Wikipedia:Files for discussion/2020 October 2

< October 1	October 3 >

October 2

File:Hick Hargreaves and Co. Ltd. advert.jpg

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. — JJMC89 (T·C) 06:42, 21 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Originally nominated for dated deletion by @Marchjuly with the reason "Non-free image being used in a decorative manner in an image gallery (B. Hick and Sons#Soho Iron Works) which fails WP:NFCC#1, WP:NFCC#8 and WP:NFG. Non-free images are almost never allowed to be used in image galleries like this; ff there is sourced critical commentary somewhere in the article that is specific to this particular advert (actual commentary about the advert itself per WP:NFC#CS), then perhaps the image can be moved there to support such content. If, however, the image is just be used to "show" that the plant changed from beam engines to atomic power, then it's not really needed per WP:FREER because such thing can be just as easily understood through simple text alone supported by citations to reliable sources. What is almost always needed for this type of non-free use is commentary specifically about advert itself." FASTILY 08:28, 8 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Relevant discussion about this non-free use can be found at File talk:Hick Hargreaves and Co. Ltd. advert.jpg. The file is no longer being used in the image gallery, but has been moved to B. Hick and Sons#Diversification. Even though WP:NFG is no longer applicable, I still of the opinion that WP:NFCC#8 isn't being met. The uploader has been making an effort to justify the file's non-free use, but mainly this has involved further elaborating on the use in the non-free use rationale; that's fine except none that has involved actually adding sourced critical commentary about either this particular advert or the company's use of adverts to the actual article itself. All of the stuff listed in the "Purpose of use" part of the file's rationale sounds great, but it's pretty much WP:OR and there's no sourced commentary about this in the article. The presence of a rationale (even a well-written rationale) in and of itself is not really a sufficient justification for keeping a non-free file per WP:JUSTONE. The file's caption is supported by three citations, one doesn't seem to be available online, but the two that are only show the advert existed; they say nothing about Works publicity material promoting the firm as power engineers and suppliers to the nuclear industry, using the pre-war Art Deco corporate identity with post-war graphic design and modernist architecture, 1961; so, the caption itself seems to be basically a bit of WP:OR that doesn't reflect at least two of the sources cited. Given the way the file is still currently being used and the NFCC#8 issues it has, I still don't think it can be kept.
I thought it might be possible for this to be somehow public domain in the UK (i.e. the country of origin) since similar adverts originating in the US have been uploaded t Commons. UK copyright law, however, is different from the US's in that there doesn't seem to be a UK equivalent per {{PD-US-no notice}} or {{PD-US-not renewed}}. So, this would seem to fall under c:COM:UK#Ordinary copyright where a p.m.a of 70 years is required before this would becomes public domain. The advert is made up of multiple elements some of which might individually be too old or too simple to be ineligible for copyright protection, but the combination of them does seem to create a new copyright for the advert itself. Given the publication date of 1961, 70 year p.ma. would seem to imply that 2031 is the earliest the advert would be considered to be within the public domain if we assume that the "author" is "B. Hick and Sons" (or someone working for the company) and that the author "died" in 1961. However, the company seems to have only change ownership over the years and even though it's no longer the same company it was back in 1961, the intellectual property rights of the company probably now reside with the new owners. So, once again, it seems unlikely for this to be public domain anytime prior to 2031. -- Marchjuly (talk) 23:06, 8 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment:Guidance on NFCC 8. states,

'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'.

'Two of the most common circumstances in which an item of non-free content can meet the contextual significance criterion are:

where the item is itself the subject of sourced commentary in the article, or

where only by including such non-free content, can the reader identify an object, style, or behavior, that is a subject of discussion in the article.

In all cases, meeting the criterion depends on the significance of the understanding afforded by the non-free content, which can be determined according to the principles of due weight and balance'.

Nowhere in NFCC 8 is 'critical' mentioned, the extent of the source and commentary are not relevant, it just needs to be commentary. Marchjuly's post on the file's talk page indicates there is no clear definition (and there probably shouldn’t be as it would seem to impose undue restraint) as to whether a caption is or is not commentary in an article. For that reason as it stands I would suggest the image, caption and sources meet the contextual significance critera.

The text and the image are the source, aside the ad from the Engineer found on ebay [1]. The caption is factual ('needs no source, nor is it original research, because it's not something you thought up and it is so easily verifiable that no one is likely to object to it') and commentary from the sources, not WP:OR.

The reason provided in the rationale are explicitly tied to NFCC 8. under purpose, refering to:

An example of works publicity material promoting the firm as power engineers and suppliers to the nuclear industry and Central Electricy Board (CEB).

The Hick Hargreaves corporate identity in pre war Art Deco style combined with post war graphic design and modernist architecture.

Power engineering using the examples supported by the text in the image.

Changes and diversification in the firm between about 1930 and 1960 during the collapse of the cotton industry and demise of the stationary steam engine.

All the above are tied to sources in the article in the three paragraphs associated with the image, I would suggest in compliance with the 'common circumstances' in NFCC 8 - I will make improvements to the article where possible - keep.Rstory (talk) 16:23, 9 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

NFCC#8 is a two-part test, whether the inclusion of the image aids in the reader to understand the topic, and whether the omission harms the reader's understanding. The first part is nearly always true - having the image helps, but the second part is where most editors fail to proof out because of the lack of any discussion of the critical commentary type - that is, sourced to secondary sources - that makes the picture essential. Just because you have a caption (commentary) does not pass that test, since you can describe that ad in text easily as a freer alternative. You almost need sourcing discussing the ad specifically here to keep it. --Masem (t) 03:38, 17 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Article and purpose adjusted accordingly. I would suggest omission now harms the reader's understanding not least for the following reasons:

The Ad is the only colour representation available of the firm's corporate identity in the period about 1930-1960 used in conjunction with nuclear power and the only visual representation of the firms association with the nuclear industry together with the shift in technology .

The image is also the only single illustration available as an example of the firm's Diversification.

As an example of publicity material the image is a visual medium that cannot be replaced by words.

Commentary - 'critical' is not included in NFCC 8, neither is the nature of the source, e.g. primary, secondary etc. Describing the ad in words would not equate to the image itself, if that was true we would have captions with no images? I will ad/adjust the source(s). Please hold. Rstory (talk) 03:21, 18 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Unlike Commons, which would heed both US and UK law on whether this image is public domain, Wikipedia only considers US law see WP:Public domain. If it was published in the UK in 1961 it was still in UK copyright in 1996 so US copyright would remain until 95 years after 1961 (normally but see https://copyright.cornell.edu/publicdomain for gory details). No opinion from me on whether or not an image is decorative.Thincat (talk) 09:01, 21 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The image appears to fall into #4 ads of the blanket acceptable non-free content categories listed at Wikipedia:Non-free content § Images. Can we remove the tag? Rstory (talk) 23:00, 25 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

More source material to review, please hold, thanks. Rstory (talk) 12:27, 29 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Izno (talk) 15:08, 2 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

If there is more source material I should be aware of please let me know and I will make any further amendments. Many thanks.Rstory (talk) 23:02, 7 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete There's a lot to untangle here, so bear with me. Rstory, I thoroughly appreciate your devotion to the project, this article, and the image. None of what I'm about to say should in any way be interpreted as censure of your work. Wikipedia:Non-free_content#Images #4 is met in that we do allow such material for critical commentary. But, that's just the beginning of the hurdles this needs to overcome. As Masem noted above, WP:NFCC #8 is a two pronged test. The image does fail the second part of that test; the reader's understanding would not be harmed by the removal of the image. The accompanying text in the article makes no reference to the image at all, much less using secondary sources to do so. The two sentence paragraph discussing the 1960s history of the company makes no mention of the material. Simply adding such mention isn't enough; we'd need sourcing to support the discussion as valid and encyclopedic for inclusion. I.e., sources that talk about this specific material. The image caption does discuss the image, but the caption reads as WP:SYNTH. There are five sources attached to the caption (!). Of those five; [80] refers to something published in 1937, so I don't know how that could have a role in discussing something printed in 1961. [81] is to a blog, and not really usable itself as a source (WP:BLOGS). The book the blog post refers to was published in 1961, but it is offline and thus not useful for ascertaining whether the book discusses the material in any meaningful way. [82] also refers to a book that is offline, and thus as [81]. For [83], the PDF used as a cite does discus changes at the company, but it doesn't discuss this material, so it's not useful for supporting the need of this image. With [63], the citation has a copy of the image but doesn't discuss the image in any respect, thus again not useful. So, at this point there are no secondary sources in the prose of the article (the 1960s paragraph) that discuss the image and none of the citations in the caption appear to discuss the image either. I thus find there's nothing connecting the image to the prose that is supported by secondary sources. As to the rationale; while there is a thorough rationale, I don't find any justification for the use of the image in such a way that it is tied to the prose. This is a crucial point of understanding. If it's not tied to the prose in any meaningful way, it's inclusion is superfluous to the article. In purpose of use, there is substantial argument, but none of it has anything to do with the prose in any connected way. Example; ok, it's a color image. But, the prose doesn't discuss the colorized image being significant. So, it being colorized isn't a justification for inclusion. That's the simplest one to lay out, but I hope it's illustative as to why the rest of the purpose of use doesn't really support inclusion. In summary; there are no citations that support inclusion of the image, and the rationale does not provide a basis as to why this image is important in such a way that its removal would be detrimental to reader's understanding. I'm open to reconsider this, if there are citations that can be found that can show why this image is so critical to the company's history. But, at this point, I'm not seeing it. --Hammersoft (talk) 22:12, 12 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Many thanks to Hammersoft for looking at this in detail, a forensic approach gives me something to bounce off. Please hold while I return for another pass. If I can wring any more out of this I will do my best. Rstory (talk) 10:33, 13 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I'll break the review into small chunks to make it easier - the purpose of use as it stands suggests the image might also be described as historic depending on how historic is defined? If so, it may also fall under #8 Images with iconic status or historical importance, that '...significantly aid in illustrating historical events...'. Rstory (talk) 14:43, 18 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

It isn't iconic unless secondary sources say it is. We can't declare it iconic and thus it becomes so. --Hammersoft (talk) 17:37, 18 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Difficult if not impossible to assert iconic without a comparative study to work from, but historic importance is what I am concerned with that can be assessed against the sources it relates to that I try to convey in the purpose for use. (I can go through this and ad quotes if that's required). Just checking, have you seen the image from 1937 cite [80] linked above on ebay using the same deco corporate id in the ad from 1961? Rstory (talk) 11:04, 19 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The article already has an ample supply of free images, so this fails NFCC #1. Sorry, Rstory, I know you have good intentions, but the answer on this one is "no", period. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 13:04, 19 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the media's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

File:France 261.jpg

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. — JJMC89 (T·C) 06:44, 21 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Fails WP:NFCC 3a and 8 - Excessive use of non-free content, in a gallery-like fashion. A small number of public domain examples can be used to illustrate the article; the still-copyrighted stamps are not critical to the understanding of the article, and since the subject of the article is the art style on stamps and not a specific country's work, cannot be justified considering the number of available freely licensed works. The Squirrel Conspiracy (talk) 20:49, 10 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The design of the stamp itself is specifically discussed in the text and it is necessary to see the stamp to understand how it displays the Art Deco style. The nominator states that this fair use "cannot be justified considering the number of available freely licensed works." What "available freely licensed works" are there? Virtually none that I am aware o and none from this country. Ecphora (talk) 03:15, 12 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Multiple non-free images being used where one would suffice. Stifle (talk) 08:20, 17 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Izno (talk) 15:14, 2 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The article already contains several free images illustrating the style. The use of nonfree images therefore fails NFCC #1 (they are replaceable with free images and indeed already replaced with them), and #8 (since free images can illustrate what the style looks like, the nonfree images are decorative, not essential). Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 13:11, 19 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the media's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

File:Wilmington Waves - South Georgia Waves hat logo.png

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. — JJMC89 (T·C) 06:43, 21 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Does not satisfy WP:NFCC#8. The image is not used as the primary means of visual identification. The use of historical, former, alternate or anniversary logos for an entity is not allowed, unless the logo itself is described in the context of sourced critical commentary about that logo. Jonteemil (talk) 00:07, 15 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - the Minor League Baseball infobox specifically has an entry for one cap logo as a primary means of visual identification. The discussion should begin with whether that is appropriate, rather than indiscriminately tagging every single individual logo. SixFourThree (talk) 16:00, 18 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per NFCC 3a. (Probably above TOO). —‍Mdaniels5757 (talk • contribs) 19:33, 22 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Izno (talk) 15:16, 2 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The use of an organization's current primary logo is generally acceptable in the article about the organization. That does not extend to previous or alternate logos. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 13:12, 19 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the media's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

File:Fair Use of The Soulquarians.jpg

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: relisted on 2020 December 8. FASTILY 00:04, 8 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

File:Fair Use of The Soulquarians.jpg (delete | talk | history | links | logs)

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.

File:OaklandOaks(PCL)CapLogo.PNG

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 as F8 by Fastily (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) A file with this name on Commons is now visible. AnomieBOT ⚡ 02:02, 14 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Does not satisfy WP:NFCC#8. The image is not used as the primary means of visual identification. The use of historical, former, alternate or anniversary logos for an entity is not allowed, unless the logo itself is described in the context of sourced critical commentary about that logo. Jonteemil (talk) 00:07, 15 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as the logo in question doesn't pass the threshold of originality for copyright. schetm (talk) 04:02, 16 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep for that reason. This logo image consists only of simple geometric shapes or text. It does not meet the threshold of originality needed for copyright protection, and is therefore in the public domain. Should be re-tagged with Template:PD-logo. SixFourThree (talk) 15:30, 18 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as below TOO. Convert to {{PD-logo}} and move to Commons. —‍Mdaniels5757 (talk • contribs) 18:39, 22 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. This cannot be said to not meet the TOO; it is a complex set of shapes and colour shading. As such, it fails WP:NFCC#3a as an alternate or secondary logo, and must be deleted. Stifle (talk) 08:34, 17 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Izno (talk) 15:24, 2 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

It's not complex. It's an old style letter. A letter outlined in red on a solid blue background isn't complex either. This shouldn't have been relisted. schetm (talk) 16:12, 2 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as a simple {{PD-logo}}. - Eureka Lott 17:45, 3 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the media's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

File:Marlins cap insignia.svg

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. — JJMC89 (T·C) 06:45, 21 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Does not satisfy WP:NFCC#8. The image is not used as the primary means of visual identification. The use of historical, former, alternate or anniversary logos for an entity is not allowed, unless the logo itself is described in the context of sourced critical commentary about that logo. Jonteemil (talk) 21:55, 14 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - the MLB infobox specifically has an entry for current cap logos. The discussion should begin with whether that is optimal, rather than indiscriminately tagging every single individual logo. SixFourThree (talk) 15:06, 18 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Multiple images used where one would suffice. If the template is inviting people to include images that are against policy then the template should be fixed independently of removing inappropriate images. Stifle (talk) 13:08, 16 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Izno (talk) 15:24, 2 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per SixFourThree. - Eureka Lott 17:41, 3 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. An organization's current primary logo is generally acceptable in the article about the organization. This does not extend to older or alternate logos. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 13:20, 19 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the media's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

File:3F Superliga Logo.jpg

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 as F8 by Fastily (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) A file with this name on Commons is now visible. AnomieBOT ⚡ 07:09, 2 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Does not satisfy WP:NFCC#8. The image is not used as the primary means of visual identification. The use of historical, former, alternate or anniversary logos for an entity is not allowed, unless the logo itself is described in the context of sourced critical commentary about that logo. Jonteemil (talk) 17:13, 14 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as the logo in question doesn't pass the threshold of originality for copyright. schetm (talk) 03:43, 16 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Izno (talk) 15:24, 2 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and transfer to Commons as {{PD-logo}}. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 13:21, 19 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the media's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

File:MGM Ident 1956-57.jpg

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: relisted on 2020 December 8. FASTILY 00:04, 8 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

File:MGM Ident 1956-57.jpg (delete | talk | history | links | logs)

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.

File:HSV Hamburg.png

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the media below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the media's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was: Delete; deleted by Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 10:10, 20 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Does not satisfy WP:NFCC#8. The image is not used as the primary means of visual identification. The use of historical, former, alternate or anniversary logos for an entity is not allowed, unless the logo itself is described in the context of sourced critical commentary about that logo. Jonteemil (talk) 17:13, 14 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as the logo in question doesn't pass the threshold of originality for copyright. schetm (talk) 03:15, 16 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Izno (talk) 15:25, 2 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I found a SVG version File:HSV Hamburg.svg at commons and I replaced the png version at the article. Malo95 (talk) 10:51, 16 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete as F8. I've tagged it as such. schetm (talk) 06:26, 20 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the media's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

File:2015 NRL Logo.png

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: relisted on 2020 December 8. FASTILY 00:04, 8 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

File:2015 NRL Logo.png (delete | talk | history | links | logs)

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.

File:Anna Marly - La Complainte du partisan - 1963.ogg

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: relisted on 2020 December 8. FASTILY 00:04, 8 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

File:Anna Marly - La Complainte du partisan - 1963.ogg (delete | talk | history | links | logs)

File:Leonard Cohen, The Partisan, 1968 - 28.5 second excerpt of English transition to French.ogg (delete | talk | history | links | logs)

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.

Several Images of mass shooters

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: relisted on 2020 December 8. FASTILY 00:05, 8 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

File:Rodrick Shonte Dantzler.jpg (delete | talk | history | links | logs)

File:Eduardo Sencion.jpg (delete | talk | history | links | logs)

File:Michael McLendon.jpg (delete | talk | history | links | logs)

File:George Hennard.jpg (delete | talk | history | links | logs)

File:James Oliver Huberty.jpg (delete | talk | history | links | logs)

File:Francisco Paula Gonzales.jpg (delete | talk | history | links | logs)

File:Clarence Bertucci.png (delete | talk | history | links | logs)

File:Micah Xavier Johnson - 2016 Dallas shooter.jpg (delete | talk | history | links | logs)

File:Gavin Long - shot 6 police officers in Baton Rouge on July 17 2016.png (delete | talk | history | links | logs)

File:Patrick Crusius Video Surveillance Shooting.png (delete | talk | history | links | logs)

File:Omar S. Thornton.jpg (delete | talk | history | links | logs)

File:Gian Luigi Ferri.jpg (delete | talk | history | links | logs)

File:Scott evans dekraai booking photo.jpg (delete | talk | history | links | logs)

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.