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 Fastily (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 05:05, 12 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

File:Rabbi Shmuel Salant, colored with background, fixed eye.png (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Charlie Smith FDTB (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log). 

Derivative of File:Shmuel Salant.jpg which is very badly colourized. Quality is such that there is no purpose to having this image. Whpq (talk) 00:10, 4 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete colorized photographs violate WP:OR. buidhe 03:48, 4 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Buidhe: There's no blanket rule. WP:OI doesn't distinguish between colorization and other forms of photo manipulation (such as restoration, retouching, or cropping), which are uncontroversial as long as they are not misleading. (Poor quality is a separate issue.) Wikiacc (¶) 02:03, 9 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    Wikiacc, How can you colorize a photograph without doing original research. According to the guideline, "all material added to articles must be attributable to a reliable, published source"—material presumably includes files, and amateur colorization is unlikely to be possible without at minimum WP:SYNTH of related colored images, and probably just making stuff up. See User:K.e.coffman/Colourised photograhs. buidhe 02:20, 9 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    @Buidhe: please read the policy carefully before making assumptions like "material presumably includes files". From the policy: "Original images created by a Wikipedian are not considered original research, so long as they do not illustrate or introduce unpublished ideas or arguments, the core reason behind the NOR policy." Wikiacc (¶) 03:04, 9 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    In my opinion, recolorization does introduce new ideas that aren't based on published sources. That's not the same as creating a map where you can cite a source for the information. If you created a map based on original research without citing sources, it would also be WP:OR. Such maps are usually objected to at image reviews at GA/FA level. buidhe 03:06, 9 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    I'm not sure what unpublished idea is being introduced in the image in question. That Salant wore a red hat? In general, I don't see a distinction between a Wikipedian colorizing a photo and a Wikipedian creating an original artwork (which we allow, again subject to the restrictions in WP:OI). The same standards should apply to both. Wikiacc (¶) 03:18, 9 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Just to be clear, I think this image is basically a cartoon. It has no encyclopedic use. Wikiacc (¶) 03:25, 9 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete i hate that 36.70.36.207 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 36.70.36.207 (talk) 09:43, 9 June 2020 (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 Fastily (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 05:05, 12 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

File:Mordecai Sheftall, with no background, colored.png (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Charlie Smith FDTB (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log). 

File:Mordecai Sheftall, with a wall background, colored.jpg (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Charlie Smith FDTB (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log).

File:Mordecai Sheftall, with blue background, colored.png (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Charlie Smith FDTB (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log).

These appears to be a derivative of this image. These are very poor colourizations of the image. If the source image is public domain (and that is likely given when the subject died), then the source image would be preferable over teh colourizations. If the source image is not public domain, then these are derivative images and would not be freely licensed. Whpq (talk) 00:23, 4 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete colorized photographs violate WP:OR. buidhe 03:49, 4 June 2020 (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 Fastily (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 05:05, 12 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

File:Left Party90.png (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Soman (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log). 

Non-free file issues: These non-free posters do not provide contextual significance (WP:NFCCP#8) - a reader does not understand the Left Party (Sweden) better somehow because they see some historic posters. The use of multiple non-free posters on an article that has a non-free logo in the infobox appears to exceed minimal number of items (WP:NFCCP#3a). If the posters were the subject of sourced commentary in the article, there could be exceptions made under WP:NFCI#3, but none are mentioned in the article (posters are not mentioned at all outside of the captions).  ★  Bigr Tex 02:19, 4 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

File:VP6.jpg (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Soman (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log).

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

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 Fastily (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 05:05, 12 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

File:Skp42b.jpg (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Soman (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log). 

Has been marked as a conflict of license for almost nine months. If someone can show that the copyright really has expired, they should move it to Commons. If it is non-free, it should be included with the three other posters listed immediately above.  ★  Bigr Tex 02:19, 4 June 2020 (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 Fastily (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 05:05, 12 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

File:KKK holocaust a zionist hoax.jpg (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Humus sapiens (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log). 

In all of the articles where it is used, the image is not analyzed and the KKK's antisemitism/Holocaust denial is not discussed either, showing a lack of contexual significance. Also, the image could easily be replaced with text quoting the signs if necessary without educational value being lost. buidhe 03:47, 4 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• In the three articles I checked, the image does not seem to be misleadingly used or unrelated to the topics, i.e. the signage portrayed in the image is clearly expressing holocaust denial. - LuckyLouie (talk) 19:12, 5 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - The non-free use rationale's provided with the image are perfunctory with no detailed purpose described for each use. The actual usage in the articles fails WP:NFCC#8 as described by the nominator. -- Whpq (talk) 19:53, 5 June 2020 (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 Fastily (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 05:05, 12 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

File:Derek Chauvin.jpg (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Tabletop123 (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log). 

There is already a clear image of this person in the very very relavant image of the George Floyd incident File:George_Floyd_neck_knelt_on_by_police_officer.png which has a extremely strong rationale to be used there, and so a second non-free image of him (currently on the Killing of George Floyd article) is unnecessary. It looks like someone was going to start a standalone article for him, but this would go against BLP1E/BLPCRIME at this stage as well. If at some point a standalone article on this person is merited, maybe the image is appropriate. Masem (t) 23:41, 4 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per WP:NFCC#1 and WP:NFCC#3a as well as possibly WP:MUG. Chauvin is one of the officers involved the highly publicized Killing of George Floyd and is likely to be subject to a very public trial (which might even end up in US Federal court); so, it seems reasonable that a free equivalent image could be found or created that would serve the encyclopedic purpose of primary identification in a stand-alone article about him (if one is eventually created that doesn't redirect to the article about Floyd's killing (Derek Chauvin (police officer)). I also don't think this would quite meet what's typically granted as an exception to WP:FREER for non-free images of living persons as explained in item 1 of WP:NFC#UUI, at least not at this moment. Non-free images of persons incarcerated for life or otherwise considered unattainable (i.e. the person has been missing for years or is a known recluse) are sometimes allowed, but I don't think such assessment can be made until after any trial related to the Floyd's killing is completed. Even then, there could be appeals filed either way which create more opportunities for a free equivalent image to be created or found. In addition to NFCC#1, the use in the article about Floyd's killing also fails NFCC#3a for the reasons given by Masem above; there's no need for two non-free images of Chauvin to identify him as being involved in the event. -- Marchjuly (talk) 00:02, 5 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete -- MUG is on point. No matter how dastardly the act, mugshots should not be accepted before guilt is attached. O3000 (talk) 00:28, 5 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per Marchjuly. WP:MUG seems the most relevant policy to me.— Goszei (talk) 05:11, 5 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per Marchjuly. The Squirrel Conspiracy (talk) 07:24, 5 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per Marchjuly. --IndexAccount (talk) 09:59, 5 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete "Mugshots should not be accepted before guilt is attached" -- I have to agree, even though it pains me to. Let him have his day in court. Pinnecco (talk) 12:13, 5 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per WP:MUG Ed6767 (talk) 00:22, 6 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Image of Chauvin in the infobox is sufficient. WWGB (talk) 13:24, 6 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per WP:MUG, unless a seperate article is drafted for the aforementioned police officer (which isn't likely). KevTYD (wake up) 13:48, 6 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per WP:MUG KidAd (talk) 06:29, 7 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as unnecessary and per WP:Mug. --Thi (talk) 20:23, 7 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep This semi-unanimous vote to Delete a mugshot ignores the rising drumbeat to misidentfy this individual by non-wikipedians. If Wikipedia is to be viewed as the ultimate soutce for "getting it right", the lower-resolution and emotionally-charged photograph of Chauvin accompanying the article on Floyd is hardly neutral or useful in disproving multiple false identifications, nor in dispelling unfounded rumors, is it? SalineBrain (talk) 23:40, 7 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  SalineBrain, Can you unpack this some? It seems like you're saying that there is some social problem of other persons being recognized as Derek Chauvin in their day-to-day life and so a clear picture of his face is needed on Wikipedia as some kind of remedy. Am I reading that correctly? ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 20:13, 8 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  Koavf, Unpacking my description for those who have not seen it on Facebook (this particular link alteady had 8400 views) https://www.facebook.com/CleopatraAngeliaVass/videos/263945811547978/ Whoever put together this "crisis actor" alternative conspiracy theory, is not interested in establishing the facts, but only wasting our time, distracting attention from the salient points, using none of the Wikipedia rules of objectivity. Don't we need to put an end to speculation with a clear exposition of facts, as they unfold, to make it trival to reject unfounded theories?SalineBrain (talk)

  SalineBrain I can't understand you or what you're trying to say. You're not making sense. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 02:31, 9 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  Koavf Simply put, crisis actor theory videos are circulating. These videos attempt to advance the idea that certain crisis situations (like George Floyd, Boston Marathon, and Sandy Hook) employ the identical person in the police. An implication is made by associating photos. The photo resemblances are poor. My contention was that a neutral photo would disprove any association better.SalineBrain (talk) 06:08, 9 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  SalineBrain, Deranged theories that are not based in evidence will not be disproven with evidence. There is literally no one on Earth who will think, "Hm, I was pretty convinced that this guy was a crisis actor but then I saw a mugshot on Wikipedia..." and change his mind to being rational. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 06:14, 9 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  Koavf Since emotional tone of voice is poorly conveyed by texting, I must assume you are sincere. I am overjoyed that you have brought to my full attention an unstated working assumption of mine on Wikipedia. Namely, that a member of the public would come across an idea that would raise the following question in their mind: "You know, I'm not really sure about this issue. I'm going to consult Wikipedia, where collaborative discussion among editors citing sourced evidence results in established facts agreed upon by the community. This is the most reliable way to resolve the matter in my mind." Then, after searching, reading, and careful consideration of Wikipedia's contributions to their perspective, they come away more illuminated than before. You describe this paradigm in a novel precision format. Someone with a million person edit experience would still need literally a span of control of 1000 (one thousand) to reach even one billion of the Earth's population, not to mention watching their minds fail to change from deranged to rational. So I am impressed. Yet I think you misunderstand me. I grant you Wikipedia may not change the mind of the perpetrator of deranged theories. My target is the rational open-minded individual using Wikipedia as a reference to checkout the veracity of the unknown. However, more to the point, my enthusiasm for the mugshot is waining as Reuters has published an article describing and refuting the deranged theory in question: https://mobile.reuters.com/article/amp/idUSKBN23A2SJ

  Nevertheless, wouldn't you like confirmation that our collective Wikipedian editing accomplishes some real-world effect? I wonder where is the study of the paradigm of the effect of consulting Wikipedia on the public. Thank you for your considered attention to my opinions.SalineBrain (talk) 07:48, 9 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  @SalineBrain: Man, I am having a really hard time following you here but to answer your question: yes. And there is plenty of confirmation of that. As to the very narrow example of somehow converting someone from thinking that Derek Chauvin is a crisis actor to believing that he's just a murderous thug using a mugshot, I would be very interested in principle of proof of that but I don't think anyone is going to get any actual proof. Happy to get your perspective to the extent that I understand it, even if we disagree. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 07:58, 9 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  Koavf, I believe SalineBrain is referring to "look-alike" incidents such as this one. Levivich ^{[dubious – discuss]} 19:07, 9 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  Levivich, Thanks, that helps but I'm still not getting everything that was written in this thread. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 19:09, 9 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  Koavf, you're not alone :-) Levivich ^{[dubious – discuss]} 19:09, 9 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete 1] All persons are presumed to be innocent until proven guilty, a mugshot is so inextricably linked to criminals and suchlike that it can imply guilt. 2] Regardless of what Chauvin likely did (note the the doubt and not the assumption - do not assume guilt, but given the video some form of criminal charge seems (from a personal perspective only) to be reasonable), he has a right to privacy and this photo infringes it. I note SalineBrain's point, and combatting false information is necessary but surely an image that does not have the same connotations as a 'Criminal' label would be more desirable. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Peter Kelford (talk • contribs) 19:51, 8 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Please explain how a neutral point of view is presented by "the implication of a mugshot", while also saying a suspect is presumed innocent unitl proven guilty. A mugshot is typically done during booking when a person is charged with a crime before being held for trial. If, at this point, the presumption of innocence has been lost behind the scenes by a Wikipedia editor discussion which knuckles under to some public "common perception of guilt", how is a neutral point of view expressed? The mugshot establishes the booking. The trial establishes the guilt. Does not the public also need Wikipedia to illuminate this process as well? SalineBrain (talk) 02:44, 9 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  SalineBrain, I agree that just having a mugshot does not prove anything but that's the policy. If you'd like to change it you should post to the talk page there. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 06:15, 9 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• I can see that in the article, it has 3 pictures: One of Chauvin kneeling on Floyd's neck, a portrait of Floyd and the Mugshot of Chauvin. I think the issue here is the Mugshot of Chauvin, rather than a portrait. The overwhelming visual evidence points to Chauvin killing Floyd, there is no dispute on that. But what we (those voting for deletion) are saying is that a precedence has been established on Wikipedia about Mugshots. Let Chauvin have his day in court. Don't worry, his mugshot will come back in due time Pinnecco (talk) 08:34, 10 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment: WP:MUG is only one of the problems with this file. It seems to be the one that everyone is focusing on, but it’s not the only one. Chauvin is still living and non-free images of still living persons are pretty much never allowed per WP:NFCC#1 (as explained in WP:FREER and item 1 of WP:NFC#UUI). Now, if someone is able to find or create a freely licensed image of Chauvin in the coming months, either as part of the trial that seems inevitable or in some other way, then that photo wouldn’t be subject to WP:NFCC and would be much easier to use than any non-free one. — Marchjuly (talk) 10:43, 10 June 2020 (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.