the files can be linked to as was previously done in a previous version in the same article, but they should not be displayed. -- Marchjuly ( talk) 21:53, 21 February 2016 (UTC)
The result of the discussion was: Delete; deleted by Explicit ( talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 07:05, 29 February 2016 (UTC)
Fails WP:NFLISTS. Stefan2 ( talk) 23:08, 21 February 2016 (UTC)
The result of the discussion was: Delete; deleted by Explicit ( talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 07:05, 29 February 2016 (UTC)
Fails WP:NFLISTS. Stefan2 ( talk) 23:09, 21 February 2016 (UTC)
The result of the discussion was: Delete; deleted by Explicit ( talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 07:05, 29 February 2016 (UTC)
Fails WP:NFLISTS in Internet censorship and surveillance by country and I'm not sure that it is needed in Internet censorship in South Korea either. What does a page with text in Korean add to the average English Wikipedia user who can't read the text? Stefan2 ( talk) 23:22, 21 February 2016 (UTC)
The result of the discussion was: Delete; deleted by Explicit ( talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 07:05, 29 February 2016 (UTC)
All FURs are incomplete and thus invalid. The picture additionally seems to fail WP:NFCC#8 in all articles for which there is a FUR. Additionally, the file seems to fail WP:NFCC#10c in a bunch of articles. Stefan2 ( talk) 23:48, 21 February 2016 (UTC)
The result of the discussion was: Delete; deleted by Explicit ( talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 07:05, 29 February 2016 (UTC)
Fails WP:NFCC#8. Stefan2 ( talk) 23:49, 21 February 2016 (UTC)