Wikipedia:Files for discussion/2017 December 28: Difference between revisions

Content deleted Content added

Inline

Revision as of 10:12, 28 December 2017

< December 27	December 29 >

December 28

File:Robert Hardy Rex Features.jpg

The image was first discussed at Talk:Robert Hardy when the removal was attempted but then reinserted. As the image was further discussed, I discovered that it belongs to Rex Features, which requires a user to register on the behalf of one's own company. This implies that Rex Features has commercial interests in the image, which would fail WP:NFCC#2. However, the uploader (also an admin) disagrees by saying that using the image does not replace its original market role. The image was later published at (umm... mentioning the name would make other groan), which did not credit the original source, yet the uploader cited it until I corrected him. I don't want to continue discussing at the article talk page further as (I believe) local consensus does not override copyright concerns.

Honestly, I'm not nominating this image out of the WP:NFCC#1 concerns. Indeed, I contacted Hillsdale College, which uploaded videos of Robert Hardy's seminars; in response, they would not grant permission to let the videos be used, implying that using the videos would exceed fair use limits. I also contacted other video uploaders and photographers, yet I've not yet received their responses. A screenshot of Hardy in a BBC program(me) would be tolerable, but Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2017 May 18 resulted in endorsing deletion of another screenshot from a BBC news program(me) due to BBC's commercial interests in the USA. If someone else can upload an irreplaceable image that has very little commercial interests (or a freely licensed image), that would be nice. –George Ho (talk) 05:52, 1 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ℯ xplicit 00:40, 28 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

File:Echo City November 2013.jpeg

License requires attribution but no author is specified. ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 05:00, 28 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know much about copyright laws and rules, and I strongly suspect the original user Smkphotos, who is also the one who took the photo and made the composite, will not be back here soon. I do however have an email from Smkphotos saying that he was the one who took the photo. Would it be helpful if I forward this email somewhere somehow? Mark in wiki (talk) 09:16, 28 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

File:Dev v burnie 95.jpg

Dubious own work. Looks like a professional photo or screenshot of game footage. File lacks metadata to suggest uploader took the photo, in addition, the low resolution of the photo suggests this was taken from elsewhere on the internet, i.e. such low resolution is very unlikely if this is the original/raw file. Flickerd (talk) 07:42, 28 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Portsmouth FC crests

These appear to be identical files uploaded under different formats. The svg is being used in the Portsmouth F.C., while the png is being used in Portsmouth F.C. Ladies. I am unable to see any differene between the versions of the logo, so I don't feel both are needed per WP:NFCC#3. The first question is which of the two should be kept and which one should be deleted. The svg appears to be user created and I able unable to verify that it is an original vector version provided by th club. There's been previously been considerable discussion regarding "non-official svgs" on both WT:NFC and WP:MCQ, and no clear-cut consensus has been established (as far as I can find) on their use, but in this case I don't think much if anything is lost for the encyclopedic purpose of primary identification by deleting the svg and keep the png.

The question has to do about the non-free use in Ladies article. The rationale provided for png is for the men's team article, and it appears that an IP (in their only edit) just added the file to the article with this edit without any consideration to Wikipedia's non-free content use policy. In the case of similar discussions involving the use of the type of logo, non-free use has been generally considered acceptable for articles about the men's team, but not the women's team per item 17 of WP:NFC#UUI: the men's team has been seen as the "parent" entity, while women's and youth teams have been seen as "child" entities. I am inclined to say the same with respect to this particular use as well, but if others want to argue differently then please do. If the consensus is that the non-free use in the women's team is acceptable, then a rationale will need to be provided for it to whichever file is kept.

Lastly, I don't see how this can be considered {{PD-logo}} per c:COM:TOO#United Kingdom, but it might be OK for {{Pd-ineligible-USonly}} per c:COM:TOO#United States. In that case, the file would still be only a loal file, but it would be treated as public domain for Wikipedia's purposes. If this is acceptable, then I think both files might be able to be kept; however, this will only be the case if the svg is treated as a simple reproduction of the original image and not a derivative work with its own copyright independent of the source image. In the latter case, Wikipedia could not keep the svg version per WP:NFCC#1. -- Marchjuly (talk) 01:24, 17 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 10:01, 28 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

File:Pattonb.jpg

Nominating for deletion as this fails to qualify for Fair Use per my understanding of the policy. It's a low-quality image which lacks contextual significance and does not increase a readers understanding of the article - nor will its omission affect the article in any way. The uploader, as per their statement, also appears to lack an understanding of fair use laws. Mar4d (talk) 06:03, 16 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

delete - waste of space. Störm (talk) 06:18, 16 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Does not seem to qualify as fair use.--NadirAli نادر علی (talk) 05:36, 18 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep meets WP:FUC. Also the file reads "This is an historic image , which relates to an event that cannot be re-staged, therefore it would be impossible to provide a 'free' replacement, meeting the stated purpose." Clearly you don't like the image. Orientls (talk) 10:46, 18 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Clearly you have not read WP:NFCCP, in particular 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. Would you care to explain how this low-resolution non-free image is "detrimental"; it definitely is no different to the other tank photos deleted previously. It is also stolen from the internet btw, which is another problem. Mar4d (talk) 14:46, 18 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Tanks captured during the Battle of Asal Uttar. Qualifys for Fair Use, since there is no other, free image available connected to the subject. ——Chalk19 (talk) 10:07, 19 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Chalk19: This covers only one of the 10 NFCC, namely WP:NFCC#1 (and that, too, only in part). – Finnusertop (talk ⋅ contribs) 21:26, 21 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep — meets NFCC#8. The photo is a rare one. It shows the destroyed and abandoned Pakistani tanks (nearly 100, most of them US made Patton tanks) lined up by the Indian Army. The area has been known as "Patton Nagar" ever since. —MBL ^Talk 05:15, 25 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The photo satisfies WP:NFCCP, especially the point #8. No similar image available. Capitals00 (talk) 09:48, 25 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Both the above !votes are invalid, especially if you actually read point#8. This is one amongst many non-free pictures of abandoned tanks during the 65 war. It is not even a picture of a live scene from the battlefront. It is not in any way "detrimental" to the understanding of the article (quoting the policy verbatim), nor is it helping "significantly increase" a readers' understanding of what is already in the article. It fails both criteria. And above all, it's uploaded as a copyright violation. WP:ILIKEIT is not a reason to keep. Mar4d (talk) 04:09, 27 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: This needs much more discussion about whether WP:NFCC#8 is met; what we see here is rather basic.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 10:03, 28 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

File:Basantar2.jpg

Nominating for deletion as this fails to qualify for Fair Use per my understanding of the policy. It's a low-quality image which lacks contextual significance and does not increase a readers understanding of the article - nor will its omission affect the article in any way. The uploader, as per their statement, also appears to lack an understanding of fair use laws. Mar4d (talk) 06:03, 16 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

delete - waste of space. Störm (talk) 06:17, 16 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep meets WP:FUC. It does increase understanding of the article and misrepresenting uploader's statement won't do anything. Orientls (talk) 10:46, 18 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

No it does not. Please see below. Mar4d (talk) 14:47, 18 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Qualifies for Fair Use in the artcle about the battle. But must be removed from the Indian Army article; has no direct connection to the subject. ——Chalk19 (talk) 10:01, 19 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per nominator.--NadirAli نادر علی (talk) 03:53, 24 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep – since it satisfies all the criteria of WP:NFCC. And, indeed, this is the only known photo of Indian soldiers taken during the Battle of Basantar, which was a completely one-sided battle. —MBL ^Talk 04:55, 25 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Meets WP:NFCCP and very important to Battle of Basantar. Capitals00 (talk) 09:48, 25 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

No it does not. It's an obvious copyright violation. WP:ILIKEIT is not a reason to keep. Mar4d (talk) 04:04, 27 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: This needs much more discussion about whether WP:NFCC#8 is met; what we see here is rather basic.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 10:04, 28 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

File:Rodney Bewes 1973 screenshot.jpg

There is dispute as to whether inclusion of this file in Rodney Bewes violates WP:NFCC#1. This is a procedural nomination so that interested parties have a venue to discuss; I am neutral. FASTILY 10:56, 16 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Courtesy ping for @BeckenhamBear, @George Ho, @Stephen. -FASTILY 10:57, 16 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Before voting, I would like to say about this image. I'm unsure whether it's replaceable by File:Rodney Bewes 2004.jpg, which depicts him at an a very later age and is awaiting an OTRS verification, in contrast to this non-free image that depicts the actor/character at a younger age in the '70s. Also, I'm unsure whether BBC has U.S. commercial interests in this screenshot, even when it is a non-profit British television service. The deletion of another file at Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2017 May 18 was endorsed due to BBC's commercial interests in that file. However, I would say that being a mere screenshot of a fictional element is not a sole reason to remove or delete the image itself. George Ho (talk) 11:06, 16 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I am using the following policy to justify use of this photo:
- Images with iconic status or historical importance. (The replacement photo mentioned above is not instantly identifiable to the actor in his hey-day. This one does. The ONLY role he is known for; which is iconic in the UK at least).
- An image that provides a representative visual reference for other elements in the article, is preferred over providing a picture of each element discussed. (Yes, he is only known for one role. The one in my photo).
- For media that involves live actors, do not supply an image of the actor in their role if an appropriate free image of the actor exists on their page (as per WP:BLP and above), if there is little difference in appearance between actor and role. However, if there is a significant difference due to age or makeup and costuming, then, when needed, it may be appropriate to include a non-free image to demonstrate the role of the actor in that media. (First he's deceased, and second the rest applies here too, His fame dates from the 1960s and 70's, he never looked remotely the same since out of that era. His features differ greatly from those in the nations consciousness. --BeckenhamBear (talk) 11:48, 16 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Needs more opinions
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 10:04, 28 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

File:Mooney1.png

missing verifiable source; was also deleted at Commons for the same reason FASTILY 04:17, 11 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete – this photo is not found on the Congressman's current House website, nor is it found on his official Facebook page or official Twitter account. Plus, this photo looks a little different than the one uploaded here. I've asked for an exact link to the image (same h×w size) and none has been given. This can be seen at the Commons deletion request listed above. Corky ^{Buzz by the Hornet's Nest} 04:29, 11 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Looks like the file has been used here at least as far back as February 15, 2016. That website, however, is protected by copyright which means if that's where the image originated, then probably it can't be uploaded as {{PD-USgov}}. Same file seems to also be being used here as far back as November 2015, but in a much smaller size and with the same copyright issues. My guess is that this might be an older official photo that the Congressman's staff was using for PR purposes; it may even be an official photo taken by a US government employee, but not sure if Wikipedia can automatically assume that without a proper source. Maybe the thing to do here would be to tag the file with {{npd}} to give the uploader a chance to send something to OTRS for verification purposes? -- Marchjuly (talk) 04:57, 11 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: This portrait should not be deleted because this is Congressman Mooney's Official Congressional portrait. The portrait that was used until today: https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Alex_Mooney.jpg is just a zoomed in version of this very photo. Furthermore here is the same portrait from the Congress website: http://bioguide.congress.gov/scripts/biodisplay.pl?index=M001195 JimmyJoe87 (talk) 11:59, 11 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- The Commons photo and what we're discussing here don't look like the same photo to me. The Wikipedia photo has a flag in the background that background, while the Commons one doesn't. Also, the link you've provided says "Image courtesy of the Member" which means the website is hosting the photo, but is not necessarily the original source of the photo. The photo was deleted fron Commons because there was a problem with its licensing. There's no reason to host this type of photo locally on Wikipedia if it's truly PD-USgov. You should've started a c:COM:DRV for the image on Commons and made your case there instead of re-uploading it to Wikipedia. If you can't convince Commons that the licensing it appropriate, Wikipedia shouldn't accept it either. -- Marchjuly (talk) 12:32, 11 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  - Its exactly the same photo, but zoomed in, just using his face and they have coloured in the background. I can show you more than a dozen photos like it for Members of Congress from Commons if needs be. Actually whether the website is hosting or not, the fact that it has been published on a Congressional Website means that legally it is allowed to be used. JimmyJoe87 (talk) 16:13, 11 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Ummmm... not necessarily. Just because a photo is on a US Government website doesn't mean it's been taken by a government official and released into the Public Domain. A prime example was Trump and Pence's transition portraits which were displayed on the White House website for 10 months. The photographer was not a government employee and did not release their works in PD. All you need is to provide an exact URL to the picture on his website or have his office send permission to the OTRS team. Corky ^{Buzz by the Hornet's Nest} 18:29, 11 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

If you're sure they've colored the background, then I believe that would make it a derivative of that one you uploaded, which then means that the copyright status of the original photo also needs to be taken into account. If the original copyright photo is not PD, then the derivative on Commons might not be PD as well. Finally, as Corkeythehornetfan points out, I don't believe a US government website hosting a file automatically means a transfer of copyright ownership as explained in WP:PD#U.S. government works. Still having said all this, this type of PD-USgov file, in my opinion, does not really need to be hosted locally on English Wikipedia; it's better of on Commons, which is why you should start an undeletion request for it there and explain why the file should be restored. -- Marchjuly (talk) 21:38, 11 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

For reference, I asked about this at c:COM:VP/C#File:Alex Mooney.jpg. I think this would be better to sort this out first at Commons DRV because if this is really PD-USgov then it should be on Commons. Keeping the file will likely mean that someone will eventually tag the file for a move to Commons, which will in turn probably mean re-deletion unless things are sorted out over there first. -- Marchjuly (talk) 00:49, 12 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 10:11, 28 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

File:Harriet Wistrich, Julie Bindel and Emma Humphreys, Old Bailey, 7 July 1995.jpeg

Non-free image with no significant sourced commentary to satisfy WP:NFCC#8. Whpq (talk) 17:34, 3 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Given that the subject died 20 years ago and only spent three years of her adult life not in prison, it's vanishingly unlikely that there's a free-use equivalent, and it has no commercial value. The only potential issue is whether NFCC8 is satisfied, but I'd argue that "what did this person look like?" is almost always going to significantly increase readers' understanding of the article topic, particularly in an article like this where this particular image illustrates the physical condition she was in on her release. ‑ Iridescent 17:42, 3 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Non-replaceability is not at issue. If this is being used only as the primary means of identification for a deceased person, then per WP:NFCC#3b, the image should be cropped to show the specific individual. -- Whpq (talk) 18:18, 3 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. This is an historically important image of three women—the defendant and the two women from Justice for Women who arranged her defence—leaving the Old Bailey after taking an important step (as I understand it) toward changing English law on provocation. It is one of a series of Old Bailey images of its kind at that time, after several miscarriages of justice, something British editors old enough to remember will be well aware of.
I'm not aware of any free versions. The defendant has died so other images of her are not available. I'll be expanding the article to explain why the verdict was important and what role Justice for Women played. NFCC#8 says: "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." That seems to fit this very well. SarahSV ^(talk) 18:06, 3 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- There is nothing in the article at the tme of nomination to support this as an historic image. -- Whpq (talk) 18:18, 3 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  - As I said above, I'll be expanding it. There are links on the file page if you'd like to know more, or you can watch this. SarahSV ^(talk) 01:35, 4 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  - Whpq, could you say, please, whether you're satisfied with the additional information? There are links and an explanation on the file page. The image caption in the article, Emma Humphreys, explains more about the image, links to a video showing coverage and commentary on the release—including commentary from the BBC about the scene on the steps of the Old Bailey—and contains a quote from The Independent: "Pale, nervous and very thin, she was engulfed by dozens of cheering women and children outside the courts." The section R v Humphreys explains the legal significance of the verdict and describes the involvement of Justice for Women (i.e. the women in the non-free image). SarahSV ^(talk) 01:01, 7 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 10:12, 28 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@@ Line 89: / Line 89: @@
 <div class="xfd_relist" style="border-top: 1px solid #AAA; border-bottom: 1px solid #AAA; padding: 0px 25px;"><span style="color: #FF6600;">'''{{resize|91%|[[Wikipedia:Deletion process#Relisting discussions|Relisted]] to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.}}'''</span><br />
 <small>Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, [[User:Jo-Jo Eumerus|Jo-Jo Eumerus]] ([[User talk:Jo-Jo Eumerus|talk]], [[Special:CentralAuth/Jo-Jo Eumerus|contributions]]) 10:11, 28 December 2017 (UTC)</small><!-- from Template:Relist --></div><!-- Please add new comments below this line -->
+====[[:File:Harriet Wistrich, Julie Bindel and Emma Humphreys, Old Bailey, 7 July 1995.jpeg]]====
+:<span class="plainlinks nourlexpansion lx ffd-file" id="File:Harriet Wistrich, Julie Bindel and Emma Humphreys, Old Bailey, 7 July 1995.jpeg">[[:File:Harriet Wistrich, Julie Bindel and Emma Humphreys, Old Bailey, 7 July 1995.jpeg]] ([{{fullurl:File:Harriet Wistrich, Julie Bindel and Emma Humphreys, Old Bailey, 7 July 1995.jpeg|action=delete&wpReason=%5B%5BWikipedia%3AFiles+for+discussion%2F2017+December+3%23File%3AHarriet+Wistrich%2C+Julie+Bindel+and+Emma+Humphreys%2C+Old+Bailey%2C+7+July+1995.jpeg%5D%5D}} delete] {{!}} [[File talk:Harriet Wistrich, Julie Bindel and Emma Humphreys, Old Bailey, 7 July 1995.jpeg|talk]] {{!}} [{{fullurl:File:Harriet Wistrich, Julie Bindel and Emma Humphreys, Old Bailey, 7 July 1995.jpeg|action=history}} history] {{!}} [[Special:WhatLinksHere/File:Harriet Wistrich, Julie Bindel and Emma Humphreys, Old Bailey, 7 July 1995.jpeg|links]] {{!}} [{{fullurl:Special:Log|page=File%3AHarriet+Wistrich%2C+Julie+Bindel+and+Emma+Humphreys%2C+Old+Bailey%2C+7+July+1995.jpeg}} logs])</span>&#x20;– uploaded by [[User talk:SlimVirgin#File:Harriet Wistrich, Julie Bindel and Emma Humphreys, Old Bailey, 7 July 1995.jpeg listed for discussion|SlimVirgin]] (<span class="plainlinks">[{{fullurl:User talk:SlimVirgin|action=edit&preload=Template:Fdw_preload&preloadparams%5B%5D=File%3AHarriet+Wistrich%2C+Julie+Bindel+and+Emma+Humphreys%2C+Old+Bailey%2C+7+July+1995.jpeg&editintro=Template:Fdw_editintro&section=new&create=Post+a+comment}} notify]</span> {{!}} [[Special:Contributions/SlimVirgin|contribs]] {{!}} [[Special:ListFiles/SlimVirgin|uploads]] {{!}} [[Special:Log/upload/SlimVirgin|upload log]]).&nbsp;
+Non-free image with no significant sourced commentary to satisfy [[WP:NFCC#8]]. [[User:Whpq|Whpq]] ([[User talk:Whpq|talk]]) 17:34, 3 December 2017 (UTC)
+*'''Keep'''. Given that the subject died 20 years ago and only spent three years of her adult life ''not'' in prison, it's vanishingly unlikely that there's a free-use equivalent, and it has no commercial value. The only potential issue is whether NFCC8 is satisfied, but I'd argue that "what did this person look like?" is almost always going to {{tq|significantly increase readers' understanding of the article topic}}, particularly in an article like this where this particular image illustrates the physical condition she was in on her release.&nbsp;&#8209;&nbsp;[[User:Iridescent|Iridescent]] 17:42, 3 December 2017 (UTC)
+**Non-replaceability is not at issue.  If this is being used only as the primary means of identification for a deceased person, then per [[WP:NFCC#3b]], the image should be cropped to show the specific individual. -- [[User:Whpq|Whpq]] ([[User talk:Whpq|talk]]) 18:18, 3 December 2017 (UTC)
+*'''Keep'''. This is an historically important image of three women—the defendant and the two women from Justice for Women who arranged her defence—leaving the [[Old Bailey]] after taking an important step (as I understand it) toward changing English law on provocation. It is one of a series of Old Bailey images of its kind at that time, after several miscarriages of justice, something British editors old enough to remember will be well aware of.{{pb}} I'm not aware of any free versions. The defendant has died so other images of her are not available. I'll be expanding the article to explain why the verdict was important and what role Justice for Women played. NFCC#8 says: "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." That seems to fit this very well. [[User:SlimVirgin|SarahSV]] <small><sup>[[User_talk:SlimVirgin|(talk)]]</sup></small> 18:06, 3 December 2017 (UTC)
+**There is nothing in the article at the tme of nomination to support this as an historic image. -- [[User:Whpq|Whpq]] ([[User talk:Whpq|talk]]) 18:18, 3 December 2017 (UTC)
+***As I said above, I'll be expanding it. There are links on the file page if you'd like to know more, or you can watch [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yS80a5OO0ZA&t=0m14s this]. [[User:SlimVirgin|SarahSV]] <small><sup>[[User_talk:SlimVirgin|(talk)]]</sup></small> 01:35, 4 December 2017 (UTC)
+***{{u|Whpq}}, could you say, please, whether you're satisfied with the additional information? There are links and an explanation on the file page. The image caption in the article, [[Emma Humphreys]], explains more about the image, links to [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yS80a5OO0ZA&t=0m14s a video] showing coverage and commentary on the release—including commentary from the BBC about the scene on the steps of the Old Bailey—and contains a quote from [https://www.independent.co.uk/news/woman-who-stabbed-violent-partner-freed-1590339.html ''The Independent'']: "Pale, nervous and very thin, she was engulfed by dozens of cheering women and children outside the courts." The section ''R v Humphreys'' explains the legal significance of the verdict and describes the involvement of Justice for Women (i.e. the women in the non-free image). [[User:SlimVirgin|SarahSV]] <small><sup>[[User_talk:SlimVirgin|(talk)]]</sup></small> 01:01, 7 December 2017 (UTC)
+<div class="xfd_relist" style="border-top: 1px solid #AAA; border-bottom: 1px solid #AAA; padding: 0px 25px;"><span style="color: #FF6600;">'''{{resize|91%|[[Wikipedia:Deletion process#Relisting discussions|Relisted]] to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.}}'''</span><br />
+<small>Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, [[User:Jo-Jo Eumerus|Jo-Jo Eumerus]] ([[User talk:Jo-Jo Eumerus|talk]], [[Special:CentralAuth/Jo-Jo Eumerus|contributions]]) 10:12, 28 December 2017 (UTC)</small><!-- from Template:Relist --></div><!-- Please add new comments below this line -->