File:James Thomas Hodgkinson.png – Relist at FFD. It is clear from this discussion that there is no consensus at DRV for whether consensus was correctly interpreted and policy followed at FFD. DRV's procedure leaves two possible outcomes in such a case: default to the earlier close or relist at an appropriate venue. I base my decision on the content of the arguments laid out in this discussion, the extent to which deletion process was followed, and the likelihood that future discussion (taking into account the points raised) could potentially be fruitful. The distinction between direct appeals to NFCC and implicit appeals to NFCC discussed here leads me to believe that further discussion could be helpful. A significant process concern was also raised about how the closer of the previous FFD cited his own earlier close as being "established precedent". – IronGargoyle (talk) 21:13, 7 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it.
This was a fair use headshot photograph of the perpetrator of the 2017 Congressional baseball shooting, used to identify him in the section about him in that article.
I think the closer erred in closing this discussion. Opinions were divided about whether the image meets the NFCC, which should have resulted in a "no consensus, default to keep" outcome, given that no one side's arguments seem to offer a particularly more compelling interpretation of the NFCC. The closer's reference to "precedent" is mistaken in that Wikipedia does not apply (binding) precedent, but looks at each case individually; this is even more so where the "precedent" is exactly one closure by the same closer themselves, and took place on a notoriously poorly attended forum such as FfD, where individual discussions can't amount to much in the way of community consensus.
The closer has replied to these concerns in detail on their talk page, which I appreciate. They argue that the "keep" opinions did not (explicitly) address the NFCC, but in my view this should not be necessary. The NFCC are a highly technical and obscure policy, which ordinary editors can't be expected to know by heart. The "keep" opinions make sufficiently clear why the respective editors consider it necessary to include the image and why they do not consider it replaceable with alternatives, such as text, or an equally non-free prison mugshot. Sandstein 10:14, 23 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn to No consensus, with no prejudice agaisnt relisting if anyone so Chooses, but no automatic relisting. While not explicitly citing the NFCC, those in favor of keep did make policy-based reasons clear enough that they should not have been discounted, in my view. I must agree with the nomination on the issue of "precedent" here. DES(talk)DESiegel Contribs 00:58, 24 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn to keep Sandstein, there are a number of editors who believe that NFCC questions should default to delete, because copyright. It's unfortunate that they're trying to impair our coverage of current events based on their own particular interpretations. Jclemens (talk) 03:32, 24 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse as closing administrator. Please see my initial response to Sandstein's query. DESiegel, as I explained on my talk page, only one editor made an attempt to address NFCC, and specifically WP:NFCC#1. However, that was not the nominator's issue with the image, who pointed that out and was accused of bludgeoning the process in doing so. Sandstein stated: "It's normal practice to illustrate biographies of significant public figures" in the context of articles about the incidents and not the perpetrator. This is, to the best of my knowledge, not true. This also not policy, nor does it address policy – NFCC or otherwise. Philosopher and Doctor Papa Jones cited Dennis Brown's keep argument, who was addressed the wrong criterion to begin with, and Sandstein's keep argument, which failed to address any policy to any agree, for his own keep argument. AGreatPhoenixSunsFan's argument boiled down to "just showing a picture of the attacker in question shouldn't be a reason for deleting an image altogether", and again failed to cite policy for this. zzuuzz's "replace" comment and El cid, el campeador's "remove" argument were both misguided, so I discounted those entirely. What I was left with: Fourthords's (nominator) arguments citing policy, George Ho's argument citing policy, and Quackslikeaduck's agreeing with George. I did not see a discussion that would have resulted in "no consensus", let alone "keep". ℯxplicit 13:52, 24 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
There is no need to quote or address NFCC policy explicitly as long as you are making an argument that is itself encoded in the policy. Sandstein argument that "his appearance (e.g., his age, skin color) provides potentially significant context for the shooting" *is* the NFCC#8 criterion, yet you didn't recognize it as a policy-based argument in your close. Diego (talk) 08:46, 28 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn to non-consensus (which defaults to keep) though my own actual view is keep. The NFCC restrictions on article use are very restrictive. In interpreting them, we need to avoid making them yet more restrictive beyond the bounds of a reasonable interpretation. I've always though WP should make some attempt at consistency, but one previous afd discussion is not sufficient for binding precedent in a general interpretation. DGG ( talk ) 23:33, 25 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse Just for reference, I am aware of one other discussion about this type of non-free use at Wikipedia:Files for discussion/2015 November 26#File:Chris Mercer.jpg. I also don't think seeing the picture of Hodgkinson in this case improves the reader's understanding of the article content to such a degree that not seeing it would be detrimental to that understanding. If there was something particularly notable about his appearance that was related to this shooting that was covered in reliable sources, then perhaps using the image would be OK. There is, however, nothing in 2017 Congressional baseball shooting#Perpetrator that mentions his appearance at all. I think the arguments against this type of non-free use are much stronger in this case, just as they were much stronger for File:Chris Mercer.jpg and File:Rodger small.png, in that none of the Hodgkinson's actions or beliefs seem to be in any way related to his physical appearance so I don't see how WP:NFCC#8 or even WP:FREER are met. -- Marchjuly (talk) 02:16, 26 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse NFCC is absolutely not an obscure policy, it's just one that is not always easy to understand. The closure was correct in light of the arguments: there is no standard practice of including non-free images of non-notable perps for crimes (if you can get a free image, that's different), because that fails NFCC#1. If the perp becomes notable on their own and they're going to be incarcerated for life, making a free replacement likely impossible, then we could take about an image on the standalone article. --MASEM (t) 04:10, 26 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
But he's not incarcerated for life... he's dead. Jclemens (talk) 05:45, 26 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relist I think the close was rather defective and the closing administrator should have participated in the discussion rather than trying to close it. Most of the closing statement talks about an "established precedent" which doesn't seem to have been mentioned up to that point. This would be a reasonable thing to do if this "established precedent" was a policy, guideline or even a major RFC but it's just something the same admin wrote while closing a similar discussion 18 months ago and therefore isn't much of a precedent at all, much less an "established" one. I do think that discussion was leaning towards deletion, if only because there wasn't much effort to rebut the NFCC#8 concerns, but that was largely down to the number of other issues raised (such as NFCC#1 concerns, which were addressed). A relist would help to focus on that issue. Hut 8.5 06:50, 26 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse, reasonable outcome of a debate where no strong arguments were made that WP:NFCC#8 was met. —Kusma (t·c) 12:36, 26 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Weak endorse. This is not an area of expertise for me, but my reading of the WP:NFCC says to me that in close cases, we should err on the side of deletion. That page says:
using more narrowly defined criteria than apply under the fair use provisions in United States copyright law
only where all 10 of the following criteria are met
Given that, its seems to me that no consensus (which you could reasonably argue would have been a better close) in copyright cases, really should default to delete, not to keep, as it usually the case. Adittedly, that doesn't appear to be the official policy, and given that, the next best thing would be to err on the side of deletion.
On a different point, i'm a little concerned about the appeal to precedent in the close. Not so much because I think every decision needs to stand on its own, but because the precedent being cited was the closer's own. A change of wording from precedent to something like, as I said in .... would have been more transparent. That's not a reason by itself to overturn the close, but it is something that could have been done better.
Lastly, I'm concerned that nobody appears to have done the research to see if we have permission. Write to whoever we believe to be the copyright holder and ask for permission to use it. One of three things are likely to happen. One, permission will be granted. Two, permission will be denied. Three, copyright will be disavowed. In any of those cases, we'll have an authoritative answer. -- RoySmith(talk) 13:12, 26 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse deletion There's several pertinent issues here, all of which point to a clear cut case to delete and keep deleted. (1) NFCC no consensus does not default to keep; This is in fact codified in the policy, though it may not seem clear at first pass. WP:NFCC says "it is the duty of users seeking to include or retain content to provide a valid rationale" If the people wishing to retain NFCC can not gain consensus the image has a valid use rationale, it must go. That's the default, not keep. I've found references to this being the case dating back at least as far as 2008. It's how we do things with regards to NFCC material. (2) NFCC policy isn't technical and obscure; There are many policies on this project which require experience to understand. Experience required <> technical/obscure. Further, it can hardly be described as "obscure" when the guideline and policy are linked at Wikipedia:Five pillars, in Template:Non-free use rationale which is widely used on the vast majority of non-free images here, and even at the upload wizard. Even if it were somehow "obscure", a policy being obscure doesn't make it less of a policy. (3) FfD being poorly attended does not undermine its conclusions; Saying FfD isn't a valid community consensus tool uses an extremely broad paintbrush that would undermine every single FfD. It is our standing consensus tool for evaluating the presence of images on the project until such time as it is replaced or deleted itself. Its conclusions are consensus bound. While consensus can change, the conclusions there stand until such time as consensus does in fact change, or it is overturned here at DRV. (4) To the merits of the image itself; DRV isn't the place for such discussions, as DRV isn't a second chance FfD. That said, deletion is effectively mandatory here; the perpetrator has no independent-of-incident notability warranting an independent article. The 2017 Congressional baseball shooting article is most emphatically NOT his biography page. His visual appearance is not necessary for a person to understand the section of the article that discusses him, thus failing WP:NFCC #8. Not having an image of him on this incident article does not limit the article in any respect, as his visual depiction is not of importance. IF he had an article about himself only, an image would be warranted in the infobox, and that image could be non-free. But not on the incident article, unless someone can show a reliable source that indicates his visual appearance is somehow important to the crimes he has committed such that we have to have an image to understand that visual appearance. --Hammersoft (talk) 15:26, 26 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse deletion In addition to the policy arguments raised above, particularly failing WP:NFCC #8, I suggest that our guidelines are also helpful in sorting out cases such as this where an individual may be discussed in a section of an article but does not merit a full biographical article. WP:NFCI #10 notes the appropriateness of using "Pictures of deceased persons, in articles about that person, provided that ever obtaining a free close substitute is not reasonably likely." (emphasis added) The article versus section distinction is a good one for judging the contextual significance and usefulness of providing a non-free image. Note that a photo of a deceased perpetrator can become contextually significant where the photograph itself has become part of the story. See, e.g., Boston_Marathon_bombing#Release_of_suspect_photos. 24.151.10.165 (talk) 16:55, 26 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relist I found that discussion to lack much of any direct reference to policy and the close itself should have been a !vote. Given the high visibility of the topic, I think we need a better discussion. And can expect one after this listing at DRV. Hobit (talk) 17:18, 26 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse - I know people are concerned about the closure and the need to use the non-free image of the perpetrator. However, as said, we should not display an image to treat the current event article as a page of images. Instead, we should encourage readers to take free content seriously and to realize that Wikipedia is a free-content encyclopedia. Yes, it is an encyclopedia. (There are visual encyclopedias, yet Wikipedia ain't one. Someday, there may be Visual Wikipedia... if copyright laws allow it.) Revisiting NFCC#8 without rehashing old arguments from FFD discussion, the readers are expected to read the article and comprehend the topic. (Well, I didn't explain why else the image should be deleted.) Excluding readers who would read just the lead and then move on (MOS:LEAD), let's focus on those wanting to read the section about the perpetrator himself. Actually, readers who want to learn about just the perpetrator and not more about the event may not be the article's main target. Indeed, the article intends to target those who want learn more about the event, not about the perpetrator. That's it. Those reading the article to learn about the event would already understand the event without this image, which still doesn't increase their own understanding of the event. If the event receives a lot of press coverage, then readers would already know about the event and find the perpetrator image unnecessary. Meanwhile, there are other free multimedia contents, like the videos. Also, there are free images of Scalise and the baseball game itself. No big loss to me. --George Ho (talk) 12:24, 27 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I think that the particular relevance of the image is that it (immediately) illustrates that the perpetrator was a white man - something I think not touched on in the text of the article – and perhaps for good reasons: maybe there are no sources addressing that issue in particular, which in itself might be indicative of how much "white man" is still considered the default state of humanity in the US and elsewhere. Given America's difficult racial history and politics, and the political nature of the crime, the perpetrator's skin color can't help but color - pardon the pun - readers' assessment of events; it should therefore be included in a comprehensive treatment of the event. Sandstein 13:01, 27 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
While potentially interesting, unless you can provide reliable sources indicating his racial background is somehow pertinent to this crime, including his image solely for the sake of demonstrating he is white is a non-starter. As is, there's nothing in the article indicating race as being pertinent. --Hammersoft (talk) 14:29, 27 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I think the above post only goes to show that this close was the correct and only one that could've been made. The reader does not need to see any image of Hodgkinson to understand he was white any more than the reader would need to see an image of him to understand he was male. That information can be more than adequately expressed by text alone. As for the stuff about the "white man" being the "default state of humanity", I agree with Hammersoft in that such a thing might be an interesting take on this terrible event, but Wikipedia is not supposed to be about promoting interesting takes on things. The reason for using the image should only be that there was something about it which was specifically the subject of critical commentary in reliable sources; it should not be that we hope that the reader sees the image and then decides to interpret it and the event in a particular way. -- Marchjuly (talk) 15:46, 27 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Well, no. We use images, generally speaking, where they are useful to illustrate or complement the text. Fair-use images do need to additionally pass the WP:NFCCP, but the image being "specifically the subject of critical commentary in reliable sources" is not as such required. What the policy requires, to the extent relevant here, is "contextual significance" (#8), and it is this significance that I think the FfD discussion and my comment above establish. Even absent any racial or political aspect, "what did the guy look like who did this?" is such a natural impulse of readers to want to know, especially in our media-saturated age, that I think any serious treatment of the issue is just fundamentally incomplete without an image; and it is this editorial consideration that establishes the required significance of the image. Sandstein 16:49, 27 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Such a justification, that we should illustrate where we can due to media saturation in this age, would justify the use of any non-free image in any context on the project. Regardless, such discussion as this is moot; DRV is not a second chance FfD. Discussing the merits of the image in the context where it was is not appropriate for a DRV. The issue at hand is whether the deletion discussion was closed on reasonable grounds and enacted properly. The closer concluded there was consensus to delete. Some might read that FfD and conclude there was no consensus. I dare say nobody would conclude there was consensus to keep. Closed as delete, it was deleted. As established by myself and others above, a no consensus on a non-free image defaults to delete. If it were re-closed as no consensus, the outcome would be the same; the file would be deleted. The FfD was closed on proper grounds, and the image was deleted in accordance with appropriate procedures to that effect. There's nothing to act on here. If you would like to discuss with me why this image fails WP:NFCC #8, I invite you to do so on my talk page. You would of course be welcome to ping anyone else to the discussion that you think is appropriate. --Hammersoft (talk) 17:58, 27 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Sandstein: I found twosources discussing Hodgkinson's race, but the sources were two African-American males. If I use those sources, they should belong in the "Reactions" section, not the "Perpetrator" section, which formerly included this image. No other sources emphasized or sensationalized Hodgkinson's race. Therefore, I can't include those per WP:UNDUE; very few sources emphasize his race... well, I found The Root writer's article better written and more eloquent than the other. However, they're not worth including yet. Also, as said before, Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, and an encyclopedia's intent is giving readers general knowledge. In this case, the article's intent is giving readers general knowledge about the shooting itself. It does not intend to emphasize the guy's ethnicity, and the image does not add anything to effectively help readers understand the event but to distract readers into looking at his ethnicity. I could include the phrase "white male", but that doesn't help make the image more effective either. Meanwhile, any one of you can read Trayvon Martin, George Zimmerman, and other articles related to them. Therefore, their ethnicities are better covered in those related articles, while Hodgkinson's... aren't. --George Ho (talk) 18:35, 27 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn (but subject to a new talk page consensus). Break the FfD decision, and consider using the deleted image or a substitute, such as one of the few I link below.
The close was not terribly unreasonable, but has some weaknesses.
", in general, ". I don't read a consensus in the discussion that this situation is a general situation. The need to include the image of a *white male* is important here, without overstating the point, is important, as people have mentioned.
I think this is not a "general" case, due to being very high profile, with the image of the perpetrator all over the media. The perpetrator may not have his own biography, but he is singularly important in this incident. He has motive, it was political, it was not a random madman shooting of random victims.
In this DRV discussion, and looking back at the FfD, it is hard to know what image is being talked about. I see five images all over the internet, I guess we are talking about number 4? Number 5 is possibly free, but is argued to be excluded from consideration.
No policy provides that no consensus defaults to delete for fair use images. The general rule therefore applies: no consensus defaults to keep. Sandstein 04:52, 28 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Hmmm. "No consensus" for fair use images defaults to delete or keep? It was my understanding that it was delete. Checking this discussion, I see the question is in clear dispute. "No policy provides"? What does policy say? Has this question ever been the specific subject of discussion? --SmokeyJoe (talk) 07:58, 28 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The deletion policy, WP:DPAFD, reads in relevant part: "The discussion lasts at least seven full days; afterwards, pages are deleted by an administrator if there is consensus to do so." That is, absent a consensus to delete, the outcome is keep. This applies to all forms of deletion discussions (AfD, FfD, etc.) Sandstein 11:54, 28 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn and relist, i.e. restore the image to the article and reopen the discussion. The closing admin rejected the keep arguments for not citing policy explicitly, ignoring that some arguments were direct applications of criteria accepted in the policy; thus the argument that the keep arguments failed to properly argue for the retention based in policy was a faulty one. Also the gist of the Delete rationale is quoting earlier precedent (that including an image requires a dedicated independent article, something that is nowhere required by NFCC; at most, it's a near-automatic criterion to grant inclusion), but such precedent is not encoded anywhere as community consensus (neither a guideline nor a RfC), and being a self-quotation to an argument by the same administrator makes it dubious.
The discussion should be relisted, so that the above NFCC#8 arguments regarding the relevance of his visual depiction and the section where it should be placed (which have no place in this review about the closing argument) can be properly discussed. Diego (talk) 08:53, 28 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse. For NFCC discussions deletion is the default in the case of no-consensus, as the NFCCs are a foundation-level policy that cannot be overridden by local consensus. Stifle (talk) 12:22, 28 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
That would make sense if there had been a FfD consensus to keep for reasons that clearly contravened the NFCC. But that is not the case here. Nobody submits that the NFCC do not apply, or should (or can) be overridden. Editors just disagree how to apply them, as is possible in any discussion on how to apply policy. There is no provision in the NFCC or elsewhere that indicates that the default in cases of disagreement is "delete". Sandstein 12:38, 28 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, there is. I noted it above. If there is no consensus that a rationale can be provided, the image must be deleted. This is the common practice, and dates back at least as far as 2008. With all respect and no intent to cast aspersions, you are not a regular at WT:NFC, which is the discussion page for the NFCC policy and NFC guideline. You've made just 7 edits there with the last being over 4 years ago. I encourage you to not make definitive statements about the response to a no consensus on an image without spending considerably more time around WT:NFC. --Hammersoft (talk) 13:12, 28 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The NFCC text "it is the duty of users seeking to include or retain content to provide a valid rationale" does not amount to "no consensus about the validity of a rationale equals delete". It just means that if there is no rationale, or a manifestly invalid one, then that is a strong policy-based reason for the FfD closer to discount "keep" opinions, in the process of assessing the strength of the arguments made. But it does not mean that if there is good-faith disagreement about the merits of a rationale, as here, then the closer should presume the rationale to be invalid.
As a "normal" editor, I frankly don't care what is being said on project talk pages, nor should I have to. What matters to me is the (already overcomplicated) NFCC policy itself as it is written, not reams of talk page threads by random people. What you propose is, in effect, WP:OWNership of the NFCC by the very few people inclined to argue at length about it, which I guess is what gets us discussions such as this one here. Sandstein 17:04, 28 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Sandstein, I don't know at what point our discussion became hostile. If in any respect you interpret my words as being hostile, please accept by apologies. I did not mean to indicate ownership of NFCC. I don't own it anymore than a brand new editor making their very first edit here. My intent was solely that I have more experience in that areas than you do, just as you have more experience in other areas than I do, and that making authoritative statements about NFCC without that experience should likely be avoided. That was the only thing I proposed. Consider how you would feel if I were to make authoritative comments regarding Game of Thrones, an area of very significant experience for you and where I have no experience. I hope that makes what I said more clear.
If you would, allow me to show you the logical path of default to delete. Much of if not all of this you are aware of, but perhaps the dots haven't been connected before. Please don't take this as hostile; I'm simply trying to be clear, not speak down to you or anyone else.
When a person uploads a non-free image, they are required to include a non-free rationale for each use of the item. That is codified in WP:NFCC #10c.
If there is no rationale for a non-free image's use, it can be removed from that use or a rationale can be added to explain that use in accordance with other aspects of WP:NFCC.
Historical note: (really, 2a) It used to be the case that if a person contested the use of a non-free image, they could take it to Wikipedia:Non-free content review, where those knowledgeable of NFCC/NFC practice and application could discuss any uses of the non-free image. While this was going on, the image in question was typically tagged with Template:Non-free review. In essence, this review board would decide if a reasonable rationale existed or could be created for the use of a non-free image in any given use. If the image was orphaned as a result of discussion about the rationales, it could be deleted without subsequent discussion at WP:FFD. That board has now been deprecated, and all subsequent requests have been directed to WP:FFD.
If there is disagreement over a non-free image's use, it is now taken to WP:FFD. As WP:NFCCE notes, the burden of proof in providing a valid (emphasis mine) lies with those wishing to use the non-free image in the desired way. I.e., if consensus can not be achieved that a valid rationale can be created for a given use, the burden of proof has not been met by those wishing to use it. Therefore, the rationale can not be created for that use.
Somewhat returning to (2) above, if a rationale is removed as being invalid then the use of the image for where the rationale indicated should also be removed, as such use becomes a failure of 10c as noted above.
If a non-free image is not used in article space on the project, it is referred to as "orphaned". According to NFCC, non-free images must have at least one usage in article space, else face deletion in accordance with WP:NFCC #7. Orphaned non-free files can be tagged with Template:Di-orphaned fair use, and this is often done by a bot such as with this edit.
Now, let's walk this through in this case. User:Fourthords correctly used FFD, since NFCR is now gone, to start a discussion about the validity of the rationale in the one case where this image was used. In two sentences he succinctly and clearly indicated the problems with the rationale; First, it was a boiler plate rationale that indicated the use was for a biographical article (which the article is not) and that it was to be used at the top of the article, which it was not. I.e., the current rationale was invalid. Secondly, he also noted that there was no basis on which to use such an image (i.e., no basis for a valid rationale). This is precisely how we are to use FfD now. He did not suggest the image should be deleted. Rather, he indicated the rationale was invalid and that none could be created. This sets the stage for the subsequent discussion; is there a valid rationale for this use or could one be created? Looking at (3) above, the burden of proof lies with those wishing to use it to prove a valid rationale can be created. Without getting into the details of every statement on the FfD, it's clear that opinions were pretty evenly divided on the presence of the image in general. That's no consensus. That means the intended use for the image on the shooting article fails the burden of proof; no valid rationale can be created. Therefore, the then current (invalid) rationale must be removed, and as (4) notes above, we remove it from where it was located. Previously at NFCR, if an image was orphaned as a result of the discussion it could be immediately deleted at the discretion of the closing administrator, without having to tag as orphaned and wait for seven days. In this particular case, given the image is property of The Associated Press, WP:F7 applies; immediate deletion applies. I note that WP:F7 indicates a commercial image must be the subject of sourced discussion (further elaborated at WP:NFC#UUI #7). This image could have been speedy deleted as was; no sourced commentary on the image. Fourthords did you a favor in taking the image to FfD, giving you an opportunity to prove a valid rationale could be created. He could have just as well tagged it with Template:Db-f7. Anyone reviewing the use of the image would have seen there was no sourced commentary on the image and deleted it.
The short version of all the verbosity above; The image had a rationale as required by WP:NFCC #10c. The validity of that rationale was contested, taking it to FFD to do so. Per WP:NFCCE, the discussion had to conclude with consensus the rationale was or could be made valid. Such consensus was not achieved, therefore no valid rationale existed or could be created. The burden of proof was not met. Without such valid rationale, the image could be deleted at the moment of the closure of the discussion at admin's discretion. If such timing is disputed, then WP:F7 applies as the image in question is a commercial image.
As an aside, I would like to note that the instructions at FFD have never been properly amended to address the closure of WP:NFCR. In essence, NFCR was just dumped into FFD. The instructions should be corrected. --Hammersoft (talk) 18:37, 28 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Sandstein said that "Opinions were divided about whether the image meets the NFCC". In the discussion however, none of the contributors who wanted to keep the file actually addressed the non-free content criteria policy in their comments. I started the discussion by explaining how nothing reliably-sourced in the article required the file to "significantly increase readers' understanding", and how none of the reliably-cited prose in the article would be more difficult for readers to understand without the file; ergo the file failed non-free content criterion (NFCC) number eight. None of the five comments in support of keeping the file refuted my explanation in the context of the NFCC. Opinions were not divided because the bulleted comments did not address the issue presented.
Some of the comments here on this page are arguing back and forth whether when it comes to NFC, a "no consensus" discussion close should mean deletion or retention. This is moot however, because the discussion—by and large—did not address the instigative NFCC policy non-compliance.
Precedent does influence decisions to close discussions one way or another, but I concur that explicit(talk·contribs·blocks·protections·deletions·page moves·rights·RfA) citing a single, self-closed discussion as precedent is somewhat beyond the pale. However, if there are more similarly-closed discussions on the wiki that have both held up to scrutiny and been recentish, I wouldn't have a problem with citing such precedence in a close.
Whether "the NFCC are a highly technical and obscure policy" or not does not negate their standing as "a Wikipedia policy with legal considerations." I don't know what constitutes an "ordinary editor", but whether the NFCC are known "by heart" or not, the policy was linked to twice in the discussion (though I do offer a mea culpa for not citing it in my initial explanation).
Lastly, Sandstein said, "The 'keep' opinions make sufficiently clear why the respective editors consider it necessary to include the image and why they do not consider it replaceable with alternatives, such as text, or an equally non-free prison mugshot." Though this is "repeat[ing] arguments already made in the deletion discussion", I will reiterate that none of the discussion contributors who wanted to keep the file explained how using the non-free image was "necessary" to understand the content of the article: the article which made no mention of (and certainly didn't rely upon seeing) Mr. Hodgkinson's appearance, clothes, or anything else in the image to understand what was written and reliably-sourced.
I find that explicit correctly interpreted the discussion's consensus regarding the application of the NFCC policy, and I endorse their close. — fourthords | =Λ= | 17:33, 28 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
This is an excellent analysis though I would like to add just one caveat. WP:NFCC #2 specifically makes the policy more strict when we are considering commercially produced non-free content, such as the image in question. As was discussed in the FfD by a few, a mugshot would be less burdensome to us. While it would not be any less non-free than a commercial image, our burden to satisfy NFCC would be less. Though, even if we did upload a mugshot under a non-free license, it would still not be usable in this case without pertinent, reliably sourced commentary regarding the image itself. If people truly want a second chance FfD, they could try the route of uploading a mugshot, though, I don't recommend it; the arguments against usage would be effectively identical. --Hammersoft (talk) 18:47, 28 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse I find it somewhat ironic that the lister comments on wikipedia not having binding precedent, whilst their initial argument in the original discussion was essentially an appeal to precedent. I think claiming NFC to be technical and obscure is a stretch, a huge proportion of the policy page is lent to examples, further documentation etc. Regardless obscure or otherwise in individual points the statement on the policy "where all 10 of the following criteria are met." seems pretty unambiguous, merely arguing that other points of NFC are met amounts to little more than a straw man argument and so rightly given little or no weight in that discussion - perhaps even more so when the issue is highlighted to a participant and rather than correct it gets forcefully rejected. --86.5.93.103 (talk) 22:05, 28 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse. Hammersoft said more or less what I would have. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 13:48, 3 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn to no consensus. Getting to a "delete" outcome from that discussion stretches closer's discretion a little farther than I think it really ought to go.—S MarshallT/C 20:17, 4 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.
