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: remove from RCSCC Calgary. — ξ^xplicit 03:08, 9 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

File:RCSC Current Flag.png (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Quadra (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log).

Non-free flag image being used in Royal Canadian Sea Cadets and RCSCC Calgary. Some a very basic non-free use rationale (nfur) is provided which lists some basic copyright information, but this does not seem to be sufficient to satisfy WP:NFCC#10c since neither article is specifically named and two uses of the image. It looks like a valid can be written for "Royal Canadian Sea Cadets" (if that is truly the official flag of the RCSC), but the image should be removed from "RCSCC Calgary" per No. 17 of WP:NFCC#UUI since that appears to be only a division of the RCSC. -- Marchjuly (talk) 00:57, 26 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Remove from RCSCC Calgary for violation of WP:NFC#UUI §17 and WP:NFCC#10c. Keep in Royal Canadian Sea Cadets provided that a valid FUR is written. --Stefan2 (talk) 20:17, 1 December 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.

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. The consensus of this discussion asserts that a non-free image of the perpetrator is in violation of WP:NFCC#8. The keep arguments pointed out the use of non-free images of perpetrators in other articles and cited them as precedents. There are two faults in these arguments: half of them were articles about the perpetrators (Seung-Hui Cho, James Holmes (mass murderer), Eric Harris and Dylan Klebold), while the other half are images were never subject to a deletion discussion (Sandy Hook Elementary School shooting#Perpetrator, 2014 Isla Vista killings#Perpetrator, Westroads Mall shooting#The shooter) and are being considered a de facto precedent, but largely under the basis that other stuff exists and not because it is ingrained in policy. The deletion side argued that the removal of the image would not be detrimental to the understanding of the article, which the keep arguments did not properly address. There was not enough support to make the case that this image is essential to the article or its understanding. — ξ^xplicit 03:08, 9 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Chris Haper Shooter.jpg (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by HalloweenNight (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log)

Disputed fair use for Umpqua Community College shooting. Per WP:FREER, text description of the shooter is adequate. No additional encyclopedic understanding of the subject of the article (the shooting) is to be had from the image. It is also unclear how the uploader knows that no free alternative image exists and that none could be released under a free license. VQuakr (talk) 01:07, 26 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: Just for reference, similar non-free images are being used in the infoboxes of Seung-Hui Cho, James Holmes (mass murderer) and Eric Harris and Dylan Klebold as well as Sandy Hook Elementary School shooting#Perpetrator and 2014 Isla Vista killings#Perpetrator. The usage in the last two articles, in particular, seem similar to this. Of course, WP:OSE doesn't automatically mean its OK to use the image, but it does seem to be being used as the primary means of identification of Mercer in an infobox just like in those other articles. -- Marchjuly (talk) 01:39, 26 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment "No additional encyclopedic understanding of the subject of the article (the shooting) is to be had from the image". The identity of the perpetrator seems central to any understanding of this event. And the physical appearance of any person is usually rather central to their identity? Martinevans123 (talk) 19:39, 26 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment: Mercer is dead, so this image is not replaceable. No free alternative exists or could be created isn't entirely convincing. The Myspace profile image is the best known image because it is the one that the media found almost straight away after the shooting. However, a free image might be found.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 19:40, 26 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - If the person fails BLP1E (cannot support their own article) and only described in context of the larger event, there is no requirement to include a non-free image of that person in association with respect to that, unless there is some critical commentary about that person's appearance as to satisfy NFCC#8. Just because a person is critical to an event (either as the perpetrator or as the victim) it doesn't mean seeing what they look like aids in understanding. --MASEM (t) 20:22, 26 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment - another example would be Westroads Mall shooting#The shooter. I think the rationale justifies the usage as shooter is deceased. Kelly ^hi! 20:48, 26 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep This is as good as we'll get, per the lack of a better one already circulating by now. I was originally opposed to inclusion because there was a media zeitgeist about denying this guy recognition, and I thought this would stir the shit. Now the media's moved on newer, Frencher things, and there's far less risk of a hornet nest situation. A reader can understand the topic slightly better if they can see the killer. InedibleHulk (talk) 18:16, 27 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Fails NFCC#8. As InedibleHulk (great name by the way) accurately states, A reader can understand the topic slightly better if they can see the killer, emphasis on "slightly". Photos like these are "nice" to have, but there's no absolute necessity for them, and in this case readers' understanding is not significantly harmed by its removal. Pressingly, there's nothing in the actual article that has any bearing or relation to a photo of the perpetrator, except a passing mention that he described himself as biracial. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs^(talk) 22:11, 27 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per NFCC#8. Sure, as a reader I would want to know what this guy looked like. In cases where no photo is provided, I usually go to Google Images to find one. I have asked myself why I do that, and the best explanation I can conjure is that I want to add to my subconscious database of the faces of mentally ill mass murderers, as if they could be identified by their appearance; I quite wrongly believe that I'm learning something about the world. The better part of me tells me that's irrational, but there it is. Such a photo does not truly enhance my understanding of the event; rather, (1) it caters to a tendency that I would be better off without, and (2) it allows me to form a more vivid fictitious mental picture of the event; I can put a more accurate face on that body in my imagination. That may be information, but it is not true understanding. 72.198.26.61 (talk) 22:46, 27 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per InedibleHulk. Further, I see no harm in keeping it. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 18:09, 28 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - No harm, no foul. Agree with the others for it. Parsley Man (talk) 20:34, 29 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Every frivolous use of non-free harms WP's free content mission. So there is harm, and we have to judge how important it is to have a non-free image of the shooter to justify that harm. And because his appearance is not critical to understanding the topic, it should not be kept. --MASEM (t) 03:45, 8 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - Based on widespread precedent (previous shooters all have images). To refuse to have a picture here would be discriminatory (why allow in all others but this specific case? I.e., overt arbitrary bias!). Based on fact no better picture available. Argument that a better picture may become available is spurious: subject is dead. Based on that reasoning, almost all Wiki pictures would have to be eliminated, because there is always the infinitely tiny possibility that a better pic may at some point in future become available. Also, meets NFCC#8: the shooter was of mixed race, as described in the article. The picture is of one with the article text. XavierItzm (talk) 10:25, 6 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Per WP:NFCC#8, a non-free photo about a person should only be used in an article about the person. Umpqua Community College shooting is not an article about the person. If the person doesn't have his own article, then this means that the picture shouldn't be used anywhere at all. --Stefan2 (talk) 14:56, 6 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• @Stefan2, XavierItzm, Parsley Man, Winkelvi, 72.198.26.61, David Fuchs, and InedibleHulk: I added File:Chris Haper Shooter.jpg for discussion. The info of the image is essentially no different from the info of the other image. But your votes can be the same for the second image, right? George Ho (talk) 03:08, 8 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Masem, Kelly, Martinevans123, and Ianmacm: Didn't realize that the template has maximum amount of notifying editors. --George Ho (talk) 03:10, 8 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, the new image also fails for the same reason. --MASEM (t) 03:45, 8 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

* Keep either - either picture is good, but I believe the first one is better because the subject is clearly framed, straight forward. The odd angle on the second one may cause the individual to be mixed up with someone else whose picture is also taken from an odd angle. XavierItzm (talk)

No, this is a whole different copy. David Fuchs complimented my username (and also made some points), so I'm switching to Delete. Not significantly hurting a reader's understanding is better than insignificantly helping it. Everything I said toward keeping it is still true, though. InedibleHulk (talk) 04:29, 8 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Note - The uploader is blocked as a sockpuppet of Alvandria. Shall this affect the above images? --George Ho (talk) 23:49, 18 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Another note - I did upload similar image, File:Christopher Sean Harper-Mercer Myspace photo.jpg. If the consensus favors having a photo of this guy, can you replace sockpuppet's image and then undelete my copy? George Ho (talk) 21:52, 24 December 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.

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⚡ 04:03, 11 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

File:Time Magazine William Levitt.jpg (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Kittheking1 (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log).

Fails WP:NFCC#3. There is another image of Levitt in the infobox, no rationale has been given for a second image. January (talk) 09:46, 26 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.

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⚡ 04:03, 9 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

File:Differential manchester encoding revised.svg (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Mark.sullivan (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log).

File is wrong and https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Datei:Differential_manchester_encoding.svg file is right and has more than only one citation. E01f (talk) 16:54, 26 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You're probably right. But the paragraph above the graphic seems to disagree. So maybe the text is wrong. The text says, "The clock half-period always begins with a transition from low to high or from high to low," but the original graphic shows the transition (that every clock cycle has) in the middle of the clock cycle.

Yes, that seems to be the case. Please have a look at my detailed comment in the discussion about DMC (at the end, starting "Bi-Phase Mark is NOT the same...") where I cited a few sources that lead me to the conclusion that the image (and hence also the text) is wrong. E01f (talk) 16:25, 2 December 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.

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⚡ 04:03, 11 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

Delete - Unused, low resolution. Kelly ^hi! 20:14, 26 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.

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⚡ 04:03, 11 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

File:One Day- A Musical Teaser Poster.jpg (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Oberlinjoe (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log).

File:One-Day-A-Musical-Filming.jpg (delete | talk | history | links | logs)

Delete, orphaned from deleted article. Kelly ^hi! 22:15, 26 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.