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. Well, it looks like the past consensuses were that non-free images used in such a context aren't OK and there is no reason to believe free-ness in this case either apparently. Jo-Jo Eumerus ( talk, contributions) 05:50, 20 August 2018 (UTC) reply

File:Donald Andrew Bess Jr.jpg ( delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by The Gnome ( notify | contribs | uploads | upload log). 

The permission parameter, U.S. criminal law stipulates that police arrest records are public property and, as such, can be assessed once an individual is arrested and fingerprinted is completely untrue for state level photos. Federal photos, sure. As all works created by federal employees during the course of their duties is in the public domain. But not state level photos. Only certain states put things in the public domain and Texas isn't one of them. Majora ( talk) 01:43, 1 July 2018 (UTC) reply

• Comment: I was aware of Texas passing legislation obliging legal entities that were in the business of publishing mugshots to take them down when requested to do so, without charging a fee for that. In the relevant bill from 2013, there is this piece of language: Criminal record information published by a business entity is considered...accurate if the information...was obtained by the entity from a law enforcement agency or criminal justice agency, including the Department of Public Safety, or any other governmental agency or entity within the 60-day period preceding the date of publication. Since there is no mention of restrictions on publishing in general of aforesaid "criminal record information" (which includes mugshots), I am or was under the impression that the mugshots are in the public domain. But, of course, if the case is as you present it above then the uploaded image should come down. - The Gnome ( talk) 06:36, 1 July 2018 (UTC) reply

Yeah, The Gnome, I'm afraid that as far as I know there isn't an exception for mugshots. Harvard copyright center also does not show any exceptions for these types of photos. It is gray and there are binding examples of state works that are copyrightable in Texas. So we can't assume. -- Majora ( talk) 19:30, 1 July 2018 (UTC) reply

Thanks for the pointers, Majora. I'll have to study a bit. - The Gnome ( talk) 19:36, 1 July 2018 (UTC) reply

• Use rationale is incorrect. Use must be assessed against consensus practice for inclusion of convicted murderers in articles centering on the crime. Since the person depicted is incarcerated and under a death sentence, the ordinary presumption of replaceability does not hold. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo). Treated like dirt by many administrators since 2006. ( talk) 18:34, 1 July 2018 (UTC) reply

Could you point me to this consensus, Hullaballoo Wolfowitz so I can modify my patrolling in the future? I know that articles on the person could potentially fall under fair use but we don't have an article directly on Donald Bess. -- Majora ( talk) 19:30, 1 July 2018 (UTC) reply

Could you please clarify, Hullaballoo Wolfowitz? Are you saying that only the "use rationale is incorrect" and that if the rationale is changed the image can be kept? Or that the image should be discarded in any case? - The Gnome ( talk) 19:36, 1 July 2018 (UTC) reply

Well, I can't say with certainty what consensus practice is. Consensus appears to support inclusion of nonfree images of murder victims in articles centered on their killers, but I'm not sure how sound that consensus is. I don't know whether the converse holds, and am hoping to see some discussion on both situations here. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo). Treated like dirt by many administrators since 2006. ( talk) 20:29, 1 July 2018 (UTC) reply

• Keep on the basis of the presumption stated above by Hullaballoo Wolfowitz. Having added this image to the murder article does not affect my suggestion, because paramount to me is formulating clear Wikipedia policy. - The Gnome ( talk) 12:48, 21 July 2018 (UTC) reply

• If possibly unfree, then delete - An unfree image of the convicted does not help increase readers' understanding of the murder, which is the main article subject. Id est it would fail WP:NFCC#8. Moreover, there's already an image of the victim, making the mugshot image excessive per WP:NFCC#3a. What else is needed to enhance readers' understanding of the topic? Personally, I can understand the event without the mugshot. I'm certain that the pre-death photo of the victim is rather adequate enough (if not unnecessary) for readers to understand the murder itself. A non-free image can be allowed as long as the reasoning is valid. If the mugshot were non-free, however, I don't see the case of why a photo of the convicted is needed unless a free equivalent exists. -- George Ho ( talk) 09:30, 12 August 2018 (UTC); edited, 09:30, 12 August 2018 (UTC) reply

Greetings, George Ho. An image of the convicted person either does or does not "help increase readers' understanding of the murder," irrespective of the image's status. If an image enhances the information value, then we should have in the article an appropriate, legitimately usable image (perhaps an alternative to this one). If an image does not do that, then the contested image should be deleted, whether it's free or not, and no other image should be used. However, since this discussion is about the 'legitimacy of the specific image, we should probably focus our discussion on that, rather than the encyclopaedic, informational value of the image. This could be the subject of another discussion. Take care. - The Gnome ( talk) —Preceding undated comment added 12:19, 13 August 2018 (UTC) reply

I'm not sure why we should focus on solely the copyright status instead of the value of the image. If the copyright status is the main matter, here's my thing: Texas Department of Criminal Justice is not a federal department; the department belongs to the state of Texas. I see that the image is also seen in this website. Moreover, the department has not indicated that the image is in the public domain. Without proof of PD status, I presume the image to be copyrighted and unfree. -- George Ho ( talk) 23:43, 13 August 2018 (UTC) reply

• Delete. The image was not released under a free license, so it can not be kept under such a license. Contrary to the above claims, precedent ( 1, 2, 3) has shown that the use of non-free images of a perpetrator of a crime in an article not about the subject is not justifiable. ℯ xplicit 00:12, 20 August 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: speedy deleted by Fastily ( talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA). Reason WP:F9. (non-admin closure) Tyw7 ( 🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then ( ping me) 20:53, 12 August 2018 (UTC) reply

File:Dav waidhan.jpg ( delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Bhanwar singh vaish ( notify | contribs | uploads | upload log). 

The description provided by the uploader doesn't make it clear who holds the license. Surely Google Map images cannot be uploaded to Public Domain Tyw7 ( 🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then ( ping me) 12:15, 12 August 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 Jo-Jo Eumerus ( talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 07:05, 20 August 2018 (UTC) reply

File:Beyonce4reissuecover.jpg ( delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Dweezychang ( notify | contribs | uploads | upload log). 

Fails WP:NFCC#3a and WP:NFCC#8. Easily replaceable by words and seeing the similar looking image in the main infobox for the standard album cover, removal of this is not detrimental to the reader's understanding of the article. Section about the artwork describes it in prose successfully. — IB ^{[ Poke ]} 13:48, 12 August 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.