Wikipedia:Files for deletion/2011 July 21

< July 20	July 22 >

July 21

File:WikiLook firefox addon.png

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

The result of the discussion was: Delete; deleted by Fastily (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 09:05, 29 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned, no foreseeable encyclopedic use (see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/WikiLook). –Drilnoth (T/C) 00:32, 21 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Royal Challengers Bangalore colours 2008.svg

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

The result of the discussion was: Delete; deleted by Fastily (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 09:05, 29 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Unused, summary indicates it probably won't be used again, license is questionable (would {{non-free flag}} be better?) Sven Manguard Wha? 01:56, 21 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Sw-weg-sheet.jpg

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

The result of the discussion was: Delete; deleted by Fastily (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 09:05, 29 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

That permission is granted for reproduction (i.e. personal use of the character sheet) does not mean that it is free use. It is part of a copyrighted rulebook and set of gaming materials and therefore is itself copyrighted. (Either way the GFDL license is incorrect). This can't really be justified by the NFCC as a non-free image, it's completely describable in the text, if a desire to put it in is present. Sven Manguard Wha? 02:13, 21 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:RQ3-sheet.jpg

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

The result of the discussion was: Delete; deleted by Fastily (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 09:05, 29 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

That permission is granted for reproduction (i.e. personal use of the character sheet) does not mean that it is free use. It is part of a copyrighted rulebook and set of gaming materials and therefore is itself copyrighted. (Either way the GFDL license is incorrect). This can't really be justified by the NFCC as a non-free image, it's completely describable in the text, if a desire to put it in is present. Sven Manguard Wha? 02:14, 21 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:RQ3-shipsheet.jpg

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

The result of the discussion was: Delete; deleted by Fastily (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 09:05, 29 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

That permission is granted for reproduction (i.e. personal use of the character sheet) does not mean that it is free use. It is part of a copyrighted rulebook and set of gaming materials and therefore is itself copyrighted. (Either way the GFDL license is incorrect). This would be an orphaned non-free image. Sven Manguard Wha? 02:14, 21 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:The First Empire (Mexcio 1822) flag.png

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

The result of the discussion was: Delete; deleted as G7 by Drilnoth (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 15:09, 22 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned flag, summary says this is derived from another file, but that file does not exist. Sven Manguard Wha? 02:24, 21 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Fine with me. Another image with better resolution was apparently created hours after I did mine. Paxsimius (talk) 13:35, 21 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Conquistas de las Islas Filipinas.jpg

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

The result of the discussion was: Delete; deleted by Fastily (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 09:05, 29 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Says it is "From the official website of San Mateo, Rizal", appears to be a book cover, no indication that it is free. Adds pretty much nothing to the article. Sven Manguard Wha? 02:46, 21 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

keep non free book cover. and PD old. Slowking4: 7@1|x 14:27, 22 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It was published in 1998, therefore it is most certainly not PD-old. Sven Manguard Wha? 02:16, 26 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Tree-sign.png

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

The result of the discussion was: No Consensus. -FASTILY ^(TALK) 07:35, 29 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned file. JJ98 (Talk / Contributions) 06:11, 21 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Baa may be retired, but there's no pressing reason to delete. Since it's under Creative Commons, who says someone else may not want to use it? It's not like we need server space. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Otters want attention)} 22:21, 28 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Londonflag.PNG

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

The result of the discussion was: Delete; deleted by Fastily (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 09:05, 29 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Not free, per Commons deletion discussion. I decided against a CSD F9 here, although if it does get deleted that way, I won't really care. Sven Manguard Wha? 07:10, 21 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The license could always be changed, but there are like 2 different flags for London, Ontario and this is not one of them. I would also ask for a deletion. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 18:12, 21 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

keep non free logo - not flag [1]. Slowking4: 7@1|x 14:30, 22 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, it's not the official seal or the official flag. It's a limited run promo item for street banners, best as I've been able to tell. Sven Manguard Wha? 02:37, 26 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

also on the website, (they did call it a logo themselves). the difference between flags and promotional banners, branding is confusing, i agree. (picked the seal in infobox since there is not a logo field) Slowking4: 7@1|x 17:04, 26 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Raani.jpg

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

The result of the discussion was: Delete; deleted by Fastily (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 09:05, 29 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

These are book covers, which means that they're probably not free. The quality is so low that they don't add real value to the article. A proper image of the cover with a proper FUR would work, but this doesn't. Sven Manguard Wha? 07:20, 21 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Timmy Turner.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: No Consensus. -FASTILY ^(TALK) 07:33, 29 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Uneeded fair use file. JJ98 (Talk / Contributions) 10:31, 21 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

keep non free cartoon in use in article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Slowking4 (talk • contribs)
You do know that doesn't even mean anything, don't you? ╟─Treasury Tag►stannary parliament─╢ 15:02, 22 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep because it illustrates the character in question, a recognised acceptable use of non-free content. ╟─Treasury Tag►stannary parliament─╢ 15:02, 22 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- If illustrating characters if fine, please see #File:Invasion of the Bane .jpg. :) –Drilnoth (T/C) 12:59, 26 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Old Adult Swim Logo.png

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

The result of the discussion was: withdrawn (WP:NAC) JJ98 (Talk / Contributions) 17:53, 24 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Uneeded fair use file. Old logo is not necessary for the Adult Swim article. JJ98 (Talk / Contributions) 10:32, 21 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Might this qualify as {{PD-textlogo}}? –Drilnoth (T/C) 15:51, 21 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

No, not necessary, its an fair use and it should be deleted per WP:NFCC.

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

File:Coldwar2.JPG

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

The result of the discussion was: Delete; deleted by Fastily (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 09:05, 29 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Although the various images may be free, and this one probably is too, there is no attribution (as required by GFDL and CC-BY licenses) and no links to the source images. Since it's orphaned, it seems more logical to delete this image than to spend the time finding 5 images without knowing their names. –Drilnoth (T/C) 15:50, 21 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:GIJoe75trademark.JPG

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

The result of the discussion was: Delete; deleted by Fastily (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 09:05, 29 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned, Unencyclopedic Calliopejen1 (talk) 15:56, 21 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:GIJoe75trademarkAlt.JPG

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

The result of the discussion was: Delete; deleted by Fastily (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 09:05, 29 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned, Unencyclopedic Calliopejen1 (talk) 15:56, 21 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:GIJoeAdvTrademark.JPG

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

The result of the discussion was: Delete; deleted by Fastily (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 09:05, 29 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned, Unencyclopedic Calliopejen1 (talk) 15:56, 21 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:AMtalkerTrademark60s.JPG

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

The result of the discussion was: Delete; deleted by Fastily (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 09:05, 29 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned, Unencyclopedic Calliopejen1 (talk) 15:59, 21 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:AMtalkerTrademarking78.JPG

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

The result of the discussion was: Delete; deleted by Fastily (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 09:05, 29 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned, Unencyclopedic Calliopejen1 (talk) 15:59, 21 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Doctor Who S5.9 Cold Blood.jpg

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

The result of the discussion was: Delete; deleted by Fastily (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 09:05, 29 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This image fails NFCC 8 in that its omission would not harm readers' understanding of the article. How is it essential for someone to see a couple of sillhouettes looking down at a bunch of indistinct figures standing in rows? (Oh look – I just replaced the image with text!) ╟─Treasury Tag►high seas─╢ 16:08, 21 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, fairly generic image.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 17:39, 21 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, agree with SoV on the genericness of the image. --MASEM (t) 23:34, 21 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
keep it's presence certainly helps my understanding, since it stands for the whole episode. merge all the dr who episode articles first, then delete. Slowking4: 7@1|x 14:52, 22 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
What does that even mean? It's just some indistinct people looking down at more indistinct people. You need to explain how it meets NFCC 1 and NFCC 8. ╟─Treasury Tag►Speaker─╢ 14:57, 22 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
i mean: 1 - it's copyrighted, so there is no replacement. 8 - a screenshot of an episode helps me to understand a dramatic moment of the episode beyond mere words. if it does not for you, then we agree to disagree. however, you can't say that it does not add to my understanding. you are unreasonable in your presumption to speak for others. it's not unreasonable to allow one screenshot per episode in an infobox. if however, you believe the episodes are not notable, then by all means mass delete them. Slowking4: 7@1|x 15:17, 22 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
it's copyrighted, so there is no replacement. Not true. If it can be adequately replaced by text such as, "Two people shrouded in shadow gaze down at rows of soldiers," then it fails NFCC 1. a screenshot of an episode helps me to understand a dramatic moment of the episode beyond mere words. If that image were removed, your understanding of the article would not be harmed. You may not fully appreciate the mood of the episode, but (a) simply looking at one frame of a 45-minute episode wouldn't help much, and (b) that's not what an encyclopedia is for. No part of the article requires that image to illustrate it. There is no critical commentary. It should be deleted. ╟─Treasury Tag►contemnor─╢ 15:20, 22 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
i'm sorry i found your written replacement inadequate. it would be harm my understanding, please don't presume to speak for me. Slowking4: 7@1|x 15:27, 22 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I maintain that the image fails NFCC 8 and other than simply repeating, "it would harm my understanding," you have not yet provided an actual reason. However, since you are so obviously wrong, I have no doubt that the consensus will be against you. ╟─Treasury Tag►sundries─╢ 15:36, 22 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
i maintain it does not. is this enough critical commentary, or do you require more: "Amy and Mo find the Silurians that are hibernating." i'm glad you agree to consensus, unlike some mass deleters. i agree to it, regardless to the merits. you are wrong; you are harming wikipedia; when will you stop? Slowking4: 7@1|x 15:40, 22 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
An eight-word extract from a plot-description is not critical commentary. Compare this image to the (excellent) one at Partners in Crime (Doctor Who), an article which goes into great depths on the animation technique used to produce the aliens. This image is just a really lame, decorative one. you are wrong; you are harming wikipedia; when will you stop? In order of your questions: no I'm not, no I'm not and thanks for assuming good faith, and I won't. OK? ╟─Treasury Tag►ballotbox─╢ 15:43, 22 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
the screenshot of your example is exactly the same as your deletion canditates, with critical commentary: "The Adipose, CGI aliens depicted using Massive, march through Central London towards Adipose Industries". shall we delete that as well? not a question of intent; what is the outcome you are responsible for? there may well be a growing consensus, that agrees with me. Slowking4: 7@1|x 16:00, 22 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete It's a legion of soldiers, standing dormant under giant lamps, stretching back into a cave. I don't think it meets NFCC#8. Sven Manguard Wha? 02:24, 26 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The image has been changed. However I don't see how the new image is any better. Edgepedia (talk) 16:10, 28 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails NFCC#8. Edgepedia (talk) 15:49, 28 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:SJA Comic Relief Special Raxacoricofallapatorius with Love.jpg

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

The result of the discussion was: Delete; deleted by Fastily (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 09:05, 29 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This image is simplya bunch of people standing around with soppy headwear. Its omission would in no way be detrimental to readers' understanding. ╟─Treasury Tag►stannary parliament─╢ 16:09, 21 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, no reason that couldn't be described in text if necessary. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 17:40, 21 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
keep it could be but it hasn't. merge all the dr who spinoff episodes first. then delete. Slowking4: 7@1|x 14:54, 22 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
keep This screenshot has be widely used by the BBC as a description of this small episode if you haven't already noticed it is a comic relief special. I believe it still informs the reader of what they can come to expect of the mini episode maybe the caption does need to be more descriptive. Sfxprefects (talk) 20:46, 25 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
What does that even mean? You need to explain how it meets NFCC 1 and NFCC 8. ╟─Treasury Tag►Africa, Asia and the UN─╢ 14:56, 22 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I think it's obvious that this passes NFCC#1. Some might feel this fails NFCC#8, but I believe it to be an informative screenshot of an episode, used in an article about that episode, and I think it passes NFCC #8 for that reason. – Quadell ^(talk) 20:20, 25 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete It's the four main cast members wearing funny headbands. Fails NFCC#8 badly. Sven Manguard Wha? 02:19, 28 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I can't see how this image meets NFCC#8. Edgepedia (talk) 15:51, 28 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Invasion of the Bane .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. -FASTILY ^(TALK) 07:33, 29 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This image is not subject to critical commentary in the article and thus fails NFCC 8 in that it does not significantly enhance readers' understanding of anything particular. ╟─Treasury Tag►prorogation─╢ 16:10, 21 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - the Bane appears sufficiently weird that any text description of reasonable length would not give an appropriate understanding of its/their appearance. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 17:38, 21 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Which passage of the article requires this sort of illustration? ╟─Treasury Tag►Chief Counting Officer─╢ 17:46, 21 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
"Non-free content is used only if its presence would significantly increase readers' understanding of the topic, and its omission would be detrimental to that understanding."--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 17:57, 21 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for that quote. Which passage of the article would be detrimenticated if the image were removed? (I know I just invented that word, but it sounds rather impressive and I hope you know what I mean!) ╟─Treasury Tag►co-prince─╢ 18:01, 21 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I don't have to point to a particular passage, because policy says "understanding of the topic", not "understanding of these 3 and a half sentences".--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 18:06, 21 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
You're missing my point: if the aesthetic appearance of the Bane is not mentioned in the article at all (and I certainly haven't spotted where it is) then a person will read the article and not be left thinking, "But what I don't understand is..." or, "I wish I completely understood what the Bane looked like because it's important to the plot."
WP:NFCI says that non-free screenshots of TV episodes are to be used "for critical commentary" – and this one quite simply isn't, unless you can produce any critical commentary to demonstrate otherwise. ╟─Treasury Tag►Woolsack─╢ 18:09, 21 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Even better, I can produce WHAT NFCI ACTUALLY SAYS. "The following list is not exhaustive but contains the most common cases where non-free images may be used."--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 18:19, 21 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
And when you can demonstrate why an exception should be made to this non-prescriptive list of occasions, I'll be happy to concede the point. ╟─Treasury Tag►draftsman─╢ 18:21, 21 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Policy says "include it if it will help understanding and removing it will hurt understanding." Guideline doesn't say we can't include it. Good enough for me. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 18:35, 21 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. No, the creature isn't given a specific physical description in the article... because it doesn't need to. Because a picture is worth a thousand words. In this case, certainly, a text description could not serve the same purpose as the image ("To illustrate what the Bane look like."). Maybe this is a technical violation of established policies and guidelines, but if so this seems like a classic case of when to Ignore All Rules in the interest of improving the encyclopedia. –Drilnoth (T/C) 18:13, 21 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. A single low-res, informative screenshot of a TV program in an article about that episode almost always passes NFCC #1 and #8. – Quadell ^(talk) 18:44, 21 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- This is absolutely not true. Screenshots of live action TV shows more often than not can be replaced by free text and free images of the stars barring any commentary on the specific scene, characters, or elements, within the article (NFCC#8). --MASEM (t) 23:38, 21 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  - "Absolutely"? Really? No room for doubt? One could argue that there is no need for a photo of anyone, since enough text could replace what Masem thinks is important. One can argue that here, but I disagree. There is a whole lot of gray area, and a whole lot of room for honest disagreement, and I believe that a single low-res, informative screenshot of a TV program in an article about that episode almost always passes NFCC #1 and #8. Your opinion may differ, but it's not because you understand our NFCC any better than I do. – Quadell ^(talk) 18:06, 22 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    - We are not here to discuss whether or not a hypothetical image "almost always" passes a hypothetical standard. We are here to discuss whether or not this image is acceptable in this case, and you haven't actually addressed the matter at hand at all. ╟─Treasury Tag►Regional Counting Officer─╢ 18:10, 22 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      - Fine. I believe that this image passes NFCC#1 (since no free screenshot of the program can exist). I believe it passes NFCC #8, because it is an informative screenshot of an TV program in an article about that program. (But you knew that, right? You were just being pedantic.) – Quadell ^(talk) 20:23, 25 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete One time appearing monster, no discussion within text, can be reasonably replaced with text "a flesh-colored tentacle monster". --MASEM (t) 23:38, 21 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
keep the image certainly adds to my understanding. one screenshot per article isn't too much to bear, is it? merge all the dr. who spinoff episodes first. then delete. Slowking4: 7@1|x 14:57, 22 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
one screenshot per article isn't too much to bear, is it? That comment just demonstrates that you have not the slightest understanding of our non-free content policy, I'm afraid. merge all the dr. who spinoff episodes first. then delete. Meaningless. ╟─Treasury Tag►stannator─╢ 15:00, 22 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
i believe my understanding of non free is just fine, thank you. i find your intrepretation unreasonable. if you want to mass delete images why stop there, mass delete the articles as well. Slowking4: 7@1|x 15:21, 22 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
i believe my understanding of non free is just fine, thank you. If you think that "one screenshot per article isn't too much to bear" is a valid point to make as regards the non-free content criteria then you clearly do not understand the relevant policy. if you want to mass delete images why stop there, mass delete the articles as well. Absolute meaningless drivel. ╟─Treasury Tag►voice vote─╢ 15:25, 22 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
the one shot goes direct to 3 "a.Minimal usage. Multiple items of non-free content are not used if one item can convey equivalent significant information." surely you admit, that reasonable people can disagree, what i don't understand is why you choose to impose your view of policy, which does not say what you want it to say. if you want to have NFCC to say "delete all screenshots", then change it to say so. Slowking4: 7@1|x 15:32, 22 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
You seem to think that criterion 3a means that any article is entitled to at least one non-free screenshot. That reading is simply incorrect. It means that if we are going to have non-free screenshots at all, there should be as few as possible per article. if you want to have NFCC to say "delete all screenshots", then change it to say so. Not only do I not want that, I find straw man arguments distinctly unimpressive. ╟─Treasury Tag►Subsyndic General─╢ 15:35, 22 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
no, merely that one is the fewest possible, not zero. and now you agree that i made a point on NFCC (in my lack of understanding)? (did you make a straw man argument?) i did not: it does not say "no screenshots". do you really believe that ten words are worth a picture? it strikes me that one of the qualities of wikipedia is images, not words. will you allow them? Slowking4: 7@1|x 15:50, 22 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't really understand a word of that... ╟─Treasury Tag►quaestor─╢ 15:58, 22 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
You seem to think that criterion 3a means that any article is entitled to at least one non-free screenshot. That reading is simply incorrect. = strawman

That comment just demonstrates that you have not the slightest understanding of our non-free content policy = meaningless drivel.

what i don't understand is why we're wasting time on good faith attempts to follow NFCC, that are close to the line, when there are thousands of non compliant images out there. is it because they cross a recent changes screen? better to work the obvious backlog, rather than create more wikidrama.

i am distinctly unimpressed with ad hominem. note to closer: nom cut and paste a series of files for deletion, shows a lack of wp:agf, and consensus. Slowking4: 7@1|x 14:57, 23 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The fact that you've just linked to slippery slope in a context where it is clearly inappropriate doesn't advance this situation any further than demonstrating that your ignorance of WP:NFCC is equal to your ignorance of slippery slope. ╟─Treasury Tag►voice vote─╢ 14:52, 24 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
here's your dilemma: #8 is inherently subjective, so when i say "it's aids my understanding", your only argument left is ad hominem. slippery = your understanding is idiosyncratic; i don't understanding your understanding; your understanding is not a consensus one; your understanding is nonsense; you have not the slightest understanding; you are an ignorant SOB. Slowking4: 7@1|x 17:11, 26 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The fair use rationale seems quite satisfactory and the image certainly assists understanding of the topic. Warden (talk) 19:52, 22 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per above keeps. All too common for TT. Buffs (talk) 03:59, 25 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Its low-res and has a fair use rational. Sfxprefects (talk) 17:42, 25 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:NMFCDesign.jpg

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

The result of the discussion was: Delete; deleted by Fastily (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 09:05, 29 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned, superseded by svg Calliopejen1 (talk) 17:06, 21 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:HawksDesign.jpg

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

The result of the discussion was: Delete; deleted by Fastily (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 09:05, 29 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned, superseded by svg Calliopejen1 (talk) 17:06, 21 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:SydneyDesign.jpg

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

The result of the discussion was: Delete; deleted by Fastily (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 09:05, 29 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned, superseded by svg Calliopejen1 (talk) 17:13, 21 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:CollingwoodDesign.jpg

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

The result of the discussion was: Delete; deleted by Fastily (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 09:05, 29 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned, superseded by svg Calliopejen1 (talk) 17:13, 21 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:NorwoodDesign.jpg

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

The result of the discussion was: Delete; deleted by Fastily (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 09:05, 29 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned, superseded by svg Calliopejen1 (talk) 17:13, 21 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:BrunswickDesign.jpg

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

The result of the discussion was: Delete; deleted by Fastily (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 09:05, 29 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned, superseded by svg Calliopejen1 (talk) 17:14, 21 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:RichmondDesign.jpg

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

The result of the discussion was: Delete; deleted by Fastily (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 09:05, 29 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned, superseded by svg Calliopejen1 (talk) 17:14, 21 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:EssendonDesign.jpg

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

The result of the discussion was: Delete; deleted by Fastily (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 09:05, 29 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned, superseded by svg Calliopejen1 (talk) 17:14, 21 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Dunedinicehockey1.jpg

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

The result of the discussion was: Delete; deleted by Fastily (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 09:05, 29 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned, Low quality, was uploaded for deleted article Dunedin Ice Hockey Association Calliopejen1 (talk) 17:17, 21 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Dunedinicehockey2.jpg

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

The result of the discussion was: Delete; deleted by Fastily (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 09:05, 29 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned, Low quality, was uploaded for deleted article Dunedin Ice Hockey Association Calliopejen1 (talk) 17:17, 21 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:TEHRAN Panorama 1.jpg

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

The result of the discussion was: Delete; deleted by Fastily (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 09:05, 29 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned, no statement indicating that uploader is author, exif data is not for a camera - copyright status iffy Calliopejen1 (talk) 17:18, 21 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Pubrlyxp6.gif

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

The result of the discussion was: Delete; deleted by Fastily (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 09:05, 29 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned, Unencyclopedic Calliopejen1 (talk) 17:19, 21 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Josh Berresford 1.jpg

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

The result of the discussion was: Delete; deleted by Fastily (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 09:05, 29 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned, appears to be a screenshot Calliopejen1 (talk) 17:20, 21 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Ted Alexandro.jpg

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

The result of the discussion was: Delete; deleted by Fastily (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 09:05, 29 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

no source stated, user's uploads have copyright issues Calliopejen1 (talk) 17:20, 21 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:JoshBerresford2008.jpg

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

The result of the discussion was: Delete; deleted by Fastily (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 09:05, 29 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

user's uploads have copyright issues, appears to be grabbed from the web somewhere Calliopejen1 (talk) 17:21, 21 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Drukpakids.jpg

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

The result of the discussion was: Delete; deleted by Fastily (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 09:05, 29 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned, no source stated, appears to be grabbed from the web Calliopejen1 (talk) 17:24, 21 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Play xl.jpg

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

The result of the discussion was: Delete; deleted by Fastily (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 09:05, 29 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

no source stated, appears to be grabbed from the web Calliopejen1 (talk) 17:24, 21 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Twogirls xl.jpg

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

The result of the discussion was: Delete; deleted by Fastily (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 09:05, 29 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned, no source stated, appears to be grabbed from the web Calliopejen1 (talk) 17:24, 21 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Math1 xl.jpg

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

The result of the discussion was: Delete; deleted by Fastily (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 09:05, 29 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned, no source stated, appears to be grabbed from the web Calliopejen1 (talk) 17:24, 21 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Israel and New Zealand.gif

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

The result of the discussion was: Delete; deleted by Fastily (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 09:05, 29 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned, superseded by File:Israel New Zealand Locator.png Calliopejen1 (talk) 17:25, 21 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Churchofnailslogo.gif

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

The result of the discussion was: Delete; deleted by Fastily (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 09:05, 29 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned, Unencyclopedic Calliopejen1 (talk) 17:26, 21 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Fall 06 052.jpg

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

The result of the discussion was: Delete; deleted by Fastily (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 09:05, 29 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned, very low resolution, no explicit statement about source Calliopejen1 (talk) 17:27, 21 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Esna Park Drive 1.JPG

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

The result of the discussion was: Delete; deleted by Fastily (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 09:05, 29 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned, Low quality Calliopejen1 (talk) 17:27, 21 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Rodick.JPG

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

The result of the discussion was: Delete; deleted by Fastily (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 09:05, 29 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned, Low quality Calliopejen1 (talk) 17:27, 21 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:SJA Revenge of the Slitheen.jpg

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

The result of the discussion was: Delete; deleted by Fastily (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 09:05, 29 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Not seeing this image would not harm readers' understanding of the episode, so it fails NFCC 8 ╟─Treasury Tag►co-prince─╢ 17:32, 21 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, image is unusual enough so that a text description probably wouldn't give a sufficient understanding of a Slitheen unmasking. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 17:43, 21 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
"A fat woman clutches at her forehad as white light shines out" – what part of the image is not encapsulated in that description? Furthermore, the image doesn't show the zip which is the truly unique part of the Slitheen transformation. ╟─Treasury Tag►Odelsting─╢ 17:46, 21 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and agree with TT on the image. We do have an image of a Slitheen on the Slitheen page, and the idea that they unzip their human suits at their foreheads is a simple enough concept. Without any discussion of the actual SFX, its unnecessary. --MASEM (t) 23:40, 21 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
keep image adds to my understanding. merge dr who spinoff episodes first, then delete. Slowking4: 7@1|x 15:02, 22 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Can you explain in what way your understanding would be harmed if the image were deleted? merge dr who spinoff episodes first, then delete. What does this mean? ╟─Treasury Tag►voice vote─╢ 14:52, 24 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Agree with TT and Masem that this is a simple concept that can be well described using text and that the image fails to show the most important aspect of the change. Alzarian16 (talk) 15:15, 25 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Its low-res and has a fair use rational. Sfxprefects (talk) 17:43, 25 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- That's not contested. The question is whether it passes WP:NFCC#8. –
- Fine I believe it passes WP:NFCCit provides a visual aid to the episode and although it is not the best picture of a Slitheen unmasking it still provides a visual picture of a Slitheen unmasking in that episode and furthermore, If I had to choose a screenshot from that episode this one would be my first choice. Sfxprefects (talk) 20:40, 25 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Quadell ^(talk) 20:27, 25 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I believe this image passes NFCC#8. This image is an informative screenshot of an episode, used in an article about that episode. It significantly increases my understanding of the topic. – Quadell ^(talk) 20:27, 25 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per SFX. It meets the criteria. Buffs (talk) 02:09, 28 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:GO Empty.PNG

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

The result of the discussion was: Delete; deleted by Fastily (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 09:05, 29 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Unused low resolution artwork not realistically useful for Wikipedia use. Sreejith K (talk) 18:39, 21 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I think it was useful once... if it's not used, it's fine to delete it. – Quadell ^(talk) 18:40, 21 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:SJA Whatever Happened To Sarah Jane.jpg

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

The result of the discussion was: Delete; deleted by Fastily (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 09:05, 29 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Not seeing this image would not harm readers' understanding of the episode, so it fails NFCC 8 ╟─Treasury Tag►Syndic General─╢ 19:45, 21 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Live actors, no hint of why this scene is important, so easily dropped. --MASEM (t) 23:41, 21 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
keep image adds to my understanding. delete dr who spinoff episodes first, then delete. Slowking4: 7@1|x 15:04, 22 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
This is about the fifth remark of yours on this page that I'm having to make the same response to. You have yet to explain how the image meets NFCC 8, and you have yet to explain how the remark, "delete dr who spinoff episodes first, then delete," is (a) meaningful and (b) relevant. ╟─Treasury Tag►consulate─╢ 15:05, 22 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: This also has a (somewhat bare) non-free rationale for use in the Sarah Jane Smith article, but isn't currently used there. Its case for inclusion there actually seems more convincing than it does for the episode to me, since that actress' appearance as Sarah isn't represented or properly explained. Could this be kept for that article and removed from the episode, or would this breach NFCC? Alzarian16 (talk) 15:13, 25 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Its low-res and has a fair use rational. Sfxprefects (talk) 17:45, 25 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- No one doubts the resolution or the rationale. The question is, doe it pass NFCC#8? – Quadell ^(talk) 20:29, 25 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I believe this image passes NFCC#8. This image is an informative screenshot of an episode, used in an article about that episode. It significantly increases my understanding of the topic. – Quadell ^(talk) 20:29, 25 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Absolutely not. Fails NFCC#8, all it is is a headshot of the main character. Sven Manguard Wha? 02:22, 28 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete' this image. A case could be made for a crop showing a young Sarah Jane through. Edgepedia (talk) 15:56, 28 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Mark of the Berserker.jpg

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

The result of the discussion was: Delete; deleted by Fastily (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 09:05, 29 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Not seeing this image would not harm readers' understanding of the episode, so it fails NFCC 8 ╟─Treasury Tag►Speaker─╢ 19:46, 21 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Its low-res and has a fair use rational. Sfxprefects (talk) 17:42, 25 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I think the picture gives helps you understand the episode having watching the episode I know what its about and if I had to pick image to show people what that episode was about that would be the image I would have chosen. Sfxprefects (talk) 20:33, 25 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete It's "bulging blue veins on the guy's head". Fails NFCC 8 in my opinion. Sven Manguard Wha? 02:36, 26 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Mac2k.jpg

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

The result of the discussion was: Delete; deleted by Fastily (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 09:05, 29 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Editor has a history of claiming copyright images to be his own work. Nothing to identify Aarix3 with the Galahad who it is claimed posted this picture on a forum, nor does this "Galahad" claim that he is the photographer. Indeed, the fact that Galahad asks whether other features in the city could be seen from this viewpoint makes it highly questionable that Galahad is the taker of the photo, yet alone that Aarix3 is Galahad. Kevin McE (talk) 20:38, 21 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed, the photo was first posted to that forum not by Galahad, but by a member known as machala_ec. So Aarix's claim to be Galahad, the taker of the photo, is even less tenable. Kevin McE (talk) 21:03, 21 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Rebekah Brooks 18 July 2011.jpg

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

The result of the discussion was: Delete; deleted by Fastily (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 09:05, 29 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The Open Government License does not apply universally (see licensing framework), and as far as I know, Parliament, which is not part of the government, does not use it. I don't know if this image qualifies for fair use, but I don't see how it is of much importance in the article. —innotata 21:07, 21 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete because the OGL doesn't apply to Parliamentary material and it's hard to see how it would pass the NFCC as fair use. ╟─Treasury Tag►voice vote─╢ 21:09, 21 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment There is a parliamentary "click use" licence[2][3] which possibly Wikipedia holds but that does not cover broadcasts of proceedings. "If you want to reproduce broadcasts of the Proceedings of Parliament, contact Parliament on 020 7219 5511."[4] Thincat (talk) 12:14, 22 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Murdochs-Testify.jpg

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

The result of the discussion was: Delete; deleted by Fastily (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 09:05, 29 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The Open Government License does not apply universally (see licensing framework), and as far as I know, Parliament, which is not part of the government, does not use it. I don't know if this image qualifies for fair use, but if it is to be kept as fair use, a fair use rationale needs to be given, explaining its importance in the article. —innotata 21:08, 21 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete because the OGL doesn't apply to Parliamentary material and it's hard to see how it would pass the NFCC as fair use. ╟─Treasury Tag►voice vote─╢ 21:09, 21 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment There is a parliamentary "click use" licence[5][6] which possibly Wikipedia holds but that does not cover broadcasts of proceedings. "If you want to reproduce broadcasts of the Proceedings of Parliament, contact Parliament on 020 7219 5511."[7] Thincat (talk) 12:15, 22 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- What that says is that you need to obtain permission to use all material under Parliamentary copyright. (Template:Non-free Parliamentary copyright appears to state that Wikipedia has permission, though maybe not for broadcasts, and we use some images as fair use with this statement of permission.) So these definitely are not free images. —innotata 13:31, 22 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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