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 Stifle (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 19:17, 19 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

File:Giantsizecomicspreviewsad-jan2014.jpg (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Sawyerkaden (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log).

Advertisement poster, fails WP:NFCC#8. Neither the object of analytical commentary nor required for identification. Fut.Perf. ☼ 08:08, 8 January 2014 (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 Stifle (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 19:17, 19 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

File:Moondancersdcu1.jpg (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Basique (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log).

Invalid FUR--non-free media already identify them. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 08:26, 8 January 2014 (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 Stifle (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 19:17, 19 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

File:LeBron James by Michael O'Brien (2002).jpeg (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Sabrina Barton (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log).

No discussion of image itself in text, no sourced discussion, fails WP:NFCC#8. Mosmof (talk) 19:44, 8 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. This is an easy one. Doc talk 03:59, 11 January 2014 (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 Stifle (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 19:17, 19 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

File:Xbox Home screenshot.JPG (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Jericho1337 (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log).

Pre-release screenshot, too many articles of non-free content contained herein (WP:NFCC#3) ViperSnake151  Talk  20:05, 8 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Copyrighted material being used for inappropriate purposes. We don't need this screenshot of copyrighted material to understand the article. Doc talk 03:53, 11 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Per above. Screenshot of a software being used for inappropriate purposes. ///EuroCarGT 02:30, 13 January 2014 (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 Stifle (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 19:17, 19 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

File:PlayStationStore-Screenshot.png (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Chimpanzee (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log).

Too many articles of non-free content contained herein (WP:NFCC#3) ViperSnake151  Talk  20:12, 8 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. A textbook example of copyrighted material being used for inappropriate purposes. Doc talk 03:49, 11 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Per above. Screenshot of a software being used for inappropriate purposes. ///EuroCarGT 02:30, 13 January 2014 (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: no consensus, if I've ever seen it. --BDD (talk) 18:02, 24 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I'll elaborate, per a talk page request. After such an extensive discussion with evenly divided votes, I only would've found consensus to keep or delete this file if one side was significantly based more in policy. This does not seem to be the case. Some further thoughts:

• The nominator's assertion that the image is "unneeded to show Hendrix was arrested" seems indisputably true. Reporting in reliable sources is sufficient to prove that Hendrix was arrested without providing visual proof.
• Is this picture historic? That's a pretty subjective question, so it's no surprise that editors' opinions on that question reflect those on whether the image should be kept or not. Does it significant add to the value of the article? Same answer.
• Does the presence of other images in the Jimi Hendrix make this image superfluous? Perhaps. I note that there aren't other images related to his "drug use and violence." It may be fruitful instead to treat this as a content dispute, discussing on the article talk page what this image contributes to the overall article rather than focusing on its copyright status. Consensus against the image there would mean this could be deleted as an orphaned fair use file. Does that sound like forum shopping? Not to me, though I'm sure some editors would disagree.
• The fact that this has come up at FfD and resulted in no consensus before influenced my decision. Consensus can change (or rather in this case, it can form), but it does not seem to have done so here.

I hope this settles the matter, though I welcome further discussion on my talk page. --BDD (talk) 18:39, 24 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

File:Jimihendrix1969mug.jpg (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Doc9871 (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log).

Fails WP:NFCC#8 - unneeded to show Hendrix was arrested. Consensus seems to be against including it, but it keeps getting re-added, which is why I have nominated it for deletion. Taylor Trescott - ^{my talk} + _{my edits} 20:36, 8 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. This unique and historical mug shot (mentioned in the article text) has remained in the article since I fought to keep it here over 2 years ago. FU rationale has been there for all that time. The claim that "consensus seems to be against including it" is simply false. To claim #8 at this point is borderline absurd. This image is apparently up for deletion because: supposedly FA articles can't have FU images, and this article is up for promotion. It is flatly untrue that FA articles cannot have FU images in them. This is not an exception. This is an image that should remain exactly where it has been for years. Doc talk 08:34, 9 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I was somewhat surprised to see that this article already got to FA status: with this image in place. I thought it was still up for promotion. But it was promoted to FA on January 6,[1] and the deletion nomination was issued two days later.[2] Sour grapes? This is now clearly a frivolous claim of a #8 "violation", likely spurred by my boldness in seeing that the image remains where it has been. Doc talk 09:42, 9 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Could you comment on why this passes NFCC8? Your keep rationale addresses a straw man (relationship of featured articles to nonfree images) but does not explain why the criterion is satisfied. Calliopejen1 (talk) 23:06, 9 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

No, I'm not going to comment on #8 and its interpretation. I will reiterate that the arrest is mentioned in the article and the mug shot certainly illustrates it better than mere text does. The Toronto P.D. is really quite unlikely to have an issue with us using its image, especially with the solid FU rationale in place. I still want to know how the article made it to FA with this image in place, and why the myth that consensus "seems to want it out" (while ignoring the last deletion discussion) was even offered as the reason to remove it after all this time. Doc talk 04:27, 10 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. I fail to see any evidence of consensus against its inclusion, and nothing has changed and no new arguments presented since Wikipedia:Files for deletion/2011 November 19#File:Jimihendrix1969mug.jpg. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 09:18, 9 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

That was a "no consensus" close, so there's no real reason to try and compare a renomination. I'll go notify the people who commented there of this one, though. Taylor Trescott - ^{my talk} + _{my edits} 21:00, 9 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

There was no renomination (until it was forced because it's how we do it). And accordingly no one was under any obligation to inform anyone in the previous deletion discussion; if it had been orphaned and subsequently deleted. Please understand that. Doc talk 04:05, 11 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. This unique and historic "mug shot" is a prime example of how fair use should be applied. Secondarywaltz (talk) 18:34, 9 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. We already have several highly appropriate non-free images of Hendrix in a more positive light, so we don't need another image of him for identification. While his sentencing and crime are discussed, an image is not necessary to show this (this section is well sourced, so that's your validation), and there is no commentary directly about how this mug shot looks, or how it distinguishes it from the other images of Hendrix. Ergo, it fails both NFCC#3a and NFCC#8. --MASEM (t) 19:03, 9 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • public disclosure, Taylor pointed me to this image FFD after I previously commented at WP:NFCR regarding the use of images on the Jimi Hendrix article and considered this the only improper non-free on that page). --MASEM (t) 19:07, 9 January 2014 (UTC) [reply]
• Delete - I don't see how having a mugshot of Mr. Hendrix is critical to the understanding that Mr. Hendrix was arrested. The policy states that "Non-free content is used only if its presence would significantly increase readers' understanding of the article topic, and its omission would be detrimental to that understanding.". This doesn't meet that threshold. Sven Manguard Wha? 21:17, 9 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Actually, there's quite a bit of information conveyed by the image other than that Hendrix was arrested. The slight smile, almost a smirk, is very different from what we see inmost mug shots, and tells us a lot about his attitude towards this arrest. His physical look also places the event in the context of his development as a showman. "Seeing is believing" and "a picture is worth a thousand words" aren't cliches because they're fun to say, they actually mean something, that we can pick up, almost as if by osmosis, things from a picture that are difficult to capture in words. I think almost everyone has been in the situation where something has been described to them, but they're just not "getting" it, despite the best efforts of the person describing it; but a single look at a picture clears it up immediately. That happens because images contain a lot more information than can be easily described, and that is the case here. BMK, Grouchy Realist (talk) 05:05, 10 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• "A picture is worth a thousand words" is an invalid rationale for keeping an image, unless you can show sources that commented directly on the image itself (such as in the manner you describe, that there's an attitude that Hendrix is giving off in that shot that represents the attitude of that period). Otherwise it's original research and inappropriate to use to argue to keep, and represent a duplicate image identifying Hendrix. Again, a good baseline to compare against is the use of the magazine covers to show OJ Simpson's arrest, because the images used in those covers were specifically commented on to reflect racial bias in the media. We need the equivalent here to keep these mug shots of Hendrix. --MASEM (t) 06:24, 10 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Masem, if you can't see what I'm talking about in the Hendrix image, then I'm afraid you're just lacking in the perceptions that are necessary to "see" and understand visual images. Perhaps that is why you want to delete things that shouldn't be deleted? I don't know id that's the case, but I do know that the image is tremendously informative. If you can't see that, I suggest you switch to some other area of Wikipedia, as someone with your lack of perception is a detriment in evaluating images. BMK, Grouchy Realist (talk) 11:03, 10 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• NFC requires the importance of the image to be discussed in text (contextual significance), and not just there to illustrate something because it can be illustrated. If it is readily apparent that that image speaks volumes about the arrest, I'm sure you can find sources that discuss that aspect, but all that is presently there is straightforward facts about the arrest and nothing consequentially on the larger picture. And this is exactly the type of thing NFC is meant to avoid, we've done this for years. --MASEM (t) 15:32, 10 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• • Public disclosure: I was also pointed to this by Taylor. The message is on my talk page, or if you're reading this during or after April 2014, in my 2014 Q1 archive. Sven Manguard Wha? 21:17, 9 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep This is a puzzling renomination. The subject's Canadian arrest and the disposition of his case is discussed at length in the article (an entire paragraph in the two paragraph section of the entry) and is fully sourced. The caption of this image identifies it as the mugshot from this specific arrest, and as mugshots are taken with every arrest anywhere, there is no need to state that separately in the article as well as that is a virtually universal given. The licensing template used also specifically relates to the use of mugshots in WP articles in exactly the way this one is used. As such this image and its use is both both appropriate and correctly applied and thus appears to clearly meet the requirements of WP:NFCC in general and WP:NFCC#8 in particular.

As I and others have pointed out many times before, no image or illustration is ever "necessary" to "understand" what it illustrates. The purpose of this mugshot (and every other image or illustration on WP) is to serve as a visual adjunct to enhance and illustrate ("the employment of a graphic, photograph, drawing, picture, painting, or other artwork or rendering intended for enhancement, explanation, elucidation, and/or adornment") the article's context. What a person looks like when arrested -- especially a well know public figure -- is notable and relevant to "understand" the details of the arrest, although like every other illustration on WP it is not really "necessary" as that is an unachievable and therefore false standard. "A picture is worth a thousand words" is not just an empty phrase.

The taking of mugshots are an integral and universally mandated part of the arrest and booking process as practiced in Canada (where this occurred) and the United States, and thus their existence do not need to be separately stated in the text to be understood as having been done. Identifying them as such in the caption is more than adequate. Depending on the crime, such photographs may not be "notable" for the arrest of the average private citizen, but in the case of public figures such as entertainers (especially very widely know ones like Hendrix), politicians, professional athletes, public servants, etc, they most assuredly are notable for virtually any offense. (See, for instance, the TIME and Newsweek covers of O.J. Simpson when he was arrested in 1994 for the murder of his wife and Ronald Goldman.) If the individual is notable, then so to are their mugshots. To consider them otherwise is ignoring the obvious.

The claim of copyrightability of booking photographs (or "mugshots") which are legally required public safety records is extremely dubious. To-wit: "[W]hen the authors in question are legally obligated to perform their creative effort, the Patents and Copyright Clause does not authorize a copyright. This is exactly the situation that exists for the work product of public officials. As long as they are not acting ultra vires, they are performing public duties when collecting and as- sembling information. Even if some of their selection and arrangement would seem to qualify under the Feist originality test, the creative component of their selection and arrangement does not stem from the economic incentive provided by the copyright law because it is legally mandated and therefore fails to qualify under Feist. Whenever a public duty is the cause of the expression, the incentive justification under the copyrights and patent laws is absent, and any construction of the Copyright Act to protect such official work product would be unconstitutional." ("SOURCES OF RIGHTS TO ACCESS PUBLIC INFORMATION" by Henry H. Perritt, Jr., JD) A mug shot is a public record produced by the government, and thus cannot be copyrighted. Not all public records are "made public" or "publicly released" or "published" — for example, an investigator's notes or in some jurisdictions, drivers' license data — but no public record, published or not, can be copyrighted. All public records are non-copyrightable and are automatically in the public domain. Even if it were "non-free", however, I completely disagree with any contention that the Hendrix mugshots "are neither discussed in the article, nor themselves the subject of sourced commentary, nor otherwise significant to understanding that Hendrix was arrested for drugs." For that reason I believe that the images comply with WP:NFCC#8 as well as with WP:NFCC in toto. Centpacrr (talk) 22:25, 9 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

NFCC#8 has two parts that have to be satisfied. The enhancement the article is clear and meets the first part, but the removal of the mugshots does not harm the reader's understanding of the article (that Hendrix was arrested which is well documented by text), and thus fails the second part of NFCC#8. As for the issue of copyrightability, it depends on what the specific level of gov't that took the mugshot has with respect to copyright. In the US, while works made by the Federal government are automatically in the public domain, this does not extend to state and local governments, each are free to determine this themselves. California has adopted such a policy but this is not true for all states. And this all changes when we are talking Canada which has different copyright issues for its government and the various local jurisdictions. So yes, this is very likely a copyrighted photograph, even if you want to try to claim it was made for the public good as part of the policy duties. --MASEM (t) 22:31, 9 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Claiming that the "removal of the mugshots does not harm the reader's understanding of the article" is a completely subjective and personal position about its illustrative value. The purpose of illustrations, however, is to illustrate which means "to furnish drawings, pictures, or other artwork intended to help explain, elucidate, enhance, or adorn" which this mugshot clearly does. A "standard" of forced removal based on "not harming a reader's understanding" is so broad and vague as to essentially be meaningless as it could be argued that any and every illustration on WP fails to meet such a standard. Just imagine how much poorer Wikipedia would be as an encyclopedia then. Centpacrr (talk) 22:56, 9 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

But that's our requirement, and has been for some time. It certainly isn't "just" to illustrate the work; NFC should only be used if the same educational content cannot be achieved by free media alone. So in the case of Hendrix (who is of course dead and thus impossible to get new free imagery of), there's no question that the article would be less helpful if we stripped all images from it, as it is completely within reason to say that seeing a person in a bio article about that person is extremely useful. So the infobox image is fine. Further, the other image of him at a famous performance shows him "in action" for what he was known for - playing the guitar expertly which much of the article is dedicated to, so that's fair to have. But to have mug shots which simply append to the section that says "yes, he ran into trouble with the law" is not a significant help, and thus they fail that test. --MASEM (t) 23:14, 9 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Every editor and viewer is, of course, entitled to their own personal, subjective opinion as to whether or not a particular image either enhances, or its removal does not harm, the reader's understanding of the article, but that's all it is: that individual's own personal, subjective opinion and he/she speaks for nobody else. Centpacrr (talk) 00:49, 10 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• There are subjective areas, yes, but we also have various bright areas where image is allowed or not allowed, and this is a clear case of such - you already have images of Hendrix, and there's no discussion specifically about the booking photo. That's pretty much a standard failure of NFCC#8 and #3a right there. --MASEM (t) 00:52, 10 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

And to comment on a previous thing you mentioned about the OJ pictures, the reason we have those is not to highlight OJ's arrest, but how his picture was portrayed rather differently in at least two different media which tied into claims of racial bias in the media coverage of his arrest. That's a subject of discussion that's hard to understand without seeing the actual images, and thus appropriate there, but again, that's tied to the section about the media coverage, and not present just because he was arrested. --MASEM (t) 23:16, 9 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete (As a preliminary note, this is an article about Jimi Hendrix generally, not about his arrest. So when we are thinking about this article, the question to ask is not whether this photo helps readers understand the arrest but whether it helps readers understand Jimi Hendrix as a whole.) There is nothing particularly interesting about this mugshot that tells the reader anything more than the text "Jimi Hendrix was arrested" conveys. The standard for inclusion of non-free images is deliberately high. For those who do not understand which usages might pass, have a look at Guernica (painting), which would be extremely difficult to understand without the inclusion of the image itself. The standard is not whether the image is interesting, or whether readers would prefer it be there, but rather whether readers' understanding would be harmed by that omission. And this image fails the test, particularly because the article is already well illustrated with free images. Calliopejen1 (talk) 23:04, 9 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • I was notified of this discussion because I participated in the previous deletion discussion. I believe all participants (whether keep or delete) were notified. Calliopejen1 (talk) 23:04, 9 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • This image was nearly orphaned against the established consensus with no deletion discussion whatsoever because its existence was allegedly threatening the article's FA nomination.[3] After its reinsertion, it still became a FA. What you may think is "particularly interesting" or not about this image should not be a reason for deletion. How do we know what other readers might find "interesting" about it? The fact that you (who is an administrator) participated in the original deletion discussion, knew that it was orphaned per your above request[4] and sat back and watched this improper attempt to remove this image from the article is, in my opinion, unbecoming conduct of an administrator. Doc talk 07:28, 10 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      • Based on the FAC, there's no consensus for its inclusion there (infact, the editors seemed against it), so just because it was in the article at FA doesn't mean it is "okay". (If the FAC in fact had shown reasonable support for it, I would have removed my objects, but its clearly not there). So "it was in the article at FAC" is an invalid argument here to us to justify keeping it. --MASEM (t) 15:32, 10 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • We don't decide whether an image should be deleted form WP or not at FAC. We do it here at FFD. I am quite familiar with the tactic of orphaning images in hopes that a deletion discussion can be avoided. The last deletion discussion showed no consensus to delete the image, and I'm not seeing a consensus to delete it this time, either. Doc talk 21:17, 10 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      • Exactly, Doc. This was actually one of the cardinal practices of the former image deletionist admin SchuminWeb that eventually got him desysopped. He would quietly remove hundreds of long standing non-free images from articles and then promptly delete them himself as being orphaned without notice to the OP or anyone else. (He even did this to images that had passed a previous FFD review.) Centpacrr (talk) 21:38, 10 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
        • I completely agree that what SWeb did (removing the image without getting consent and then saying "Oh, it's orphaned!") was reason to strip away admin tools. That has no relevance on this discussion which is following standard process when an image's use is debated so there's no point in talking admin abuse or the like. --MASEM (t) 22:01, 10 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong keep per Doc9871. The renomination was apparently provoked by the idea that no GA article can contain a non-free image. First, I don't think that's necessarily true, second, the article is stronger with the image in it, and therefore a "better" article (in the real-world sense, not in the highly artificial Wikipedia sense) than it would be without it. This is much more important than fulfilling some artificial requirements. BMK, Grouchy Realist (talk) 04:56, 10 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • We are first and foremost a free encyclopedia so your "artificial" requirements are the "law of the land" as set by the Foundation. --MASEM (t) 06:17, 10 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • As is WP:IAR. Doc talk 07:28, 10 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Masem: That's far from the truth, as I'm sure you know, as several of the criteria set forth by the WMF are not objective, but exremely subjective in nature. That is a mistake on their part, I believe, because it gives impetus to those whose inclinations are to delete images. I don't know if you're in that particular camp, but I've certainly come across them before, editors who believe they are improving the encyclopedia by deleting as many images as possible, and using the WMF's ambiguous criteria to do so. These editors of whom I speak, and, again, I don't know if you are among them, appear to believe that their interpretation of the NFC criteria is the only conceivable one, and therefore that any image that they (as the only trustworthy interpretors of the WMF's image criteria) determine to be outside the bounds of the NFCC criteria must therefore be deleted. I, on the other hand, see a significant amount of leeway for interpretation by the community, and I do not believe that the "hard-liner" interpretation is either justified by WMF policy, or beneficial to the value of en.wiki. If the WMF has a problem with any particular image, they're more than capable of removing it from the site, so there's no need for us to second-guess what it is they want. BMK, Grouchy Realist (talk) 10:57, 10 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • We know exactly what they want - they set out a very objective Resolution as to how NFC must have minimum use and be considered highly exceptional. And since they're the ones paying for the server and bandwidth space, they are the ones that "own" the sandbox of en.wiki and their rule is first and foremost. There are subjective cases, certainly; if we went totally objective, I'd be calling out the second solo shot of Hendrix performing in the article as a problem too, but here I don't see that as a problem since Hendrix' role as a performer is well described in the text. But this specific case is an example of extraneous use of non-free that simply is there to illustrate a passage in text, one that we repeated delete as inappropriate NFC use. (This basically falls into WP:NFC#UUI#5, almost, but again, the point is there). --MASEM (t) 15:32, 10 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep This beautiful image is very useful in illustrating the legal challenges that iconic countercultural figures of that era faced, and the bemused response of those who were at the receiving end of that attention. I consider this an iconic, honest representation of an era, and a truly encyclopedic representation of a point in time which resonates over four decades later in a vibrant and intense way. This fair use image improves the encyclopedia, without any doubt in my mind. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 05:28, 10 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Uh, exactly "how" is it demonstrating these legal challenges? It's a mug shot. If we were talking about a demonstration of people rallying for his release or against his arrest, that would be something, but this is just a mug shot. He was arrested, the mug shot is a defacto element of that. The reader understand Hendrix was arrested without the image, so NFCC#8 is violated by its inclusion. --MASEM (t) 06:15, 10 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Masem, in order to understand why "just a mugshot" is a far too narrow notion, I suggest that you read Breach of Peace: Portraits of the 1961 Mississippi Freedom Riders and also and especially the actual book. I was arrested four times in the 60s and early 70s for similar reasons, and the mug shots of that era, whether for overt civil disobedience or for routine drug offenses, resonate and vibrate with deep historical significance that ordinary portrait photos lack. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 06:51, 10 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • And this is explained... where? Note I'm not doubting that was the history that happened, but what is explicitly being shown here via this image and what this article is stating. We require contextual significance to meet NFCC#8, requiring that the picture being necessary to suppliment the text so that the reader's understanding of the topic is not harmed. The text, as given, makes no statement at all about the nature of attitudes and civil rights situation at that time, and instead simply documents Hendrix' arrest. The picture can be removed and the reader's understanding is not diminished, and thus it fails. There is absolutely nothing there about this so-called understatement of what you're talking about, and given the fact that this waylaid Hendrix for all of four hours, I am pretty sure you're reading far too much into this. --MASEM (t) 07:07, 10 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I offered a book length source explaining the significance of mug shots in portraying the social milieu of the 1960s. If that is inadequate in your view, Masem, then let's agree to disagree. Hendrix was famous and is dead. I am relatively unknown and alive. So we differ. But my unjust incarcerations of roughly four hours of well over 40 years ago resonate so deeply with me that I am simply compelled to express the opinion that use of this mug shot adds so much value to the article that it meets our fair use standards. You are entitled to disagree. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 07:27, 10 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• It's quite clear to me that Masem is lacking in the perceptual abilitiies which would lead him to understand why this image is valuable to the article. Several editors have offered strong arguments in its favor, and Masem's only response has been to fall back on bureaucratic nonsense, since he apparently lacks the ability to grok these arguments. I'd suggest that Masem stop working in the area of images and so some other work on Wikipedia that he's more suited for, but stop getting in the way of editors who are more cognizant of the power and value of images. Masem should also be reminded that his being an admin gives him no special status in regard to editorial conflicts, and is warned that involved admins should never use their powers to influence a discussion they're involved with. BMK, Grouchy Realist (talk) 11:12, 10 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  I couldn't agree more with the above. I (and many other) editors who understand and support the value of images to illustratrate WP have butted heads with such closed minded Wikilawyering sysops in the past (SchuminWeb and Fastily come to mind) and it eventually ends badly for them with their sysop tools either being withdrawn by the community and/or their leaving WP altogether. I'm not saying this should or will be the case here, but it has happened in the past. Centpacrr (talk) 15:09, 10 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  Unless the book source includes specific mention of Hendrix' arrest (based on the title and topic, I doubt it), that doesn't help here since you don't even bring up the racial tension at the time. I do understand that if our image inclusion requirement was to meet US fair use law, there's no question the image would be fine, but we have a stronger requirement to minimize the amount of non-free and avoid the use where the image is not contextually significant. NFC is not a trivial thing to play around with - I have to point to WP:VEGAN to show how cases like this weaken the goal of making WP a free content work and use non-free in an exceptional manner as set forth by the foundation. (And I never brought up being an admin or using admin powers for anything here, so that's heading on a personal attack). --MASEM (t) 15:32, 10 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  One thing being missed by those that continue to oppose the use of this image is that mugshots are legally mandated public records and thus are actually not copyrightable in the first place. As I noted above, "[W]hen the authors in question are legally obligated to perform their creative effort, the Patents and Copyright Clause does not authorize a copyright. This is exactly the situation that exists for the work product of public officials. As long as they are not acting ultra vires, they are performing public duties when collecting and assembling information. Even if some of their selection and arrangement would seem to qualify under the Feist originality test, the creative component of their selection and arrangement does not stem from the economic incentive provided by the copyright law because it is legally mandated and therefore fails to qualify under Feist. Whenever a public duty is the cause of the expression, the incentive justification under the copyrights and patent laws is absent, and any construction of the Copyright Act to protect such official work product would be unconstitutional." ("SOURCES OF RIGHTS TO ACCESS PUBLIC INFORMATION" by Henry H. Perritt, Jr., JD) So this whole discussion really seems to be moot, the license should be changed to Public Domain, the image kept and left in the article, and this discussion closed, Centpacrr (talk) 17:10, 10 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  No, that's not true. Whether a work generated by a government entity is un-copyrigthable depends on the laws that government sets, as I've explained above, and we're talking Canada's laws here, not the US, and more specifically, that of the Toronto/Ontanio government, which, spot checking, clearly allow government works to be copyrighted (They use the crown copyright system). So I see no reason to presume this image is free. If it was free, this entire issue would be moot. --MASEM (t) 17:23, 10 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment. - FTR, inclusion of the image in no way jeopardized the FAC, so we can dispense with that strawman; per GrahamColm the article would have passed either way. Nikkimaria provided the image review which called into question our use of the non-free file, and Quadell agreed with her that it did not pass NFCC#8; that was the FAC consensus. I think Nikkimaria should explain her reasoning here, since it seems that she was the impetus of this debate, and now others are debating why it failed the image review, but she could possible enlighten us all as to why she failed the image. GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 17:12, 10 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment. - Masem, the image is apparently owned by Hendrix historian and archivist Steven Roby. Its used on page 237 of Hendrix on Hendrix: Interviews and Encounters with Jimi Hendrix. Chicago Review Press. ISBN 978-1-61374-322-5, and its credited to Steven Roby/Straight Ahead Archives Collection. GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 21:43, 10 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Either way, there remains copyright on the image (the argument it being a gov't work thus must be free being invalid). It would be interesting if there was a way to contact Roby /the collection owners to see about freeing up the image for WP's use per something like WP:CONSENT, but at the present time, it's a non-free image and discussed as such. --MASEM (t) 22:01, 10 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • Someone apparently bought the original image through Christie's in 2006.[5] So I don't know if the Crown owns it anymore. Doc talk 22:18, 10 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      • Doc, that person was Hendrix historian and archivist Steven Roby. GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 22:25, 10 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
        • Mr. Roby presumably bought a photographic print made from a negative, and if so that would be non-unique copy that would therefore not carry with it a transfer of copyright, if any, to the purchaser of the print. The only "original" would be the negatives created when the photographs (full face and profile) were created. Centpacrr (talk) 22:39, 10 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
          • Well, I don't know for certain that Roby was the one bought the Christie's image, but he is using the image in his books and claiming to own the copyright. GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 22:42, 10 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
            • The auction information makes no mention of the buyer's identity or the negatives.[6] Doc talk 22:43, 10 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
              • I can't imagine why anyone would pay $14,000 for a copy of an image that they wouldn't own. Really? Someone paid $14,000 for a copy of the image? Why? GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 22:45, 10 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
                • Section 10 of the Copyright Law of Canada vests the copyright of a photograph (if any) in: "The person who: a) was the owner of the initial negative or other plate at the time when that negative or other plate was made, or; b) was the owner of the initial photograph at the time when that photograph was made, where there was no negative or other plate, shall be deemed to be the author of the photograph and where that owner is a body corporate, shall be deemed for the purposes of this Act to reside within Her Majesty’s Realms and Territories or to be ordinarily resident in a Berne Convention country if it has established a place of business therein." Centpacrr (talk) 22:48, 10 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
                  • That sounds like, if the negative was destroyed, the owner of the image would be whoever owns the "initial photograph at the time when that photograph was made". Which, for all we know is the piece auctioned by Christies in 2006. Roby is claiming to own the image. Do you think he is lying? GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 23:02, 10 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
                    • Mr. Roby may well own this physical print which may or may not be unique, but I does not appear that under the Copyright Law of Canada he owns the copyright to the "image" or any digital or other copy thereof which either vests with the Toronto Police Department or if it is non-copyrightable public record is in the public domain as a public record. In other words I do not believe that Mr. Roby is the "copyright holder" of this image whether or not he own the only "original" physical copy thereof. Centpacrr (talk) 23:10, 10 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
                      • That's quite a stretch, IMO. So, you think that the image is public domain, or government owned, but someone paid $14,400 for a "copy" that did not include any rights to the image? That's absurd. I've seen hand-written lyrics sell for less. Kathy Etchingham sold Hendrix's personal record collection for about $5,000. GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 23:14, 10 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
                        • The point is - regardless of what Roby bought and presently owns, the original images are copyrighted under the Crown copyright, and may be now copyrighted under Roby if he bought the rights, but they still are copyrighted. The argument these may be free images is bogus. --MASEM (t) 23:26, 10 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
                          • I don't understand why emphasizing that the image is copyrighted is supposed to mean that it can't be included with a FUR. We presume it's copyrighted, or there wouldn't be a FUR to begin with. Above you said that it "basically falls into WP:NFC#UUI#5". Is that, "An image whose subject happens to be a war, to illustrate an article on the war. Use may be appropriate if the image itself is a proper subject for commentary in the article: for example, an iconic image that has received attention in its own right, if the image is discussed in the article."? Or did you mean it fails NFCC #5: "Non-free content meets general Wikipedia content standards and is encyclopedic.". I'm confused. Doc talk 03:37, 11 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
                            • Doesn't the fact that a single print of this Hendrix mugshot sold at auction for $14,000 make it in and of itself an exceptional, notable, encyclopedically significant image? I think the answer to that has to be a resounding "yes". Centpacrr (talk) 04:06, 11 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
                              • No, not really. If Roby got the full rights, $14,000 isn't a bad sum but its hardly record breaking and business as usual. And the key reason to establish that this is a copyrighted work is that either way (whomever owns the rights) that NFC applies, and the rataionle for inclusion or exclusion doesn't change based on who owns it. And to Doc's point, I'm talking UUI#5 (the war example). We're using an image that has no discussion about it to illustrate the fact that Hendrix was briefly held up in Canada on drug charges for all of four hours. That does not need illustration. --MASEM (t) 04:11, 11 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
                                • Wow, Masem, did you ever miss the point. Centpacrr (talk) 04:30, 11 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
                                  • Nope. If third-party sources discussed the auction sale of that photo, that would make it notable and approprite to include. But just the record from the auction house does not. --MASEM (t) 04:33, 11 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
                                • As I said, you have completely missed the point. Centpacrr (talk) 12:39, 11 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
                                  • Again, no I haven't. You're trying to point out that that price tag for a photo is pretty steep and thus makes the photo notable. The problem is that we are making the original research assumption that $14,000 was a "steep" pricetag, and that claim requires a source, just as the claim that this picture is speaking words about the racial/civil disparaging attitudes at the time. I am not saying these claims are wrong, but they are unjustified by sourcing or article text. I've looked around to try to see if there's any justification on the photo, but nearly every sourcing (including the two below) just catalog this image as "look, a mug shot of a famous celebrity" which is more a curiosity than an historically significant photograph, making its use here inappropriate regardless how much it was bought for, etc. --MASEM (t) 14:29, 11 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
                                    • Sorry but no, you are still missing the specific point I am making in and of itself as well as in the context of all the other points I and others have made earlier in support of retaining the image both here and in the earlier FFD last year which I incorporate herein by reference. Centpacrr (talk) 22:07, 11 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
                              • But this is not about a war image at all. UUI#5 simply does not cover this image whatsoever. Whether Nikkimaria thinks it's "particularly interesting", or you think it's applicable in any way to UUI#5 shows the glaring loopholes exploited in the NFCC (#8 particularly, and #3a) policy. Doc talk 04:20, 11 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
                                • The list at UUI is not meant as to be explicit like that, its a casebook approach. Just because UUI#5 says an image of a war, the application to other fields is true too. But to fall back to policy - #3a is objective - we seek to minimize non-free and there's plenty of other Hendrix imagery in the article already that is appropriate - and #8 says that images that can be removed without harming the reader's understanding of the topic are inappropriate. Take away the mug shot and there is no understanding lost, save for this implicit "But there was a whole racial attitude at that time, you can just see it in Hendrix' face!" argument, which doesn't fly if you can't source that. This is a straightforward case for removal. --MASEM (t) 04:26, 11 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
                              • It's a case for removal, and a good one. But since we're still on a consensus-based "dealie" here (and the FAC consensus was not consensus to delete this image), we have to go by the consensus here, at the FfD. Now: there is no past or current consensus to delete this image based on #8 or #3. Consensus could swing wildly in favor of deletion, and that's just fine. We'll keep it open for the appropriate period. But we are going to to this the right way, through due process, since so much is being made of policy. And that shouldn't be an issue. Doc talk 04:35, 11 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
                                • The FAC hinted towards remove but yes, it basically was no consensus to keep or delete for FAC passage, so yes, we'll wait for this FFD to close as it is supposed to, that I'm not questioning. --MASEM (t) 04:38, 11 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
                      • That's what the copyright law says. What someone is willing to pay for a print in an auction is up to him or her. What that person buys is the physical print of the image but not the exclusive right to the image which vests with the creator thereof unless and until that copyright holder transfers it to someone else. If this is a free (public domain) image as a public record then thre is no copyright holder. If the original holder was the Toronto Police Department, the city of Toronto, the Province of Ontario, or the Crown, that would be the copyright holder unless it was specifically transferred in writing to someone else. It would not, however, automatically transfer with the print. Whether or not the image is copyrighted or public domain is still an open question. Centpacrr (talk) 23:32, 10 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
                        • Who gets the t-shirt rights?[7][8] That's the sweetest plum! Doc talk 23:37, 10 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It seems that this mugshot is discussed in two books about mugshots, Under Arrest: A History of the Twentieth Century in Mugshots and Mug Shots: An Archive of the Famous, Infamous, and Most Wanted. I am not sure how significant the coverage is. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 07:48, 11 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment. - FTR, I am not aware of any reliable sources that discuss racial tensions regarding Hendrix's arrest. Quite the opposite actually, because he was released after a couple of hours so that he wouldn't miss a show, and the charges were dropped because he claimed that a fan put the heroin in his bag, which hardly seems like unfair treatment. If anything, he got a sweetheart deal based on his fame and notoriety. As far as I can tell, the high-quality Hendrix sources do not discuss the image as anything notable. GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 16:56, 11 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Reponse Sweetheart deal? I really hate to say it, GabeMc but you have your facts wrong. Hendrix was charged and had to return to Toronto twice for preliminary hearings. He went on trial before a jury in December, 1969, and the trial lasted three days. The jury deliberated for eight hours, and in the end, he was acquitted. According to several accounts, this accusation was an enormous burden on him for six months, and he believed that it was very likely that he would go to prison. Here's Rolling Stone's story about the trial, called Heroine To The Rescue: Jimi Hendrix Is Innocent - Dope? "I've outgrown it". Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 23:20, 11 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yeah, I know the story. All I meant was, serving 4 hours in jail is quite a bit better than what he was facing for heroin possession, and claiming that is "wasn't his" isn't really a defense, at least not these days. Yes, it was stressful, of course, but in the end, they let him off. Do you think they would have let a homeless person off as easily if they just said it wasn't their heroin? 99 black men out of 100 would have served time for heroin possession in 1969; that's all I meant. GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 00:58, 12 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • We could talk about all kinds of things related to images here. But if we get right down to the specifics: there really is no consensus to delete this image. Barely over 50% one way or the other does not qualify as consensus. Keep this thread open far longer than normal, and I still believe than consensus to delete will not be achieved. In an FfD where there is not a consensus to delete, we keep the image by default. That's how it's set up. Doc talk 02:01, 12 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      • Actually, in general, since it's the onus on those wanting to keep the image, a FFD with no consensus to keep should end in deletion, but that's up to the closing admin to decide. --MASEM (t) 02:05, 12 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • Well, it better be a neutral admin who closes this one. If they see a consensus to delete here, they may need to rethink how they interpret our consensus policy. No consensus to keep is just exactly the same as no consensus to delete: "no consensus". The image does not get deleted in such a case if the consensus policy is at work and properly applied. Doc talk 03:34, 12 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      • Observation It might be useful to point out at this point that not counting the proposer (Taylor Trescott), nine editors have expressed a definite opinion at this point as to whether or not the image should be retained. Of those three believe it should be deleted (MASEM, Sven Manguard, and Calliopejen1), while six are in favor of retaining it (Doc, King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠, Secondarywaltz, Centpacrr, BMK, Grouchy Realist, and Cullen328 Let's discuss it). It should also be pointed out that the views either way of an editor who also happens to be a sysop carry no greater weight than those of any other editor. Centpacrr (talk) 05:18, 12 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
        • BMK and Grouchy Realist are the same editor - a signature thing. But there still is no consensus to delete, and I expect it should be closed as such without deleting the image. We can always open another FfD if it's going to be a real problem. Doc talk 05:23, 12 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
          • You will note that I only counted "BMK, Grouchy Realist" as one editor and I fully agree that there is no consensus to delete but if anything quite the opposite at this point. Centpacrr (talk) 05:30, 12 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
            • My bad - I was correcting it and we edit conflicted. The comma screwed me up, and I didn't realize that I was quite wrong until after I sent it. Sorry about that! Doc talk 05:33, 12 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete There is no critical discussion of what he looked like when he was arrested. The image therefore fails WP:NFCC#8. --Stefan2 (talk) 16:46, 12 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Response You are incorrect, Stefan2. The Rolling Stone reported in an article called Jimi Hendrix Busted in Toronto: Near the end of his US and Canada tour, Hendrix faces drug possession and possible trafficking, border transporting charges that, at that time, the people of Toronto "tend to look with suspicion upon anybody who looks and dresses a little different from themselves." They commented that "Hendrix looks a lot different", describing him at that time as a "freaky, frizzy-haired psychedelic spade". The reporters described his dress at his initial court hearing as "wearing a pink shirt open to the waist, an Apache-style headband, a multi-colored scarf around his neck, and beads. His manner was dead serious." According to an article in The Torontoist, even a prosecution witness testified that "Hendrix had been a conspicuous sight at the airport, drawing attention to himself with his loud clothing.", in an article called Historicist: Stone Free - That time Jimi Hendrix mistook heroin for Bromo Seltzer and got arrested in Toronto.Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 19:04, 12 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • Could you explain what you mean with your claim that I am incorrect? Are you questioning my claim that there is no sourced critical commentary about the image in the Wikipedia article? If so, could you please point out where in the article I can find that sourced critical commentary? --Stefan2 (talk) 21:59, 13 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Question. - Assuming this image is kept, and for the main reason that it illustrates an important point, would that mean that I can add an image from the last week of Hendrix's life to illustrate how tired and rundown he looked? How about a picture of Elvis during his decline, or an image of the Beatles on Ed Sullivan? GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 17:11, 12 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Nope, and thats why the arguments to keep without backing up anything of importance of this photo are creating a slippery slope that is along the lines of WP:VEGAN. --MASEM (t) 18:06, 12 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • There is a slippery slope running in both directions, and in all honesty, I find the analogy in that essay unhelpful. Veganism is a black-and-white position and our image use policy isn't. To make Wikipedia completely "vegan", we could remove every single fair use image from the encyclopedia. But we won't, as we all know. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 19:13, 12 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      • • Cullen328 - I think you're missing the point of that essay. It's advocating that Wikipedia adopt a black and white policy on non-free files, which makes it a perfectly valid comparison. Sven Manguard Wha? 20:46, 12 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      • Masem, how about a military picture of Hendrix? I didn't add one to the article because I couldn't find a free file, but if we are going to include a non-free image from his arrest, I think it would follow that we could include an image of Hendrix in military uniform. GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 19:42, 12 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
        • GabeMc, I am unsure what you mean when you say you can't find a free photo of Hendrix in the Army. The third photo down in particular on this page[9] would certainly be a {{PD-USGov-Military-Army}} situation. Doc talk 23:47, 12 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
          • Doc9871, to the best of my knowledge that image is the property of a private collection (Betty Jean Morgan's I believe), as are the other military looking photos on that page. GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 00:01, 13 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
        • The template still applies. I could have that image on the Commons right quick... Doc talk 00:07, 13 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      • The slippery slope against removing all non-free images ( which no one wants ) is the allowances that NFCC does allow but we have to make sure that those allowances are not being mis-used. NFCC#8 requires contextual significance and that's the point that yet to be made by anyone arguing for the inclusion; why we need to see the mug shot to understand anything about his arrest. So far none of the given arguments show that point. --MASEM (t) 20:12, 12 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
        • • Masem Don't say that no one wants that. I'd love for Wikipedia to remove all non-free images, personally. There's a difference between 'no one wants that' and 'there will never be consensus for that'. Only the latter is true. Sven Manguard Wha? 20:46, 12 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
        • In fact, I have provided the contextual significance: three reliable sources that show quite clearly that his appearance and attire in the Toronto airport the night he was arrested was widely discussed back then, and was actually the subject of testimony at his trial. The defense contended that his flamboyant appearance and dress were inconsistent with someone smuggling drugs, and a prosecution witness, one of the customs agents, acknowledged that point. The photo in question clearly shows his "psychedelic" attire when he was arrested: wide collar, bare chest, bold jewelry, "loud" vest and "frizzy" hair. Contemporary reports mention this point as a factor in his acquittal. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 20:42, 12 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
          • So, that he looked like a hippie is reason to use the photo because people who look like hippies don't smuggle drugs and he was found not-guilty because he looked like a hippie? But he did, in fact smuggle drugs across the border while looking like a hippie. The only question is whether or not he knew the drugs were in his possession. I'm not sure a black-and-white photo can relay what psychedelic attire looks like. GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 20:52, 12 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
            • And even considering the black and white vs color issue, is not the other 3 photos of Hendrix which are of no dispute at all sufficient to show that he wore "hippie clothes" commonly? Again, the fact he had legal trouble, there are sources validating that but no one has yet to show what harm there is to the reader's understanding by the removal of the mug shot image. --MASEM (t) 21:07, 12 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
              • IMO, his attire in the mugshot photo is by his standards quite conservative, and in 1969 I doubt it was all that radical, even for Canada. GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 21:20, 12 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
                • GabeMc, your opinion or mine about whether his attire in the photo was "quite conservative" for 1969 in Toronto is irrelevant. The fact is that his specific attire when he was arrested was discussed by reliable sources at that time, and again at his trial six months later. That's what counts. Other photos of him wearing other clothes on other days during public performances or promotional shoots, as opposed to during international air travel, are of no value in illustrating that point. This photo, which shows his attire at the time of his arrest, is directly relevant to his arrest and trial. It is not relevant for you to critique his successful defense strategy 45 years later. The fact that it's black and white is beside the point, especially since the other photos of him in the article are also black-and-white. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 21:51, 12 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment. - If we were to use a non-free file to illustrate Hendrix's wild attire, I think we would be much better off using a colour image from Monterey or Woodstock, not this shoulders'up black-and-white mugshot. GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 21:33, 12 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Reply But those photos do not show his attire at the time of the arrest. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 21:51, 12 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • But the arrest photo 1) shows very little of his clothing, and 2) as B&W image, it does not convey the boldness of his attire, like at all. GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 21:55, 12 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      • Sorry to repeat myself, but the photo shows his "psychedelic" attire when he was arrested: wide collar, bare chest, bold jewelry, "loud" vest and "frizzy" hair. The words in quotes are from contemporaneous reports discussing his attire when he was arrested. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 22:05, 12 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
        • No, I understand your point, but was that description at all unique to Hendrix at the time? Doesn't that describe virtually every rock star of the 1960s? My point is this: if we are going to use a non-free copyrighted image of Hendrix in the article because it illustrates his fashion sense, then it should be a colour image showing a more iconic outfit, such as the "Fire Angel" costume he wore at the Isle of Wight. We don't need the mugshot photo to enlighten readers about his arrest, in fact of the 30+ books I have about him only Roby's uses the mugshot image. The article does not, nor should it, go into detail about his appearance during the arrest. To sayisfy NFCC#8 we would need to go into too much detail about the arrest in the summary article. Also, building a case that his appearance was a factor just so we can use the image is not how we should write articles. Maybe someone should write a topical article dedicated to the Toronto bust. Then maybe you could justify using the mugshot there, but I don't see it at his bio, because as I said, a colour image of an iconic moment would provide much more to the reader then this shoulder-up B&W ever could. GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 22:19, 12 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
        • To put it another way, if we included a colour image of Jimi at Monterey, we wouldn't need to explain what we meant by his "wild attire", if we mentioned it later. Also, the article already makes some mention of his appearance at Monterey: "wearing what author Keith Shadwick described as 'clothes as exotic as any on display elsewhere.'[122] Shadwick wrote: '[Hendrix] was not only something utterly new musically, but an entirely original vision of what a black American entertainer should and could look like.'[123] Next to this text would be a much better place for a non-free file. It seems to me that editors are bending over backwards to justify use of an image that does not add much at all to the article. If we could use only one non-free image of Hendrix, is this really the one that conveys the most to our readers? Not over Monterey, Woodstock, or the Isle of Wight, IMO. GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 22:38, 12 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
          • Let me be clear: I have not argued in favor of nor do I support inclusion of the mugshot to illustrate his common attire during his years of stardom, but rather to illustrate his specific attire when he was arrested. I believe that this arrest and the subsequent 3-day jury trial deserves more than the current four sentences referenced to the website of an artist who specializes in celebrity art based on mugshots. I also believe that it should be a separate section of perhaps eight to ten sentences that would mention the impact it had on his career, based on higher quality sources such as those I have cited. The Torontoist reported that "The real possibility of prison hung over Hendrix like a spectre for the next six months, a threat to his career and the cause of much brooding and rumination." and also that "Hendrix’s handlers later admitted that concert bookers shied away from booking engagements until after the outcome of his Toronto trial." The current version of the article conveys none of that. I am not "building a case" that his appearance at the time of his arrest was a factor since that is clearly mentioned in the three best periodical sources I have been able to find about the arrest and trial. It seems that it had an effect lasting six months on an intensely public career of only about four years. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 22:57, 12 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Observation: In just four days this thread has grown to almost 11,000 words. The Hendrix article itself is less than 12,000 words. Doesn't anybody other than myself see how utterly ridiculous this is? Mr. Hendrix was arrested in Toronto on a drug charge for which he was later tried. This is a significant and relevant event in his life which is appropriate to include in Wikipedia entry. At the time of his arrest a two view "mugshot" of him was taken in the course of his processing by the Toronto Police Department which is the only image apparently available to visually memorialize this significant event. That in and of itself provides sufficient basis to include the image in the section of the Hendrix WP entry relating to drug use in general and this specific arrest and trial in particular. This thread clearly demonstrates that there is considerable if not majority support for its inclusion and retention. Everything else in here is extraneous logorrheic bloviation. So instead of wasting another 10,000 words of WP's server space, why not just close this thread now as "no consensus achieved in support of the nomination to delete the image" and leave it in place in the article. Centpacrr (talk) 23:04, 12 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • No one is questioning the event occurs - but the documentation for this is by other sources spelled out in the text and references, and one does not need to see the mugshot to understand or verify this event occurred. You rationale is completely against our NFC policy and instead of trying to invalidate this discussion, look for sources to justify the inclusion of the image (which people are not finding). --MASEM (t) 23:07, 12 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • With respect, sir or madame, it is not that a great number of reasons in support of including this image have not been advanced, it is just that you are completely blind to them. So I repeat let us just end the endlessly circular process as I have suggested immediately above and get on with our lives.Centpacrr (talk) 23:13, 12 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Cullen, 1) Hendrix played dozens of shows during those six months he awaited trial; he was not blacklisted by promoters despite what the Torontoist said. 2) Did the Torontoist research Hendrix to the extent that authors of his bios have? Because I seriously doubt that they did. 3) Sure it weighed on him, so did building Electric Lady and his struggles to put together a fourth LP. His excessive drug use and womanizing was a much bigger factor in his unhappiness, but we shouldn't put undue weight on that either. 4) This wasn't the only time he was ever arrested, it was the third or fourth, and going into the army had much more important impact on his life then the Toronto bust. In fact, if we are to include this image because its such an important moment in his life then we are intentionally skipping over dozens of more important moments that have much better images that we could use. 5) Why would we have to illustrate what he was wearing when he was arrested but we don't need to illustrate what he wore at Monterey? The whole "his appearance was a factor" was a line from his defense attorneys who were trying to keep him out of prison. They were grasping at straws just as you are now, IMO. The whole notion that its more important to show a B&W image after his drug arrest then it is to include an image from o*ne of the most iconic moments of the 1960s is utterly absurd. GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 23:14, 12 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • GabeMc, first you said incorrectly that the charges were dropped but actually he went to a jury trial and was acquitted. Now you have created the notion of a "blacklist" when the source says that some promoters "shied away" - two very different things. Concerts that were booked before the arrest and performed after the arrest are of no value in assessing whether the arrest, impending trial and possibility of imprisonment interfered with his ability to book future concerts. To point out that something bothered him very much for six months does not imply that other things didn't also bother him as well in 1969. Lumping me in with his defense team as "grasping at straws" is a bit silly, since I have brought what actual reliable sources say to this discussion, and his defense team succeeded in winning an acquittal. I have not engaged in idle speculation, and they were excellent lawyers. You have also created an entirely unrelated side issue - your wish for a great, full color photo showing the kind of attire he was known for wearing on stage. That is a diversion from the issue under discussion here. This debate is about fair use of a photo showing him at the time he was arrested on a drug charge, and nothing more. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 00:07, 13 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • Cullen, I never once said that the charges were dropped that day; you misunderstood me. I said that he was let go after only a couple of hours so that he could play a show (special treatment); there's a big difference. Who gets released after only a couple hours after a heroin bust? Ramble on, but we do not need to include his mugshot to enhance a reader's understanding that he was arrested anymore than we need a colour image of Hendrix to illustrate what colour his skin was. You are fighting to ignore our policies, not to improve the article or our reader's understanding of Hendrix, but simply to "win", IMO.GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 00:26, 13 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      • You did say that the charges were "dropped" and they were not. It seems that my efforts to improve the article have succeeded, as you have removed the mediocre source I pointed out, and have expanded the description of the arrest and trial significantly. I commend you for that, GabeMc, although I simply don't understand your negativity regarding my input here. There are all sorts of things that we do not "need" to do, but that we decide to do because we conclude that it will improve the encyclopedia. I am entitled to advocate for keeping this image, and I have been no more persistent in that effort than you have been in advocating its deletion. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 02:21, 13 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
        • • Cullen328, okay yes, you're semantically correct. I incorrectly stated that the charges were eventually dropped, but they weren't dropped; Hendrix was acquitted of the charges, and there is a significant difference. My bad; its not like I am unfamiliar with the subject or the incident, but I did misspeak; I'm not a lawyer. Therein lies my frustration with your approach here, which IMO, involves casting doubt about the knowledge of others, but none of that makes one bit of difference regarding the specifics of this deletion discussion. What difference would it make to this discussion if the charges were dropped or he was acquitted? How exactly does the photo speak to a six-month ordeal that Hendrix had not yet endured? At any rate, I apologize if I've come across as negative, but to be honest I feel that you have been unnecessarily insulting to more than one person here. To be honest, I did not even intend to !vote, but your aggressive approach inspired me to speak my mind. GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 03:39, 13 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
            • I readily concede that you, GabeMc, know far more about the details of Hendrix's life than I do, but that does not prevent me from pointing out what I believe are facts relevant to this specific issue. For example, another editor claimed that there was "no critical discussion of what he looked like when he was arrested" and I was able to find discussion of precisely that subject in high quality sources within a few minutes. Am I supposed to refrain from pointing out those sources for fear of being perceived as "aggressive"? I do not think I have insulted anyone but instead have made my case based on sources and logic. To answer your specific question, I believe that the photo speaks to the six month ordeal because it shows him at the beginning of that already traumatic ordeal, in the clothing that would become the subject of testimony during the trial at the end of the ordeal. Is that observation entirely lacking in logic? Yes, I wish that the image was freely licensed, in full color, full length including tight bell bottoms, and so on. But it is what it is. I wrote an article about a highly regarded book about the iconic status of certain mugshots in the 1960s, and have thought a lot about their significance. I like debates like this because I see it as an interesting "edge case" that helps sharpen the analytical skills of the participants. I am not trying to bring a flood of fair use images into the encyclopedia, but my personal judgment is that this one does qualifiy. I do not feel that arguments to the contrary are without merit. In conclusion, I have enormous respect for your work to improve and expand this article. The bottom line is that I care because I have always loved Hendrix's music, ever since I first heard it, probably in 1967 when I was 15. Though 10 years younger, I am a product of the social milieu that made him a star, and his legacy means a lot to me. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 04:11, 13 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
              • I think things are relatively "cool" here as far as the hostility level. We're all good users, no one's edit-warring or sniping at one another. It's a heated debate, and it takes it sideways turns like all debates do. We're all here to improve this already excellent article; that much I am certain of. Doc talk 04:24, 13 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
        • I don't understand the negativity either. The only "win" is for the reader. I will have the Army unit photo up on the Commons shortly, with the appropriate template. Either "what's-her-face" owns the copyright, or the template needs to be deleted (or the language severely altered to include cases such as hers). I'm not buying any dubious private claim of copyright on an image like the group Army image over our Commons template. Doc talk 02:31, 13 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
          • It may be a "win" for the reader but it harms the free content mission of the Foundation. This is why the restrictions on non-free are high, to assure that when we include non free, we are using the most advantageous versions to give the most "win" to the reader per image and limiting the harm to the Foundation's mission. --MASEM (t) 03:43, 13 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
        • File:Hendrix in Army.jpg. GabeMc: you have done a tremendous job with this article. And there's no reason to stop improving it! This image is licensed per our requirements, and I urge you to add it (and caption it) to the article free of worry what might happen if you do. This new image is in the Public Domain. Doc talk 03:29, 13 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
          • Unfortunately you need a stronger rationale to justify this being free, without knowing who took the photograph. It's not that the photo's dubious, but given that civilians have regular access to army bases, we have no assurance this was done by an army photographer; the sourcing page doesn't make this clear and a google image search doesn't hint at any leads. Without strong evidence, it has to be treated as non-free. --MASEM (t) 03:43, 13 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
            • Nevermind, I got the right source: [10] here is the book - published by the Army that the original photos would have been in. That's good enough, and I'll modify the commmons rationale to include them. --MASEM (t) 03:52, 13 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • This is not a debate about the "fair use" of a photo (we would clearly be in the right to use it under fair use), it is about the image being a violation of our non-free content policy which is specifically stricter than fair use. --MASEM (t) 00:34, 13 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. - With some hesitation, but if we are going to include any non-free images of Hendrix I am absolutely not convinced that this should be one of them; sorry Doc. "Omission [of the file] would not be detrimental to [the reader's] understanding". GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 23:14, 12 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • No need to apologize to me: I didn't upload the image for myself, but rather for the readers. FU rationale is easily dismissed under the porous #8 "rationale". You do know there is requirement to have only one FU image on an FA? Or two. Nor is there a requirement that there be zero FU images in an FA, as an alphabetical perusal of our FA video game articles demonstrates. Doc talk 00:07, 13 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • Doc, I didn't mean to imply that I thought there was a limit on FU files; I know there really isn't. What I mean is that of all the possible non-free images of Hendrix that would improve the reader's understanding of the man, this is not a high priority, IMO. I would much sooner "go-to-bat" for an image of him at Monterey, Woodstock, or the Isle of Wight. I find the arguments about his appearance that day to be empty attempts at Wikilawyering, and I find Cullen's approach here off-putting at best. They have implied that we should "beef-up" the details about his appearance in Toronto at the expense of all other important information in order to justify use of the mugshot, but I strongly disagree with the notion that we should build-up articles around non-free files. The arrest is just one of dozens of incidents or points of interest that we do not have the space to fully discuss in his bio. If the Hendrix article could be 20,000+ words I might agree, but since it really needs to remain about the size that it is today, I resist the notion that we should expand on his lawyer's defense strategy in a summary article just so we can justify use of this unremarkable image. GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 00:15, 13 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Shots of him in concert that are copyrighted are far different from police mug shots. There is definitely a stronger argument for FU when we're talking about a mug. Does the Toronto PD sell the rights to print t-shirts/posters/etc. with this image for their own profit? Whoever took that shot at a concert probably does, and we really have to respect their claim of copyright. I learned this through the Jim Morrison article when a Miami concert pic was deleted because the photographer was contacted and objected. Luckily I found the {{PD-FLGov}} template for this image[11] to silence the same arguments of not being "interesting" or "remarkable", or that it wasn't described in minute detail enough by enough sources to satisfy the image deletionista. I now only upload California ({{PD-CAGov}}, Florida, and federal mug shots since I got fed up wasting my breath over #8 at deletion discussions just like this one. But here I am again, years after uploading this image. Abolish FU policy. Because deleting this image per #8 is a joke. Doc talk 00:41, 13 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • • I agree with Doc9871 about the use of copyrighted concert shots. I think that the text regarding that arrest and trial needs to be improved, based on sources of the caliber of Ben Fong-Torres instead of some artist who does celebrity portraits based on mug shots. That's a crappy source, in my opinion. I think that the text regarding the Toronto incident should be revised even if the image is deleted, but I certainly don't want to give undue weight to this incident. I think that the article would be improved by discussing what reliable sources say about all of the psychological pressures that bedeviled him in his final years, including this one. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 01:10, 13 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • The Foundation wants to create a freely redistributable encyclopedia but recognizing some non-free must be used for certain topics, they allow for minimal use of non-free. It's nothing about fair use, it's about promoting free content over non-free by pushing for minimal use (but not always zero) of non-free. Yes, it's great that states like California and Florida and the US Federal government put all gov't- created works into the public domain and that helps promote free content, but this doesn't apply to Toronto/Ontario/Canada. --MASEM (t) 00:48, 13 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      • This is one mug shot from a law enforcement agency. It's quite minimal. Fair use exists, there are templates for images to use, and people take their time to develop the rationales carefully. And then it gets ripped to pieces because of the loopholes in #8. So done with FU, so long ago. It really is a joke. Doc talk 00:59, 13 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
        • Again, WP:VEGAN applies. You have 3 existing images of Hendrix's appearance which aren't going anywhere. To add a fourth without any other reason why this is different from the others beyond showing he was arrested isn't going to fly. --MASEM (t) 01:23, 13 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      • What's also not going to fly is this image getting deleted improperly. That includes deleting it here without true consensus. We can make this into a textbook case if we want to. Since one teeny portion of policy is being touted as the end-all-be-all justification to delete this image, I will make it a point to see that all policies are properly adhered to. And there still is no consensus to delete this image over keeping it. If this gets closed improperly: it will be appealed, and we will be back here again. Doc talk 01:46, 13 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• As at 12,210 words (and counting) this thread now exceeds in length the Hendrix article itself, I am withdrawing from further comment herein. I have made my position clear above as to why I believe that the image should be retained and used in the article, and nothing I have seen above persuades me otherwise so I am now moving along to other more fruitful areas. Centpacrr (talk) 01:07, 13 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Now 13,776 words. Oh my. Centpacrr (talk) 21:06, 13 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• NFCC#8 states that a non-free image "is used only if its presence would significantly increase readers' understanding of the article topic, and its omission would be detrimental to that understanding". As a WMF-approved policy NFCC supersedes any local consensus. There is no possible reasonable argument that this policy is met by this image — not seeing a mugshot of Hendrix will in no way be detrimental to readers' understanding of the article. I urge the closing admin to make their decision based on policy and not walls of text, and I urge User:Doc9871 to read WP:BLUDGEON. Delete. ✄ (talk) 10:20, 14 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  Again this is a fallacy - "WMF policy trumps local consensus, so we must be right." It is only your interpretation that the image fails NFCC #8. And local consensus on whether the image meets NFCC #8 trumps your interpretation of the same matter. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 16:43, 14 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  And global consensus trumps local consensus. These types of images have historically been removed in the past ("these types" being the non-identifying non-free image of a deceased person where we already have an identifying image of the person and where the image in question is not discussed critically in the article), reflecting global consensus that NFCC#8 is not met. I appreciate the arguments those wanting to keep the image as "interesting" but the image is not NFCC-"critical" to understanding of the article as it presently presented. --MASEM (t) 16:46, 14 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  You are making the same fallacy - the "global consensus" you refer to is merely your generalization, and others may not agree with you that this case is comparable to previous cases. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 16:50, 14 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  Where exactly, Stifle and MASEM, does it say that "NFCC supersedes any local consensus"? As the interpretation and application of NFCC in general -- and #8 in particular -- is always highly subjective as is daily demonstrated in dozens of discussions such as this one (which at more than 14,000 words has grown in less than a week to be thousands of words longer than the Hendrix article itself), contending that any WP policy or guideline (and especially the highly subjective and controversial such as this one) de facto trumps "consensus", the cardinal process by which the WP community manages itself and builds its various encyclopedias, is anathema to the tenants of the WP project. In the instant case here (as in the previous FFD for this image), it seems clear that no consensus has been achieved in support of the OP's proposal to delete this image, and thus that is the basis on which it should be closed and the image retained, and not the personal, subjective view of a single admin who well may also not even be familiar with the underlying history of the issue. The obligation of any sysop in closing a discussion is to honor and not override community consensus or lack thereof simply because he or she does no personally agree with it. Admins are, of course, certainly entitled to their personal opinions, but such views carry no greater or lesser weight than that of any other member of the WP community. If consensus or lack thereof is not to be honored, then the entire process becomes a sham and a complete waste of time. Centpacrr (talk) 17:31, 14 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  Though just to clarify, I'm not saying that a bunch of users could decide "hey, let's all ignore NFCC for this image." The main point is, as Centpacrr notes, the inherent subjectivity of NFCC #8, which means that a mere assertion that NFCC trumps local consensus falls under WP:JUSTA. Ultimately the fate of the image will be decided on which side makes a better argument for whether NFCC is met. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 18:24, 14 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  The "local consensus" that is being pushed is that the image is fine, without policy-based reasons besides a hand-waving claim of meeting NFCC#8. The global consensus is that that file fails the second part of NFCC#8 - "and its omission would be detrimental to that understanding", pointing that removing the image does not affect the reader's understanding due to lack of any discussion about the photo itself, a policy-based argument. That's global consensus of how NFCC works (from past and current FFD practice), and that's what overrides the local consensus. --MASEM (t) 18:29, 14 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  The problem with this is that you seem to believe that the "standard" in NFCC#8 that "and its omission would be detrimental to that understanding" is objective and unambiguous whereas it is actually totally subjective and so broad and vague as to be constructively useless. Your interpretation is one that no image on WP -- either free or nonfree -- can meet objectively but instead requires editorial judgement. No image, illustration, photograph, logo, chart, or any other form of graphic is ever "needed" or "necessary" to "understand" the text. Their function is instead to be an adjunct thereto which illustrates, elucidates, and enhances it. Applying the standard of #8 as you interpret it would mean every image on WP could be unilaterally deleted irrespective of "local consensus". That would be the only logical way that your argument would not fail. There are millions of images on WP that illustrate articles without the images themselves ever being specifically "discussed" as their purpose for being there is obvious on its face, and that is exactly the case with this one as well. Your argument is therefore self defeating.Centpacrr (talk) 20:35, 14 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  Now 15,310 words. Let us end this thing.Centpacrr (talk) 20:39, 14 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  First, we have no such requirement for free images because we're not here to minimize free content - in fact we want to generated, so for example the discovered picture of Hendrix in the army, taken from a US Gov (read: free) source should in fact be added even if the photo isn't discussed. Of course, we aren't going to add completely unrelated images (a free picture of Madonna would make no sense on this article for example), but that's not the issue. But when it comes to non-free, which by the Foundation's definition is supported to be used exceptionally, we have to minimize how much is used, so uses that are extravagant - where they may enhance the article but do not harm the understanding if not present - must be removed. Several people have pointed out that without any discussion of the mugshot, and with other shots of Hendrix already in the article - there is nothing of value lost by its removal, and no one trying to keep it has been able to justify that there is something that might be lost. It's a very simple and objective test in this specific case (since we're talking about having NFC that is already showing what Hendrix looked like) and in all such past cases, this would have already been deleted. You've suggested there's sourcing out there to give the reader an understanding of the background of this photo that would make it unique and different from the other images of Hendrix, but this hasn't been put forward yet. If this can't be shown, the image flat out fails NFCC#8. Note: I've tried looking for sources to keep this too, but I can't find anything - the only ones that come up is in collection of celebritiy mug shots which is not anything sufficient to keep. Efforts to find such sources would be a better use of time than word counting and trying to get early closure on this. --MASEM (t) 20:54, 14 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  Significant source material has been offered here that there was a definate relationship between the way Mr. Hendrix looked and was dressed at the time of his arrest which is illustrated by the photograph such as the Rolling Stone article which a number of editors (including myself) find to be an appropriate nexus to justify the mugshot as illustrative of that and which helps the reader/viewer to "understand" the context of his detention and subsequent trial. You disagree which is you right. If there is a clear strong consensus to support you view then the image will be deleted. If there is not, however, then it won't. That's how consensus works. What you seem to be promoting is the rote application of a highly subjective, ambiguous and vague standard (NFCC#8) without any editorial judgement and irrespective of whether or not you were able to achieve consensus to do so. (See supra) That seems to me to be anathema to the objectives to the project. Centpacrr (talk) 23:22, 14 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  Its interesting to note that the Rolling Stone piece that's being used as evidence that Hendrix's appearance caused him to be searched also says: "the Mounties ... were waiting for Hendrix to step off his plane from Detroit". But if they were waiting for him before he stepped off the plane, then how did his appearance instigate a search? They would have searched him no matter how he was dressed; he was searched because of who he was, not how he was dressed. Also, according to multiple Hendrix sources, he and his entourage were always searched, and typically his handlers made a sweep of all drugs before they crossed borders. So if the Mounties were waiting to search him before he got off his plane, and he was quite used to being searched whenever he entered customs, then how are the particular clothes he wore that day relevant? Also, the speculation about his appearance and the distrustful people of Toronto was a creation of the writers. This point is not made as a statement of fact, they are merely guessing. GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 23:35, 14 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  There can be no reasonable argument that removal of this image would be detrimental to readers' understanding of the article. That is the basis of my comment that local consensus cannot override NFCC. I agree that the question of whether an image complies with the NFCC is a matter of fact in each instance, to be interpreted by consensus. My point is that any suggestion that this image complies with NFCC#8 is so ludicrous and fanciful that it does not deserve consideration. ✄ (talk) 12:16, 17 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Reply to GabeMc. Please let me be gentle in my response to you since you have reacted negatively sometimes to the points I have tried to make previously. You have done yeoman work on this article, and thank you very much for all of that. But this comment indicates that you are not yet fully understanding the point being made here. No one has ever argued after the trial that he was searched "only because of the way he was dressed. Instead, part (but not all) of the successful defense argument was that, if his intent was to smuggle drugs across an international border, his flamboyant dress and attention seeking behavior in the airport arrival lounge was inconsistent with that intent. In other words, that international drug smugglers were likely to try to 'tone down their behavior and dress, and he did none of that. There were other elements of the defense argument, such as the propensity of his fans to shower gifts (some illicit) on rock stars like him, and that such a gift made its way into his luggage. But the attire in the photo speaks directly to an important aspect of the defense argument that succeeded in gaining an acquittal. The fact that the initial impressions by an impeccably reliable source like Ben Fong-Torres and his co-writer immediately after the arrest were reformulated six months later by his defense attorneys is only a detail, interesting as it is. The initial Rolling Stone article "managed" the public perception of the arrest, to minimize damage to his career, and also first identified the "it was planted" aspect that was also a major aspect of the defense strategy. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 03:15, 15 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  Cullen328, it seems to me that you are cherry-picking and backtracking. The RS article that you keep citing as evidence states: "According to sources at the scene, the Mounties ... were waiting for Hendrix to step off his plane from Detroit". In other words, he drew attention by coming to the airport, not by dressing flamboyantly. The were waiting to search him before they saw what clothes he was wearing. Why is that complicated? Also, the Rolling Stone article does not say he attracted attention in the airport. You are synthesizing the RS piece with the Torontoist piece written 43 years after the fact. The article written at the time, says the Mounties were waiting for him before he got off the plane, not that he attracted attention at the airport. Also, both Mitch Mitchell and Noel Redding wrote in their bios that they thought the drugs were planted and that the whole bust was a set-up. But then what would Hendrix's clothes have to do with the search? Nothing. The clothes he was wearing at the time of the arrest are irrelevant to the search, which was a forgone conclusion before Hendrix stepped off the plane. What Hendrix was wearing had absolutely nothing to do with his being searched. GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 18:28, 15 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep per Centpacrr and Cullen, who make eloquent arguments I fully agree with. Looking at the picture tells me a lot, and I too am puzzled why anyone would think it does not add to an online encyclopedia. Jusdafax 02:16, 15 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Jusdafax, Of course it adds; what image wouldn't add? That's a strawman argument, IMO. The threshold for use of a non-free copyrighted image is not whether it adds, its whether or not the reader would somehow significantly lose comprehension regarding the topic if it were removed; in this case, the topic is the arrest of Hendrix. Do our readers really need to see his mugshot to understand the concept of him being arrested? Could we include a copyrighted shot of the last Beatles photo shoot just to illustrate an important moment in their history? If so, then there are hundreds (if not thousands) of celebrity mugshots that could be uploaded. If you had to choose, would you include this image, or a shot of him at Woodstock, Monterey, or the Isle of Wight? GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 02:30, 15 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The two pictures give a sense of calm dignity in one of the most stressful moments a person can have. I admire the photos as a piece of history that enlightens my understanding of who Hendrix actually was. Deleting the photos is, to me, akin to vandalism. Let's keep them, and move on. Jusdafax 02:43, 15 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I hear you, but if I was going to completely ignore the guidance from WMF, those two images would be the last two I would use. GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 02:51, 15 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The reason that this thread is so unbelievably long is that has become a lengthy general debate on NFCC (#8 in particular). This is one image, not the entire policy. It really is wasting time and bandwidth. There simply is no consensus to delete this particular image. This fight must be fought elsewhere, and there's no point in continuing it here. Doc talk 03:18, 15 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Agree Doc. There is no consensus to delete. Suggest this be closed. Jusdafax 03:32, 15 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It would be a shame if this were closed with a deletion by an admin with the rationale that "My judgement tips the balance in the gray area here." The gray area is literally 50/50. It's really a way to check things. King of Hearts is a respected admin working in this area, as is Masem. Both are on opposite sides are of this deletion debate, and both are admins with equal "powers" on the site. So: Is one correct on the policy, while the other is wrong? That's why we rely on consensus (or lack thereof) in cases like this. Purported NFCC violations, or interpretations of violations of the policy, do not trump a clear lack of consensus to delete an image in a FfD. Doc talk 03:50, 15 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This isn't grey - the image fails to meet any contextual significance required by NFCC#8. It's duplicative of other NFC identifying Hendirx, failing NFCC#3a. It is a historical photograph but lacks any critical commentary in the text, failing NFCI#8. The only reason to keep is argued along the lines: "The two pictures give a sense of calm dignity in one of the most stressful moments a person can have", but there's zero text in the article as well as zero text providing by the additional sources to demonstrate this. I can accept that this is possibly what is happening in the photo, but as with nothing there in the text from sources to show that, it is original research, and not needed to understand the factual aspects of his arrest (also given that run-ins with the law were not uncommon here with Hendrix as stated above). These types of images are routinely deleted, and save for giving time for editors wanting to keep the image to find the appropriate reasons to keep, this would normally be an open and shut case (this was pointed out at FAC Too). To keep this image underminds the free content mission of the encyclopedia. There are possible conditions this photo can be used, but those wanting to keep them have not been able to justify that yet. --MASEM (t) 04:55, 15 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

(and to add, being an admin gives no special weight to mine or any other arguments here. We simply cannot close this discussion in any manner as "involved"). --MASEM (t) 05:03, 15 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You've really added nothing new to the argument. You may possibly fail to see that your opinion as an admin is of no greater significance than that of any other admin. Admins often fundamentally disagree. Presumedly, you all went to the same "admin school". At any rate: Consensus is a pillar of a policy here. NFCC is not. We do not simply "default" to deletion above consensus, dismissing legitimate claims of Fair use to preserve some lofty goal of free content. Doc talk 05:08, 15 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

NFCC, along with BLP and copyvio, is one of the few areas where consensus does not have more weight than policy, no matter how "IAR" reasoning may be used, due to it being a mandate by the Foundation to maintain the free content mission and minimize non-free. It's long been determined the onus is on those wanting to retain the image to show that the rationale is satisfied to keep the image, but that hasn't been shown yet. No one wanting to retain the image has explained to any degree of how the reader's understanding of the time of Hendrix's arrest - based on the text present in the article and presuming no a priori knowledge of Hendrix - is harmed by the image's remove, the key test of NFCC#8 that would otherwise satsify all the other NFCC issues brought up. This is a standard well-honed test. And as I've said, I've personally looked for sources to try to justify this, but simply can't find any nor see anything even approach that; I'd much rather keep the image but there's no justifyable way to do so without staying true to the non-free resolution. And in addition, we do not work off of Fair Use law. Per the Resolution, we are automatically stricter than fair use, so claim of "well, this is a fair use photo" while true has no weight in image discussions - it's about the stricter NFC line. --MASEM (t) 05:22, 15 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I totally disagree with you on policy on this particular image, as does half of the people discussing it here. Now, there is a backlog of cases being given so little attention before and after this entry, yet's this is still being discussed. Why? This is not a political case, here, folks! Clear up the backlog already. Move the heck on. It is utterly ridiculous to keep this open any further. Especially since it will be appealed if it is not closed properly. Doc talk 05:29, 15 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Not counting this comment, this thread has now reached 17,551 words in less than a week which makes it now over 3,000 words longer' than the Hendrix article itself! Nothing new is likely going to be gained by carrying this on any longer, and so I hope to actually be able to make this whole thing moot. To that end I have contacted a lawyer friend of mine in Toronto for guidance as to the actual copyright status of this particular "public record" which it what it is defined as being ("...any record of information however recorded, whether in printed form, on film, by electronic means or otherwise, and includes, (a) correspondence, a memorandum, a book, a plan, a map, a drawing, a diagram, a pictorial or graphic work, a photograph, a film, a microfilm, a sound recording, a videotape, a machine readable record, any other documentary material, regardless of physical form or characteristics, and any copy thereof, and (b) subject to the regulations, any record that is capable of being produced from a machine readable record under the control of an institution by means of computer hardware and software or any other information storage equipment and technical expertise normally used by the institution") under the provisions of §2 of The Municipal Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act (R.S.O. 1990, CHAPTER M.56). The only remaining issue of its status, therefore, is if this public record is also in the Public Domain, or if it is subject to any restrictions under the Crown Copyright Act. This lawyer believes that the image is most likely in the Public Domain but to be sure he is going to consult with practitioner in Canadian copyright law and get back to me with the answer and any appropriate citations. Centpacrr (talk) 07:25, 15 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

In the very best case scenario this will be proven to be a public domain image. I am also doing off-wiki research to determine the image's provenance as PD (or even licensable by something like this, which is not often mentioned here for various reasons). Doc talk 08:03, 15 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment From Hendrix biographer Keith Shadwick: "At Toronto airport the group were subjected to a customs search, a procedure with which they were by now all too familiar." (2003, p.186) GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 18:35, 15 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment From Hendrix biographer Charles Cross: "The Experience had been tipped off before landing in Toronto that a search might take place, and everybody other than Jimi had made careful checks of their luggage ... Mitch Mitchell went through customs in a suit with no pockets ... The circumstances of Jimi's bust raised questions about advance planning, as it was usually customs agents that made such arrests, not Mounties ... Privately, [Hendrix] blamed a disgruntled groupie who, he said, had planted the drugs and called ahead to the Canadian police." (2005, p.254) GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 18:52, 15 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment From Hendrix biographer and historian John McDermott: "A rumor circulated around the Detroit dressing rooms that the band was going to be, at the very least, hassled and detained at the airport in Toronto the next day." (1992, p.186) GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 19:08, 15 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment. - According to Mitch Mitchell: "One of the road crew, I think it was Gerry, came to us and said, 'You're playing Toronto tomorrow and word has got out that you're going to be busted' ... When we got off the plane, it was straight into customs and a strip search."(1990, p.131) GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 20:06, 15 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment . - According to Noel Redding: "Jimi wasn't so stupid as to think he would be exempt from a search, especially as we'd been warned." (1990, p.123) GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 20:06, 15 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • With these you are definitely now starting to tip over where keeping the image would be appropriate (assuming these are added to that section). But I suggest trying to focus on Jimi's immediate reaction to the arrest (which all these sources are tracking towards) so that we can say that despite being aware of these searches and taking precautions, Jimi was still arrested which he took as a "WTF" moment. (not in that exact wording). --MASEM (t) 19:16, 15 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • Actually, I added these to show that many sources report that the search was a foregone conclusion before Hendrix had even stepped off the plane, which would undercut the notion that his attire that day was what got him searched. There is far too much detail that we could go into regarding the circumstances of the arrest for a summary section, but Jimi's reaction when the drugs were found was stunned disbelief, but of course he at least acted surprised, even if he wasn't. BTW, when Hendrix flew back to Toronto for his trial he was again arrested after authorities found a pill in his guitar case. After analysis of the pill, the charges were dropped. GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 19:26, 15 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • Masem, if you mean that the image can illustrate Hendrix's immediate reaction to authorities finding drugs in his bag it can't. The mugshot was taken four hours after the drugs were discovered. GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 23:46, 15 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment As far as I can tell, none of the high-quality Hendrix sources discuss his appearance on May 3, and none of them mention the mugshot. Only one of my sources includes the image, which is in a book by Roby, who claims to own the image. GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 19:38, 15 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Any claim by Mr. Roby (or anyone else) to ownership of the copyright of a non-unique copy of a Canadian governmental entity produced public record as defined by R.S.O. 1990, Chapter M.56 §2 of which he was clearly not the creator is dubious in the extreme whether or not it is (or has ever been) covered by Crown Copyright or is in the Public Domain. Unless such a private claimant can produce a verifiable document from the original copyright holder (if any) transferring any and all such copyright to him or her, any such a claim would fail. If it is in the Public Domain, however, then it has no copyright protection at all. Centpacrr (talk) 20:04, 15 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment I noticed that there aren't any mugshots in the Lindsay Lohan article. I had better get busy, since I think there are six that should be uploaded. GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 20:13, 15 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Or how about this one of James Brown. Why on earth isn't this prominently displayed in his article? Certainly the arrest is discussed in enough detail, right? GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 20:21, 15 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• What about this mugshot of Rush Limbaugh. I'm going to upload it now. I'm so glad that Wikipedia can become a repository of celebrity mugshots, because there are soooooo many of them. Heck, most famous people have one these days, and I can think of no better use of an encyclopedia then to collect mugshots. How intellectual! GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 20:26, 15 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Certainly John Ehrlichman's mugshot should be included in his article, right? GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 21:14, 15 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Limbaugh's mugshot is now uploaded (File:Rush Limbaugh's April 2006 mugshot.jpg); many thousands more to go! GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 20:36, 15 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete The "fair use" rationale is weak. The image is not public domain nor licensed to Wikipedia. It is of no especial encyclopedic value. Wikipedia polices actually require deletion for those specific reasons. And the other mug shots likely fail on the same basis. Collect (talk) 21:16, 15 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, sufficient free images of Hendrix exist. The mugshot doesn't help me understand that he was arrested better than the words "he was arrested", and I don't see the article discussing the details of this particular mugshot. So there is less reason to keep this non-free image than for most other free images (which, ceterum censeo, should be deleted). —Kusma (t·c) 22:45, 15 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Update re copyright status of this image: The question as to whether this public record mugshot is in the Public Domain or is non free under the Crown Copyright Act has been referred by my Toronto lawyer friend to the Intellectual Property Law Institute (IPLI) at the School of Law at Windsor University, Windsor, Ontario for guidance. Centpacrr (talk) 00:05, 16 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• FWIW, my addition of Rush Limbaugh's mugshot was removed within four hours by Hullaballoo Wolfowitz, with the edit summary: "obvious NFCC violation, non-free image of living person". FTR, his arrest is the subject of extensive sourced commentary in the article. GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 00:05, 16 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• You'd have to get more creative than that, GabeMC. Look how Bill Gates' mug shot from New Mexico was proven to be PD with some creative research.[12] If you're going to run around willy-nilly uploading mug shots to prove some point on the ridiculousness of mug shots being in articles, especially of living people, you should not be surprised by the resistance you encounter along the way. Doc talk 00:29, 16 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• What does living have to do with it? Are you admitting that it casts an aspiration on the person whose mugshot we display? Why can we include a mugshot of Hendrix but not the other 10,000 celebrities and/or politicians who have been arrested? GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 00:33, 16 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• You should know by now that FU-claimed images of living people are routinely deleted because a free image of said person "could be created" by someone, somewhere. If you want to go on a crusade to include mug shots everywhere you can, you're wasting your time in a manner that's pointless. It would be like me ripping out every FU-claimed screenshot image in every FA video game article. I'd face heavy resistance for my actions being possibly "pointy". Have fun! Doc talk 00:49, 16 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Right, so every mugshot of every dead celebrity then? GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 00:52, 16 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• This thread is now up to 19,441 words. Can we agree to stop at 20,000? Centpacrr (talk) 00:59, 16 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• IDK, you've posted at least 3,000 of them. GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 01:00, 16 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Discussion is good; the only reason you seem to want to close it early is to "protect" your POV instead of actually trying to convince others of why the image should be kept. There's no harm in continuing discussion as new points are brought up. --MASEM (t) 01:02, 16 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• No actually I've made my points fully and don't really have any additional ones to offer. However nobody else seems to be making any new points either and so the thread has drifted off to bloviating side issues that don't seem to me to be advancing the issue. As I didn't originally contribute the image and have never edited the article itself either I don't really have any direct or personal "stake" in it other than expressing my views on what I see as a fatal flaw in NFCC#8 which I have seen misapplied many many times elsewhere in WP and believe has been misapplied here as well. My only further substantive area of contribution now to this discussion it to try to determine the real copyright or Public Domain status of the image itself which I am in the process of doing by consulting a Toronto area lawyer friend of mine who today referred the question to a faculty member at the Intellectual Property Law Institute (IPLI) at the School of Law at Windsor University in Windsor, Ontario for guidance. Centpacrr (talk) 01:31, 16 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• (@GabeMC) No, not every mug shot of every dead celebrity. There's more to it than you think. Incidentally, one of the issues with this image even after it was found to be PD was that we had no decent free image of Morrison for the infobox at the time. One editor thought it better to crop this widely-recognized mug shot for the infobox, ignoring the fact that he was not known primarily as a criminal. But that was more acceptable than having a FU-clamed image of Morrison. Not. At the Phil Spector article, the only free image we currently have of him is this one, and it will never be used in the infobox (several attempts have been made). People assumed the Morrison mugshot was not PD. I was surprised to see the Bill Gates mug is PD. This image very well might be PD, and at least two of us are making active steps to determine if it is or not. Doc talk 01:18, 16 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• How about Michael Jackson? The article does not currently include either of his mugshots from his child molestation arrests. Those arrests made a much greater impact on Jackson's career then Hendrix's bust for a drug he didn't even like. Jackson's mugshots also illustrate his ever-changing appearance in a way that prose alone could not. GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 01:25, 16 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• (@GabeMC) That's a good question. You'd think his mug shot (which should fall under {{PD-CAGov}} would be in 1993 child sexual abuse accusations against Michael Jackson (where I think it would belong). Try uploading it on Commons with that license, put it in the article, and see what happens! Doc talk 01:40, 16 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• So, like I said earlier in this thread, if someone wrote an article 1969 drug possession charges against Jimi Hendrix then I think the mugshot might be appropriate, but in a summary article its WP:UNDUE, because as I said, there are infinitely better selections of images of Hendrix that would educate our readers more efficiently. GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 01:56, 16 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• I don't care if it's put in Jackson's main article, but I bet others would. The UNDUE issue was raised on this image years ago. It was determined that having it in the article in the appropriate section did not give undue weight. Having it in the infobox: undue weight. Again, do you see that the richest man in the world's article (rated as a GA) has his mug shot in it? The only difference at all is that the image was proven to be PD. Is it undue if it's free? I guess not. This image does not give undue weight to the article. Doc talk 04:25, 16 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• GAs do not have the rigorous image checking of FA (GA only require one person to review, to start). It is completely possible for free images to be undue weight in an article - just because we can put it in there doesn't mean it is always appropriate, and particularly considering BLP, a photo that puts the person in a negative light might be considered a problem. --MASEM (t) 04:45, 16 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• (@Masem) Rigorous image checking... like this?[13] Or this?[14][15][16] The first two articles off the video game FA list - and the second one has three FU images. How the heck did that make FA? It's sort of counterintuitive to the goal of free content, especially on the second FA we proudly display on the video game list. I want to hear nothing of "rigorous image checking" when images like this exist in FA's. This is all just a ball of wax on all sides when you get down to it. Doc talk 04:51, 16 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• You are mixing up a lot of points here. First, I said "GA", not "FA". Good Articles only require one person to check, and the NFC requirements there are not as strong. FA require multiple people to review and comment favorable, and NFC image checks are strenuous to make sure they are all valid. (in fact, you can see the FA commentary on the 4X article here [17] where the number of images were cut down from the original number to a number everyone was satisfied with). And screenshots of video games alongside sourced discussion of gameplay so readers can follow along with the UI elements, is inline with NFCC#8. Those are examples of NFC working as expected. (and the fact you are targeting my area of work, video games, is approach person attacks) --MASEM (t) 05:25, 16 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• I had no idea you worked in this area: these are literally the first two games on the list. AGF: there is no bad blood here. Stretching it into a "personal attack" is getting into something beyond assuming bad faith. I find your view that those screenshots pass #8 quite "droll ". Chillax. Doc talk 05:43, 16 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• My view of video game screenshots is backed up by WP:NFCI#5 ("Video screenshots: For critical commentary and discussion of the work in question. (i.e., films, television programs, and music videos)") This mugshot of Hendrix, however, does not fit any of those. --MASEM (t) 05:48, 16 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Such a waste of resources on this one freaking image discussion. As if this were the "poster child" for some greater cause. We're filibustering here. What a waste. I say this image is not eligible for deletion to begin with per the caveat of NFCI#10: "Pictures of deceased persons, in articles about that person, provided that ever obtaining a free close substitute is not reasonably likely." What do you who want this image gone have to say about that? Doc talk 06:44, 16 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• You have 3 other images of Hendrix; a fourth one violates WP:NFCC#3 if it is not presenting anything new and unique from these other images. (And as NFCI states, those are general allowances, but they remain subject to having all 10 NFCC met). The reason this debate is critical is because it is showing a fundamental lack of understanding by a number of users about what the free content mission and our associated NFC policy are supposed to be doing. We don't use images just because they meet fair use claims or that they look good. Non-free images are meant to be exceptions within the work, where free media cannot do the same job. You don't use non-free and then later decide how to justify it (as what this discussion shows), but you find out that if you really need an image to justify the supporting free material for an article, that gives you the proper rationale for why we would include the non-free. --MASEM (t) 16:49, 16 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• And to prove I'm not picking on your realm, let's take "Media" for $1000. This random FU rationale is just a beaut.[18] This shining example of a FA could not possibly do without this "montage" of copyrighted images? Text alone couldn't convey to the reader what the copyrighted image of Mel Gibson next to a copyrighted image of "Chef" does? Does the text even begin to sufficiently discuss that image to justify inclusion? It would be "detrimental" to remove this, and it fully passes #8? Wow. Doc talk 13:39, 16 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• And one point to add - at the Hendrix FAC, the FA commentors did make statements that this specific image would not likely fly under a rigorous review (read: here), so to say that this is not happening and we don't have such reviews is a bogus statement. --MASEM (t) 05:35, 16 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• So you're only verifying the "straw man argument" that the removal of this image would directly affect the FA passage. That it passed FA with it in it was just a glaring oversight. Gotcha. Doc talk 06:54, 16 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• You added it back after several said it wasn't reasonable and even after the FA nominator removed it. Pretty clear that it should not have passed with it in place, but since in that discussion you said to delete it the right way from FFD, here we are, following process. --MASEM (t) 17:20, 16 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• FTR, GrahamColm promoted the article at 17:37, 5 January 2014, two minutes after he removed the image. So, no. Technically the article was passed without the image, but as I said, he told me that the article would have passed FAC either way. GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 22:24, 16 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep substantively increases understanding of the subject, who according to the sources that have used this image was and is a counter-cultural hero (or, as some people viewed it at the time, counter-culture villain). Its omission would be detrimental to that understanding. Alanscottwalker (talk) 11:48, 16 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • If there was sourced discussion on how this photo showed him as counter-culture, that might be reason to keep. But nothing talkign about this photo says that; the other photos on the page show this already. Ergo, this is not a valid reason to keep per NFCC#8 (we can omit the photo and the reader would still understand the counter-culture nature) --MASEM (t) 16:52, 16 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • No. Don't make policy up. That's not what policy says. This photo is a sourced police photo concerning a sourced discussion of the related drug charges, a drug trial, and an aquital on alleged trumped up targeting charges - that affected his art and his person. There is no other photo that illustates the extent the guardians of the state/culture/society went to prosecute (or persecute) this culture (or counter culture) ante-hero (or hero). Alanscottwalker (talk) 17:13, 16 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      • I'm not making up policy; NFCC#8 requires, for retention, that omission of the image would harm the reader's understanding of the topic. What harm to understanding is there if the image is removed? We're still discussing the arrest, and we already have several images of what Hendrix looks like, so there is no harm. Ergo, NFCC#8 fails and the image is improper. --MASEM (t) 17:17, 16 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
        • Yes, you are making it up. You're pretending that it is an objective test, which it is not. As to your question of "what harm" that was answered in my statements above. It is no relevant response for you to say you do not like my answer. In well grounded editorial judgment of many who have gone before me it does meet NFCC8, and I agree. That you disagree with that, is neither here nor there. Alanscottwalker (talk) 17:41, 16 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
          • When uploading a non-free image the upload Wizard says: "This image is the object of discussion in an article. This is a copyrighted artwork or photograph, and the image itself is the topic of discussion in the article. The discussion is about the photograph or painting as such, as a creative work, not just about the thing or person it shows." (original emphasis) The image is not the object of sourced critical commentary in the Wikipedia article or the high-quality reliable sources. Which I believe is exactly what Masem is talking about. GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 17:53, 16 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
          • It may not be objective, but you can't hand-wave away "oh, there's harm done", without being explicit about what that harm may be, as this test does have a rather high bar to meet. That bar is raised because 1) there's already images of Hendrix present in the article that aren't going anywhere, so you have to show why yet another image of Hendrix doesn't violate #8 and NFCC#3 and 2) there's zero discussion of the image itself which is the normal test for NFCC#8, and so there has to be a patently obviously clear reason to keep the image, which hasn't been shown. Again, the simple question: how are we harming the reader's understanding of who Jimi Hendrix is by removing the image that isn't already addressed by the text and other images present? --MASEM (t) 17:54, 16 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
            • You're increasingly not making sense. It's not just a picture of Hendrix. It is a picture of Hendrix in a relevant and revealing situation. I have not hand waived. I have reveiwed the sources on the photo, and agree with the articulated educational value, vis-a-vis Hendrix, the subject of the article. Alanscottwalker (talk) 18:04, 16 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
              • There's nothing in the context of the article that explains this. It's just another picture of Hendrix, and in this work where we are required to minimize non-free inclusion, that's not sufficient to include. I totally agree that in a work where fair use was the only limit on what copyrighted materials, this image is of educational value and would easily pass that bar alongside a running discussion of his arrest in Toronto. But we are specifically more restrictive than that, and we need a stronger, less emphatic reason to use the image. But you need to explain the loss of understanding that the omission would cause. --MASEM (t) 18:22, 16 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
                • And in my view of the sources and the article, it is not only passes fair use - it substantively increases understanding of Hendrix - and its absence is a clear detriment to that. Alanscottwalker (talk) 18:29, 16 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
                  • Alanscottwalker, we discuss Hendrix's performances at Monterey and Woodstock, but we don't include an image of him there because no free versions exist. Certainly an image of Hendrix in concert attire holding a guitar would be more educational to our readers than a shoulder-up black and white of him being booked. You do not need an image to understand that he was arrested. Its really that simple. Also, no reliable sources critically discuss his appearance on the day of the arrest, so its not really possible to add sourced commentary on his attire that day, which would be required if we kept the image. His arrest is discussed, but his appearance and mugshot are not. Per our guidelines: "The discussion is about the photograph or painting as such, as a creative work, not just about the thing or person it shows." (original emphsis) So even if we could find reliable sources that discussed Hendrix's appearance on May 3, we would still need critical commentary regarding the actual image, not just Hendrix in general. I'm not aware of any reliable sources in existence that discuss the actual image. GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 18:32, 16 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Policy calls for substance and detriment - vis a vis the subject. This meets that. -- Alanscottwalker (talk) 18:49, 16 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Policy calls for "contextual significance", and since the image can be removed without harming the reader's understanding of what Jimi looked like or the events of the arrest, it fails the test. If the image is suppose to represent Jimi as a counter-culture hero, there must be non-original research discussion of how that image does that to establish contextual significant, not a handwave "trust me, it shows it". This should not be hard to find if it is believed this specific photo shows this. Except, of course, that others here have looked and come up empty to explain why this photo is so important, suggesting it is not as "important" as has been applied and thus why its removal is the only thing that makes sense, as previously established at the FAC and now here. --MASEM (t) 00:50, 17 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Contextual significance is provided. The context is the subject of the article. That this image also conveys beyond words vis-a-vis the subject means that harm is caused by its omission. Alanscottwalker (talk) 09:56, 17 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The argument that an image's inclusion is supposed by the subject of the article is allowance for one and only one identifying image to help provide visual context for the reader; this is normal for deceased people, commercial publications, and companies (for logos). Any additional identifying images must have discussion to the image itself, otherwise the second identifying image is duplicative and fails NFCC#3 and #8. Here's we're talking about the 5th identifying image when the other 4 (1 free and 3 non-free which all have been demonstrated as appropriate) meaning that the necessary of the need for the image has to be extremely clear. --MASEM (t) 15:28, 17 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

We are not talking about an "identifying image" if you mean by that 'this is this person'. Again, it is like you have no idea what this image is or who Hendrix was. Have you ever read his biography? -- Alanscottwalker (talk) 15:57, 17 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Yes you are; you are showing an image of what he looked like at a specific point in time without comment. That's an identifying image, and why we're begging those that want to keep this to show contextual significance of that image to justify why it is needed when we already have identified what Hendrix looked like. There is nothing that is said that the reader is to take away from the image for understanding. --MASEM (t) 16:02, 17 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

No. We are not. It is not there for identifying him. Your apparent ignorance of the article subject and the photo is embarassing for Wikipedia. Alanscottwalker (talk) 16:31, 17 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

There is nothing in the article that tells me why I need to see that image. That means it is unessential for the article, and thus failing NFCC#8. You cannot just say "it's needed" and not explain why, to be a valid ratioanale to use. --MASEM (t) 16:36, 17 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Of course, the article tells us why we need to see the image -- the fact that you apparently do not understand the subject is moreover, an additional good reason to not rely on your editorial reccomendations. Alanscottwalker (talk) 16:48, 17 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

No it doesn't. NFC requires the reason for the image to be explicitly obvious via disucssion of the image itself in text, and that is not the case here. --MASEM (t) 16:51, 17 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The reason is obvious to anyone actually trying to understand the subject, and it is explicitly so. And, yes it meets the NFCC. Alanscottwalker (talk) 17:17, 17 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

"It" is not established here at all, if by "it" you mean consensus to delete. I think what you're getting at in general is that the overall project consensus on NFC by default automatically backs up the claim that it fails #8 no matter who disagrees with the interpretation of it actually failing #8. We therefore must delete no matter the outcome of the discussion. You are incorrect if that's what you believe. I seriously do not see how you can arrive at the conclusion that there is clear/true/strong/"any" consensus to delete here. There is no consensus to delete the image according to what consensus is defined as. Doc talk 03:00, 17 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Agree with Doc. No consensus has been established, as I understand the definition. I again suggest this be closed as such. Jusdafax 05:04, 17 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Consensus is based on the weight of the policy arguments. It has been repeated demonstrated how NFCC#3 and #8 are not met by this image. The onus is on those wanting to keep it to show by policy how it does meet it, and the only way this can be done is to clearly show how contextual significance is met and how this image performs a different function than the other images of Hendrix already in the article. That requires sources to make sure it is not original research (as otherwise, I can justify nearly any piece of non-free across WP by hand-waving at its importance without backing that up if it is not obvious). This hasn't been shown. This is a normal textbook case for removal of an image after an FFD discussion. --MASEM (t) 05:22, 17 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

In your opinion it hasn't been shown. It's hardly unanimous that you are correct. A normal textbook case would be to close this as "No consensus to delete". Doc talk 06:15, 17 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

But there's clearly majority support (noting we are !voting) for removal backed by strong statements of policy. Again, to show a policy-based reason to keep, exactly what harm will come to the reader's understand if this image was had never been in the article in the first place? --MASEM (t) 15:28, 17 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

At this point I am just going to disengage from this debate since I have commented here way too many times already. No hard feelings towards anyone, and hopefully vice-versa. Cheers. Doc talk 02:04, 18 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep The WMF's March, 2007 board resolution explicitly allows non-free images "to illustrate historically significant events". This event of 45 years ago is discussed in books and periodicals published many years and even decades later. At least two such books, by Roby and Jucha, include this image to illustrate this event. In addition, WP:NONFREE states that "historical images which are not subject of commentary themselves but significantly aid in illustrating historical events may be used judiciously". I consider the event historically significant, and believe that the image significantly aids in illustrating it, and such use is judicious. Every clearly stated opinion in this debate to keep or delete should be evaluated as an iVote, whether or not bolded and formalized, and straw man arguments and off topic discussion should be discounted by the closing administrator. So feel free to discount my initial comments which were made without studying the issue in more detail. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 16:37, 17 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Cullen328, in no way do I think that one of Hendrix's five arrests is a "historically significant event". Its not even the only time he was arrested in Toronto! Also, please strike one of your two keep !votes. GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 17:32, 17 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • A point of note: that statement in the Resolution does not say that we (as a Wikimedia project) have to allow the use of non-free for historically significant events, only that's the type of usage that they consider a reasonable allowance should the individual project allow for it. Not all projects follow that (see, de.wiki for example, which has NO non-free images). The only "required" type of non-free image spelled out explicitly that all Wikimedia projects must follow is to not use non-free where free is available as in the case of nearly all living individuals. So no, the Foundation's statement does not apply here, it is how we interpreted that in our NFC policy. As for the NONFREE statement, this also requires all other NFC to be met, and with 4 other images of Hendrix on the page, that's a failure as well, in addition to the fact that the "significantly aid" is highly questionable. --MASEM (t) 16:50, 17 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• According to Wikipedia:Non-free content: "Other non-free content—including all copyrighted images, audio and video clips, and other media files that lack a free content license—may be used on the English Wikipedia only where all 10 of the following criteria are met." (emphasis added)
  • 8. Contextual significance. "Non-free content is used only if its presence would significantly increase readers' understanding of the article topic, and its omission would be detrimental to that understanding."
    • The article topic is Jimi Hendrix not Jimi Hendrix's 1969 drug-bust, and since there are 4 other images of him in the article I think its more than a stretch to assert that our readers will somehow significantly lose understanding of the article topic (which is again, Hendrix not the mugshot) if one of five images is removed. The arrest photo is not discussed in the article and it is not discussed in any high-quality secondary sources. In fact, nobody has produced even one secondary source that discusses the actual image. Per Wikipedia policy, we cannot include the non-free image without sourced in-line discussion of the actual image, but since there are no secondary sources that discuss the image any discussion of the copyrighted image in a Wikipedia article would be unsourced original research. Therefore, the image should be deleted per policy. GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 18:06, 17 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

No the article is not about Hendrix as you, apparently in your blinkered manner claim, as just some physical blob of tissue that looked like that. It is about the life of Hendrix - his biography - what his life meant, to him, to them of that day, and to us. So, reread the policy you quote. Your gloss on it is perposterous and plainly not there. Significantly increase understanding of the life of Hendrix and detrimental to understanding the life of Hendrix - have vitually nothing to do with the number of photographs of him, and certainly has nothing to do with the abstract and editorially absurd idea that one image is just the same educationally as another. -- Alanscottwalker (talk) 19:09, 17 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, I'll play along. Is this arrest as important to the life of Hendrix as his other four arrests? Its not even the only time he was arrested in Toronto! Is this even more important then Woodstock? Because I doubt that it is, and we do not include and image of Hendrix at Woodstock. Are you arguing that 'every important event in the life of Hendrix needs to be represented by a copyrighted image? Can we request this be closed so that we can end this limitless regurgitation of non-arguments? GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 19:26, 17 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Irrelevant - we are not here to discuss other unused images because no editor can possibly analyze them for this discussion and our purposes in this article; we are not here to discuss undue weight as there are other forums for that (and your observation about other arrests would likely not make one image undue, if we were here to discuss that, which we are not); as you have been told, we are here to have a limited criteria examination of this image, in this use, on a case by case basis. Alanscottwalker (talk) 09:03, 18 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Since NFCC includes minimizing non-free use on a given page and the potential replacement by free(r) media, we have to consider all the existing information and images used on the page in evaluating this image. We're considering all the other non-free content on the Hendrix article to be appropriate so they are not up to be judged, but we have to consider this image in the light that those other images exist. This isn't a vacuum on just this image. --MASEM (t) 15:01, 18 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This is the only use of this image, and the only use of NFCC [images]content on that page, so it is minimal. Moreover, my comment was about the speculation concerning unused images, so your comment is non-responsive. Alanscottwalker (talk) 15:33, 18 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

There are 3 non-free sound samples on the page, so yes, we have to consider that.--MASEM (t) 15:45, 18 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Corrected to images, but that does not affect the issue. Alanscottwalker (talk) 15:55, 18 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• FTR, I've requested that an uninvolved admin close this discussion that it seems has reached the point of diminishing returns. GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 19:32, 17 January 2014 (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 Stifle (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 19:17, 19 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

An earlier photo of him exists. Since he is not famous for what he looked like in later life, that photo serves as a suitable replacement. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 21:32, 8 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

He is much more famous for what he looks like in later life, as the picture was released to the public from TVB in 2007, when he was still the chairman of TVB, the dominant television station in Hong Kong and all over the Chinese communities worldwide. He showed up at the annual TVB anniversary until his retirement in 2012 and the annual Shaw Prize ceremony. Therefore he is absolutely famous for what he looked like in his later life. On the contrary, he was not yet a tycoon in his earlier life in 1930.--Lmmnhn (talk) 21:47, 8 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The point is, he isn't famous for what he looked like at any point in time; he is famous for what he did. I'm talking about people like child stars, or perhaps someone who modeled in their 20s, retired from modeling at 30, and is now 70. For them, a large part of their notability stems from their appearance, which is not the case here. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 22:02, 8 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom, as we have a free photo of him at a younger age. I agree that he wasn't particularly notable for his appearance, at least not to the extent that could justify the use of a non-free image.--eh bien mon prince (talk) 00:51, 10 January 2014 (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.