Wikipedia:Files for deletion/2008 June 15

< June 14	June 16 >

June 15

Image:38846572jc3.jpg

Image:38846572jc3.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Jmgomez007 (notify | contribs).

• This cover is clearly a fake and has already been tagged for deletion. I don't understand why it has not been deleted yet? There is no reliable source for this image except for a French fan blog site which lists it as the cover of the "promo" single, which has not been released in Europe or the US. This is fan made cover, clear and simple. Alkclark (talk) 17:05, 15 June 2008 (UTC)
• Could you fetch a link to the official cover? — xDanielx ^T/_C\^R 22:58, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

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. The fair use images are not significant to the understanding of the article. There is no commentary on the specific graphics shown other then what the logo said, which is understandable with the text alone-Nv8200p talk 02:17, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

Image:Citv80slogo.JPG

Image:Citv80slogo.JPG (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Islander (notify | contribs).

• Images fail wp:nfc#8 and #3, decorative use only, and at odds with the wikimedia foundations aims Fasach Nua (talk) 10:42, 15 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep - Image is not decorative only, it is being used to show how the logo and channel identity of CITV has evolved over time. This is not something that can be done purely with words, and so the use of the logos (which, incidently, are no longer used by the channel in question, and so are even less likely to cause copyright problems) poses no problems, especially with regards to the NFCC criteria. _TalkIslander 12:43, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

comment Why is the appearence of the logo significant, and needed for the reader to understand the concept of CITV? There are many elements of this continuity section that are not easy to describe, theme tunes, set designs, presenters and many more, what is so special about these idents. I dont get your point about copyright, are you implying that these idents have been released using a GFDL compatiable licence as they are not being used? It seems odd Fasach Nua (talk) 07:27, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

OK, the copyright comment wasn't worded perfectly. What I meant was this: they are past logos, they are no longer used by CITV to generate profit or anything of the like, so that lessens this issue. That aside, I do still feel that they qualify for fair use. They do increase the readers understanding of the progression of the channel's identity, and that cannot be done with words. Yes, the set design, presenters and theme tune all add to this, but nothing represents a channel's identity more than it's logos and idents, hence their use here is justifiable. _TalkIslander 12:15, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

A continuity section's identity is more defined by the presenters the programming schedule and the era, these logos more represent the mode fashion at the various times they were produced than the ethos of the continuity section. While they might marginally increase the readers' understanding, they do not significantly increase it. Fasach Nua (talk) 07:01, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

• delete - perhaps a crafted image, showing a multi-page collage demonstrating the evolution of this logo would be a far more deletion-resistant image. This is a single image, which doesn't really show how it has changed over time. Because if that, i find myself in the position of favoring deletion. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 16:01, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

Comment I fail to see how a collage of all three images would pass NFCC, but the individual images displayed side by side doesn't... _TalkIslander 16:06, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

My apologies. By offering such a collage, the uploader is able to clearly demonstrate a progression/evolution of the logo (which would of course be intrinsically tied to the text describing the evolution). Such an image is far more likely to pass NFCC far better than its constituent parts, which individually fail to demonstrate this progression. As well, one target is a lot harder to hit than three. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 16:24, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

A collage would present the same problems as we currently have, it just presents the data in a more inflexible way. Fasach Nua (talk) 07:01, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

With respect, that is an opinion based upon an interpretation that very few seem to share. The individual images, by themselves, are indeed useless in terms of representing an evolution. Used together, they show the evolution that the text is arguably trying to describe. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 16:02, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

Image:CITVLogo1998.png

Image:CITVLogo1998.png (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Hmr (notify | contribs).

• Images fail wp:nfc#8 and #3, decorative use only, and at odds with the wikimedia foundations aims Fasach Nua (talk) 10:42, 15 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep - Image is not decorative only, it is being used to show how the logo and channel identity of CITV has evolved over time. This is not something that can be done purely with words, and so the use of the logos (which, incidently, are no longer used by the channel in question, and so are even less likely to cause copyright problems) poses no problems, especially with regards to the NFCC criteria. _TalkIslander 12:43, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

comment Why is the appearence of the logo significant, and needed for the reader to understand the concept of CITV? There are many elements of this continuity section that are not easy to describe, theme tunes, set designs, presenters and many more, what is so special about these idents. I dont get your point about copyright, are you implying that these idents have been released using a GFDL compatiable licence as they are not being used? It seems odd Fasach Nua (talk) 07:27, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

OK, the copyright comment wasn't worded perfectly. What I meant was this: they are past logos, they are no longer used by CITV to generate profit or anything of the like, so that lessens this issue. That aside, I do still feel that they qualify for fair use. They do increase the readers understanding of the progression of the channel's identity, and that cannot be done with words. Yes, the set design, presenters and theme tune all add to this, but nothing represents a channel's identity more than it's logos and idents, hence their use here is justifiable. _TalkIslander 12:15, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

• delete - perhaps a crafted image, showing a multi-page collage demonstrating the evolution of this logo would be a far more deletion-resistant image. This is a single image, which doesn't really show how it has changed over time. Because if that, i find myself in the position of favoring deletion. -

Comment I fail to see how a collage of all three images would pass NFCC, but the individual images displayed side by side doesn't... _TalkIslander 16:06, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

So as to avoid bloaty repetition, see my comments above. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 16:25, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

Image:CITVLogo1992.png

Image:CITVLogo1992.png (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Islander (notify | contribs).

• Images fail wp:nfc#8 and #3, decorative use only, and at odds with the wikimedia foundations aims Fasach Nua (talk) 10:42, 15 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep - Image is not decorative only, it is being used to show how the logo and channel identity of CITV has evolved over time. This is not something that can be done purely with words, and so the use of the logos (which, incidently, are no longer used by the channel in question, and so are even less likely to cause copyright problems) poses no problems, especially with regards to the NFCC criteria. _TalkIslander 12:43, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

comment Why is the appearence of the logo significant, and needed for the reader to understand the concept of CITV? There are many elements of this continuity section that are not easy to describe, theme tunes, set designs, presenters and many more, what is so special about these idents. I dont get your point about copyright, are you implying that these idents have been released using a GFDL compatiable licence as they are not being used? It seems odd Fasach Nua (talk) 07:27, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

OK, the copyright comment wasn't worded perfectly. What I meant was this: they are past logos, they are no longer used by CITV to generate profit or anything of the like, so that lessens this issue. That aside, I do still feel that they qualify for fair use. They do increase the readers understanding of the progression of the channel's identity, and that cannot be done with words. Yes, the set design, presenters and theme tune all add to this, but nothing represents a channel's identity more than it's logos and idents, hence their use here is justifiable. _TalkIslander 12:15, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

• delete - perhaps a crafted image, showing a multi-page collage demonstrating the evolution of this logo would be a far more deletion-resistant image. This is a single image, which doesn't really show how it has changed over time. Because if that, i find myself in the position of favoring deletion. -

Comment I fail to see how a collage of all three images would pass NFCC, but the individual images displayed side by side doesn't... _TalkIslander 16:06, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

So as to avoid bloaty repetition, see my comments above. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 16:26, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the discussion was: delete. The image is not necessary to the understanding of the article, which makes it decorative by WIkipedia definition. The text explains the plot point adequately. No image is necessary. -Nv8200p talk 02:24, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

Image:FotD 007x.jpg

Image:FotD 007x.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Arcayne (notify | contribs).

• Images fails wp:nfc#8, and #1, image is there for the sake of decoration, as is demonstrated by the article talk page Fasach Nua (talk) 07:30, 15 June 2008 (UTC)
• Keep - nonsense. Despite the fact that the nominator failed to even notify the uploader (me), he appears to have a rather faulty grasp of NFC. Decorative means it has no connection to the article. As the image illustrates something specifically discussed in the plot section, it is therefore non-decorative. I imagine that the nominator would be hard-pressed to name 3 images from episodic articles that are acceptable. Sounds like the press to cull images from articles outside specific interests is active yet again. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 04:00, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

You are correct, I would be "hard-pressed to name 3 images from episodic articles that are acceptable", most articles are capable of standing on there own merits without having to infect them with non-free content Fasach Nua (talk) 07:11, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

Well, considering that, doesn't that make you rather less than a neutral arbiter as to what is appropriate and what is not in an article? You don't even have a baseline for what is acceptable - to your mind, they are all unacceptable on their very face. This sounds less like a specific image issue and more like an agenda. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 02:18, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

I would certainly agree there - "most articles are capable of standing on there own merits without having to infect them with non-free content" Infect? You what? This is clearly an agenda, and not a disagreement over individual images. Seems WP:Pointy to me... _TalkIslander 10:18, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

This is Wikipedia, it has a clear agenda and the use of this image is in direct conflict with it. Fasach Nua (talk) 11:41, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

Might I urge you to actually read the bits that you are wiki-linking? People actually follow them to see if your posted statemetn holds any water. There appears to be nothing in the mission statement about maintaining a hard-on against the inclusion of this or any images in episodic television articles. I would suggest that understandig what you are linking to would actually serve your arguments a lot better. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 14:54, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

The mission statement clearly sets an aim of achiving a "free content license", with which these copyrighted images are not compatiable with, this is the reason we have WP:NFCC, and the reason this image cannot remain on WP Fasach Nua (talk) 15:19, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

Rather what I thought. You do understand that non-free images are often allowed when there are no free images that could serve as substitutes, right? - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 16:05, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

non-free content should only be used when the WP:NFC criteria is met, this image can be described with freely licenced text wp:nfcc#1, and does not significantly increase the users' understanding #8. If you look at the method this image was chosen Talk:Forest_of_the_Dead#New_images_uploaded, it was guaranteed to fail wp:nfcc, as the image was choosen for the sake of an image. An image should only be included as a last resort, when you are trying to convey something using text, and are unable to do, then you resort to non-free content Fasach Nua (talk) 16:49, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

Wrong; the image is not decorative, at least not like a set of curtains. It is informative and describes something that cannot be done merely via words. Could you be compelled to note where images are to be added "only as a last resort"? I don't recall ever seeing that anywhere. I will await the specific notation of that wording location before responding. Without it, I am afraid that your interpretation is precisely that - yours. As part of a deletionist agenda, it would likely be dismissed as not in keeping with our current policy. If you wish an alteration to this policy, there are venues for it, not through the disruptive Ifd noms you have been making. Maybe more substantive blocks are required to protect the project until you obtain the appropriate level of consensus are required. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 17:33, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

The disruption has arisen from users uploading images, without giving consideration to the WP:NFCC, or WP:CONSENSUS, I have tried to be patient with you, but if you as you are not going to be WP:CIVIL, I am not longer going to engage in this thread Fasach Nua (talk) 06:32, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

• Speedy keep - disruptive request. Sceptre ^(talk) 12:53, 20 June 2008 (UTC)
• Delete - I can barely understand this image visually. The character's posture, the nature of her surroundings, the expression of her face, the items she is handling, all those are hardly descernible, and not understandable to someone who hasn't actually watched the show and already understands the situation shown. So, for me, the image is not supporting the text, by showing something words couldn't get across; quite to the contrary, the image is in need of support from the text. And even after studying the image in connection with the text more deeply, I don't see how any of the visual details that the image provides but the text doesn't are important for understanding either the plot or the artistic conception of the scene or anything else that might be of importance. Fut.Perf. ☼ 04:49, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

If I might ask, what sort of image (if any) would you suggest would better support the text? I am not going to argue your interpretation of the image, as it is a subjective one, and not wrong for you. How to make the image+text experience better for you? - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 15:18, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

Frankly, I don't really see why one would need any image at all for that part of the plot. Just illustrating some plot element is not really grounds for an image - otherwise we could plaster every such article with dozens of them. The other image on that page is much more easily justifiable, because it shows that special effect of the distorted face (although there, too, I'd wish for more integration in the text, more analysis, but be that as it may.) Fut.Perf. ☼ 15:50, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

If the result of the debate was "Keep", might I ask why the image was first removed from the article and then deleted by User: Nv8200p? I understand, looking at his page history, that this might be a simply mistake arising from closing out all the older discussion pages, but the consensus was pretty clear to keep. I would like it reinstated, please. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 05:50, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was keep

Image:Rocketeermovieposter.jpg

Image:Rocketeermovieposter.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Count Ringworm (notify | contribs).

• fails WP:NFC#8, and #1, easily described with text, #3 excessive use of images in articleFasach Nua (talk) 06:59, 15 June 2008 (UTC)
• Please see the discussion here. There is a surplus of images on The Rocketeer (film), but it is a surplus of screenshots. The screenshots should be removed and the other two images (this one and the photo of the uniform) should remain. It is absurd to suggest that the film poster is not significant to the article about that film, and there is obviously no free equivalent. Neelix (talk) 12:40, 15 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep- obviously from film portraying an aspect of film, this appears to be a singular editor's campaign. Bzuk (talk) 13:03, 15 June 2008 (UTC).
• Keep per above. The movie poster also provides a great example of the art of the pre WW2 period, which is the setting of the movie. -- Ned Scott 04:46, 16 June 2008 (UTC)
• Keep per Ned. Seriously, some of these nominations are utterly without a shred of merit. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 15:55, 23 June 2008 (UTC)
• Kept, I don't think we should touch on the longstanding consensus that one movie poster on a movie article is generally okay. Fut.Perf. ☼ 15:54, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was keep

Image:Rocketeer in flight.jpg

Image:Rocketeer in flight.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Bzuk (notify | contribs).

• fails WP:NFC#8, and #1, easily described with text, #3 excessive use of images in article, also confused licence probably imagevio tooFasach Nua (talk) 06:59, 15 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep- obviously from film portraying an aspect of film, this appears to be a singular editor's campaign. Bzuk (talk) 13:05, 15 June 2008 (UTC).
• Keep Delete - too dark. I would recommend a substitution of a better, brighter image. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 15:56, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

Added brighter image. FWiW Bzuk (talk) 01:44, 24 June 2008 (UTC).

• Kept this one, as a useful illustration of the special effects characteristic of the film; deleted the rest below. Fut.Perf. ☼ 07:42, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

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.

Image:Rocketeer on top of Griffith Observatory.jpg

Image:Rocketeer on top of Griffith Observatory.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Bzuk (notify | contribs).

• fails WP:NFC#8, and #1, easily described with text, #3 excessive use of images in article, also, confused licence probably imagevio tooFasach Nua (talk) 06:59, 15 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep- obviously from film portraying an aspect of film, this appears to be a singular editor's campaign. Bzuk (talk) 13:04, 15 June 2008 (UTC).
• Delete - too dark. I would recommend a substitution of a better, brighter image. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 15:56, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

Added brighter image. FWiW Bzuk (talk) 01:47, 24 June 2008 (UTC).

Unfortunately, not bright enough. I think this one might not be useful. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 02:38, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

Image:Bill Campbell and Jennifer Connolly.jpg

Image:Bill Campbell and Jennifer Connolly.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Bzuk (notify | contribs).

• fails WP:NFC#8, and #1, easily described with text, #3 excessive use of images in article, also, confused licence probably imagevio tooFasach Nua (talk) 06:59, 15 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep- obviously from film portraying an aspect of film, this appears to be a singular editor's campaign. I resent the implication that these images are copyright infringement when they are clearly labelled as a screenshot. Bzuk (talk) 13:05, 15 June 2008 (UTC).
• Delete - too dark. Loathe as I am to remove any image of Jen Connolly, I would recommend a substitution of a better, brighter image. -

Added brighter image. FWiW Bzuk (talk) 01:44, 24 June 2008 (UTC).

Okay, now, could I ask you to explain why this might survive NFC#8? - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 02:39, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

Image:Rocketeer.jpg

Image:Rocketeer.JPG (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Bzuk (notify | contribs).

• fails WP:NFC#8, and #1, easily described with text, #3 excessive use of images in article, also, confused licence probably imagevio tooFasach Nua (talk) 06:59, 15 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep- obviously from film portraying an aspect of film, this appears to be a singular editor's campaign. Bzuk (talk) 13:06, 15 June 2008 (UTC).
• Delete - too dark. I would recommend a substitution of a better, brighter image. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 15:57, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

Added brighter image. FWiW Bzuk (talk) 01:45, 24 June 2008 (UTC).

But now its all blurry. As well, i am not getting a sense in what it is supposed to represent to the dialogue. If it isn't a spectacular image in its own right, it has to assist the text in such a way that the text would be lost without it. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 02:41, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

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 debate was keep

Image:Rocketeer.JPG

Image:Rocketeer.JPG (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Neelix (notify | contribs).

• fails WP:NFC#8, and #1, easily described with text, #3 excessive use of images in article, also, confused licence probably imagevio tooFasach Nua (talk) 06:59, 15 June 2008 (UTC)
• I contest two of the three charges against this image. As for #8, this is a very significant image. It depicts the uniform of the titular character in the film "The Rocketeer". It significantly increases the readers' understanding of the topic by showing what the character looks like. As for #1, there can be no free equivalent because the character called the Rocketeer owned by a corporation. As for #3, I agree that there is excessive use of images on this article, but this image should remain. There is a surplus of images that are screenshots from the film. This particular photo is not a screenshot, but a photo of the uniform used in making the film. It is a central prop for the film, and this image should remain on Wikipedia as it is a very helpful for an understanding of what the film is about. Neelix (talk) 12:35, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

The other images on this page have very confusing licences, if this indeed free, then keep Fasach Nua (talk) 12:44, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

• • • Keep- obviously from film portraying an aspect of film production, this appears to be a singular editor's campaign. Bzuk (talk) 13:05, 15 June 2008 (UTC).
• Speedy keep Free image. -- Ned Scott 04:47, 16 June 2008 (UTC)
• Keep per licensing of image. It is a free image that the uploader took him/herself and posted onto Wikipedia. -- Guroadrunner (talk) 06:58, 16 June 2008 (UTC)
• Weak delete It sounds like it may be a derivative work of a copyrighted uniform (which the proprietor of the museum probably has no rights to grant to the uploader.) Is there a freedom of panorama inside museums in the state in question? --Hroðulf (or Hrothulf) (Talk) 11:27, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

• I don't think that is considered a derivative work. It's the same reason we can have free images of cars, but the design of the car can still be copyrighted. -- Ned Scott 07:11, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

• Weak Keep - as per Guroadrunner.Upon firther consideration, this is a pretty interesting image, in that it shows the proudction of the Rocketman's flight. It's actually quite nifty. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 15:58, 23 June 2008 (UTC)
• Kept. The case that the costume is a copyrighted work and the photograph therefore derivative is worth considering but has not really been convincingly argued for, so for now we are left with the finding that it appears to be free as the uploader assumed. If the status as non-free were to be substantiated, this would have to be reconsidered against criterion #8, but even then a reasonable case for keeping could probably be made, so for now let's go with "no copyright paranoia". Fut.Perf. ☼ 15:42, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

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.

Image:Eg-map.png

Image:Eg-map.png (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Grendelkhan (notify | contribs).

• Shadows more recent CIA factbook map on Commons. I see no reason the commons image can't be used in all places where this is currently used. --Random832 (contribs) 03:31, 15 June 2008 (UTC)
• Delete as per nom. We have a free image that appears to be a dulicate. Wave bye-bye, non-free clone! :) - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 16:08, 23 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Commons image showing through. -Nv8200p talk 02:04, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

Image:Army Football logo.gif

Image:Army Football logo.gif (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Gunsnpilots (notify | contribs).

• Auto listing incomplete IfD, image is orphaned. BJBot (talk) 00:14, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

Image:Band foto.JPG

Image:Band foto.JPG (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Gerbensam (notify | contribs).

• Auto listing incomplete IfD, image is orphaned. BJBot (talk) 00:14, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

Orphan, photo of a band that does not have an article. BlueAzure (talk) 01:08, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

Image:Cowbell.gif

Image:Cowbell.gif (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Arssle (notify | contribs).

• Auto listing incomplete IfD, image is not orphaned. BJBot (talk) 00:14, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

Image:DFS3000.jpg

Image:DFS3000.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by BackStagePass (notify | contribs).

• Auto listing incomplete IfD, image is not orphaned. BJBot (talk) 00:14, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

Image:N1358310359 30081534 5981.jpg

Image:N1358310359 30081534 5981.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Gunsnpilots (notify | contribs).

• Auto listing incomplete IfD, image is orphaned. BJBot (talk) 00:14, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

Image:Simikf1.jpg

Image:Simikf1.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Juhu15 (notify | contribs).

• Auto listing incomplete IfD, image is orphaned. BJBot (talk) 00:14, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

Orphan, photo of a person who does not have an article. BlueAzure (talk) 01:08, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

Image:Walken-Cowbell.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: keep. The resolution is not too high. Anything less then 100 KB has generally been an acceptable resolution for fair use images. This is an image of the character. An image of a character is generally considered significant in the article about that character (but not in an article about the actor who portrays the character and vice-versa) and would not be considered freely replaceable. -Nv8200p talk 02:38, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

Image:HollyJ.jpg

Image:HollyJ.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by FanOfDegrassi (notify | contribs).

• High resolution non-free publicity shot, easily replaced with more acceptable screencap, claimed as screencap but apparent it is not. 74.204.40.46 (talk) 06:41, 15 June 2008 (UTC)
• Keep - 240 x 320 pixels isn't high resolution. PhilKnight (talk) 22:21, 16 June 2008 (UTC)
• comment - I'm not convinced it meets [[[wp:nfc]]#8, however if the issue is resolution, I have tagged it for reduction Fasach Nua (talk) 07:23, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

Delete - we have tons of media personalities without images, precisely because we do not have enough good folk like David Shankbone to take public images of these people. This is a non-free press still, and as such, cannot remain. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 16:11, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

Are the rules subtly different for fictional characters rather than real life personalities? PhilKnight (talk) 21:43, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

The rules are the same, however meeting WP:NFC#1 is easier to justify, it is possible to snap a free picture of someone on the street, but how often do you meet fictional people? Having said that, if you look at contemporary human fictional character, such as Rose Tyler, of whom we have a non-free image, how much more information wp:nfc#8 is given by the use of this image than say Image:Billie Piper in October 2006-Edited.JPG? Fasach Nua (talk) 13:32, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the discussion was: delete. Image is not significant to the understanding of the article. -Nv8200p talk 02:27, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

Image:GiveIt2MeVideo.PNG

Image:GiveIt2MeVideo.PNG (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by BatterWow (notify | contribs).

• Source was from an illegal posting of the video on Youtube. Following the link, it says Warner Bros. had it removed for copyright issues. 74.204.40.46 (talk) 07:14, 15 June 2008 (UTC)
  • But, it's important for a music video by a high-profile artist, especially a recent music video by a high-profile artist, to have a screencap. So we'd just delete this image and replace it with another from the legal YouTube video (I think there is one, correct me if I'm wrong), or with one from iTunes? I'd think it would be better to cut out the middleman here and just keep the image... 74.227.52.50 (talk) 07:47, 15 June 2008 (UTC)
    • Would you like me to upload another image? But this time from U.S iTunes Music Store. 'Cause im quite happy to make another screen shot if it's that much of a problem. Yes or no? --BatterWow (talk) 08:39, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

• delete - Regardless of the source, it fails wp:nfc#8 Fasach Nua (talk) 16:19, 15 June 2008 (UTC)
• delete per Fasach Nua - doesn't significantly help the reader understand the article. PhilKnight (talk) 22:23, 16 June 2008 (UTC)
• delete per above, fails wp:nfc#8 Ejfetters (talk) 03:53, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

• Keep I think the image does have significants to the article and shows what the section is referring to. ♪♫Alucard 16♫♪ 07:13, 22 June 2008 (UTC)
• Speedy Delete - loathe as I am to find myself in agreement with FN here, I don't find the relative significance of this image outweighing the questionable sourcing and seriously flawed rationale for inclusion. I know that appropriate images for these sorts of articles are extremely hard to find and justify, but allow me to suggest that a more apropos image would be from the Making Of sort. A still from the video is not in itself significant unless it offers something unique and notable from the video, like some sort of viral campaign or the introduction of a brand new filming technique (an example of the latter would be the Tom Petty or Fiona Apple videos, that used the frozen frame style of photography that was later incorporated into the Matrix trilogy of films). - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 16:20, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

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.