Wikipedia:Files for deletion/2011 May 16

< May 15	May 17 >

May 16

File:The tollet.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 - but only after I save a copy. There are certain kinds of things that are so stupid that they're actually quite funny ([1]). King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 00:47, 24 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

OR, UE. WP:NOTHOST Ronhjones ^(Talk) 00:40, 16 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete WTF? Sven Manguard Wha? 05:01, 16 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete Pointless Image--Breawycker (talk to me!) Review Me! 22:44, 16 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. How did this survive 4 years here? Reasoning... unencyclopedic. Crisco 1492 (talk) 14:26, 22 May 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 unstoppable six.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 Skier Dude (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 05:19, 24 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

OR, UE Ronhjones ^(Talk) 00:46, 16 May 2011 (UTC) delete Unused pointless image--Breawycker (talk to me!) 11:57, 21 May 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:FrederickIIofPrussia.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 Future Perfect at Sunrise (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) A file with this name on Commons is now visible. AnomieBOT ⚡ 08:23, 24 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Image under same name exists on Commons in full color, and higher res, compared to this lo-res B/W version. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 08:51, 16 May 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:HH caveman.jpg

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

The result of the discussion was: Delete; deleted as F7 by Future Perfect at Sunrise (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 08:23, 24 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Image with no rationale nor reason apart from illustration. Fails WP:NFCC#8 - adds little to reader's understanding of the topic. Peripitus (Talk) 14:09, 16 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. In a list of characters, typically we allow a small representative sample to have non-free images in order to show how the characters appear in general. This particular list does not appear to be stretching the limit. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 00:50, 24 May 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:Shooty and bang bang.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 Future Perfect at Sunrise (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 08:23, 24 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Image with no rationale nor reason apart from illustration. Fails WP:NFCC#8 - adds little to reader's understanding of the topic. Peripitus (Talk) 14:10, 16 May 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:Tin pei ling new paper.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 for The New Paper as a sample cover. Remove use from Tin Pei Ling. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 00:52, 24 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Fails WP:NFC#UUI. Picture of someone still alive. The likely defence here is WP:NFCI, that this is of historical importance, which I dispute. Further, the fair use rationale is horribly POV ("illustrate the sensationalistic press") and I dispute the claim that "this would not be possible with mere text", because quite clearly the text that is used in the headline can be quoted and attributed. Strange Passerby (talk • cont) 15:41, 16 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This is also being used as the example cover for The New Paper as an example of its sensationalist style. The headline can be quoted, but actually it is not about Tin Pei Ling's photo, but capturing the impact on the average Singaporean during the height of the campaigning, i.e. a historical moment. Elle _{vécut heureuse} ^{à jamais} (be free) 17:25, 16 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see that newspaper front pages are historical moments, seems like a very weak fair use claim. It is also being used in two articles which seems incorrect also. Off2riorob (talk) 17:59, 16 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Except in this case, it's notable, because even the government press commented on the online reaction. (The TNP is a government newspaper). (See: a similar image used in Singapore general election, 2006 representing bloggers.) Elle _{vécut heureuse} ^{à jamais} (be free) 19:28, 16 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Also, see the image used in The Daily Mail. This is similar. Elle _{vécut heureuse} ^{à jamais} (be free) 04:44, 17 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yes but the difference there is that the pic is in the infobox of the article about the paper which is regularly used like that. All the uses that I have seen like this where they are used in another article allegedly top add detail to a historic event have been deleted, using a picture of a newspaper like this is a dubious fair use rationalle. - irreplaceable - no, its more than enough to say, the paper is sensationalist or whatever it is your using the picture to assert. Off2riorob (talk) 10:54, 17 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It's a valid fair use claim for The New Paper, at least; for Tin Pei Ling it is historically significant in part because the government press is responding to opposition remarks on "alternative media" they previously didn't recognise. The role of the press is a central issue of the election. Let me remind you, the press freedom in Singapore is #136 in the world. In the US, this would not be a historically significant cover. It would just be another scandal. In Singapore, it is significant in so far as the government tries to suppress dissent. Elle _{vécut heureuse} ^{à jamais} (be free) 14:17, 17 May 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 New Paper Gay MP.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 Future Perfect at Sunrise (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 09:23, 24 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Per above.

Fails WP:NFC#UUI. Picture of someone still alive. The likely defence here is WP:NFCI, that this is of historical importance, which I dispute. Further, quite clearly the text that is used in the headline can be quoted and attributed, and there is no need for the actual image — which isn't low-resolution as claimed at all. 754x964 is pretty damn good for a newspaper image. Strange Passerby (talk • cont) 15:53, 16 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This is not being used in the article for the SDP candidate, but rather the consequence of his attacker's criticisms on the article discussing his attacker. Elle _{vécut heureuse} ^{à jamais} (be free) 17:30, 16 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, the image is not being used at all. Right now, regardless of what happens here, the image as an orphaned fair use image. Sven Manguard Wha? 08:06, 17 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I plan to add this at Singapore general election, 2011 discussing the gay agenda issue. It was taken off Balakrishnan's biography. Elle _{vécut heureuse} ^{à jamais} (be free) 10:35, 17 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

For the two images let me emphasise that the purpose of the two images is not merely to discuss the issues contained in the covers, but to talk about the covers themselves and to talk about press coverage during the election. Singapore does not have a free press. The images add to commentary on the government's bias or style in coverage that mere text cannot. I do intend to use these images later on to discuss press coverage during the election (using new sources for political analysis). This would strengthen the claims to fair use. Elle _{vécut heureuse} ^{à jamais} (be free) 14:21, 17 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I am inclined to keep this image as long as it is used in the said article(s). It is indeed true that it is difficult to illustrate the extent to which the issue was blown way out of proportion by the said tabloid without showing the way it was being "publicised" on the front page. So may I suggest that Elle go ahead and write that section in the article (you may wish to add it under an issues section...I will assist in the page's organisation later) and we will judge its usefulness accordingly.--Huaiwei (talk) 19:06, 22 May 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:Blanek.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 Skier Dude (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 05:19, 24 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned Acather96 (talk) 19:33, 16 May 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:RayMikeDJ.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 Skier Dude (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 05:19, 24 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned, unencyclopedic, unidentifiable subject. Acather96 (talk) 19:51, 16 May 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:Guyana splenders.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 Skier Dude (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 05:19, 24 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned, unidentifiable location Acather96 (talk) 20:09, 16 May 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:Tom's HoosierMate.com profile.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 as failing NFCC#8 (image does not significantly add to reader's understanding) - Peripitus (Talk) 11:47, 26 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Non-free screenshot in a TV episode infobox. Shows a detail of a scene whose visual information value is extremely low. No Indication how the visual presence of this image is necessary to understand the article Fut.Perf. ☼ 20:24, 16 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Unless you know of another image that would better represent the episode, please let me know. Otherwise, I think the image should stay. NetflixSoup (talk) 13:37, 16 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sigh. When will this finally sink in? We don't routinely use non-free images to "represent" an episode. We use images only if and when there is a pressing need to do so in the context of making a specific point of sourced, non-trivial critical analysis understood. There is no blanket allowance of one image per episode article. Fut.Perf. ☼ 21:01, 16 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The fair use rationale before was completely and woefully inadeuqate and deletion in response to it was not inappropriate response. However, I've now expanded the fair use rationale and I believe the image should now remain. I believe it is helpful to the reader and meets fair use parameters for a television screenshot image. — Hun ter Ka hn 21:16, 16 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- What exactly is difficult to understand about the phrase "a computer screen showing the profile page of a man on a dating website, with a portrait photograph in the bottom-left corner"? What part of the visual information of the image that is not conveyed by this or a similar description is so crucial to the article we absolutely can't do without it? Fut.Perf. ☼ 21:31, 16 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  - There are some readers who will not be familiar with these kind of dating service sites for whom an image will make it more clear. WP:FUC reads "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. Purely decorative images are not appropriate." Even if it can be explained in words, it is more fully understood with the presence of the illustration. Thus it's removal would be detrimental to the understanding of the reader, and it's serving a conextual significance beyond purely a decorate infobox image function, so I feel it meets the FUC. — Hun ter Ka hn 04:36, 17 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    - Also, your example of the text "a computer screen showing the profile page of a man on a dating website, with a portrait photograph in the bottom-left corner" is never used in this article, and there doesn't seem to be an appropriate place to bring it up, which is another way in which the image is helpful. — Hun ter Ka hn 04:37, 17 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      - If the thing were contextually significant, then there would be an appropriate place to bring it up. The mere fact that nobody bothered to write about it proves that it isn't important at all. You are clutching at straws now. Fut.Perf. ☼ 05:27, 17 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
        Um...what are you talking about? Nearly everybody wrote about the site. That's why it's the subject of critical commentary within the article. Many described the profile at hand. Some actually included illustrations of the profile. Many referred to the actual Hoosiermate.com. — Hun ter Ka hn 14:11, 17 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This apparently fails the 'contextual significance' clause of the NFCC. If it was at all important, it would be in the text. That it isn't in the text means that it isn't important. As for the image itself, it's so easily describable that if if the image were to be justified by the text, the image itself would fail the 'not describable by text alone' clause. Sven Manguard Wha? 07:14, 17 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- As was previously stated, this is discussed in the text. And unless I'm mistaken (which is entirely possible), the threshold here isn't whether it's describable by text alone (because, technically, that would preclude everything, as just about anything can be described by text), but rather per WP:FUC "its presence would significantly increase readers' understanding of the topic, and its omission would be detrimental to that understanding. Purely decorative images are not appropriate". I would argue it meets the standard because it illustrates the dating service website that is a major part of the episode, and that it's omission would be detrimental. the detrimental clause doesn't mean it would be impossible for the reader to understand the subject without the image, it simply means that it would be less helpful without the image than it would be with the image, and I believe that is the case here. — Hun ter Ka hn 19:18, 22 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Repeated Canvassing is likely to bring ILIKEIT votes here. The closing admin is respectfully reminded to vote counts and judge the arguments according to our policies. --Damiens.rf 19:41, 23 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- For the sake of keeping this conversation in one place (there are so many deletion noms open right now), please see my response to this here. I've removed the messages, but some further guidance on whether this is indeed canvassing would be appreciated. — Hun ter Ka hn 19:46, 23 May 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:Parks and recreation eagleton.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 Peripitus (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 13:09, 26 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Non-free screenshot in a TV episode infobox. While the scene shown (two female protagonists engaged in a physical fight on top of some garbage bags) is the object of some discussion in the article, it does not appear the visual presence of the image is needed to understand the article. In fact, the verbal description I just gave above offers an exhaustive and more than adequate equivalent of the information value of this image. Fut.Perf. ☼ 20:27, 16 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

- Keep I think the image adds value to the article and increases the readers' understanding of the subject matter, so I feel it meets the fair use parameters for a television screenshot image and should stay. This is not simply a decorative infobox image, and I think the existing fair use rationale explains why. — Hun ter Ka hn 21:17, 16 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  - (a) What exactly is hard to understand about the phrase "two female protagonists engaged in a physical fight on top of some garbage bags"? (b) What exactly does the image tell me that the sentence doesn't tell me? (c) What about the things the image tells me while the sentence doesn't is so crucial to understanding the article that we can't do without them? Fut.Perf. ☼ 21:29, 16 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    - WP:FUC reads "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. Purely decorative images are not appropriate." This scene can be explained in words, yes, but is more easily, fully and better understood with the presence of the illustration. Thus it's removal would be detrimental to the understanding of the reader, and thus the FUC is appropriate under a screenshot criteria. There is a contextual significance to the use of this image, it's not merely decorative. — Hun ter Ka hn 04:34, 17 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The image itself is of such poor quality as to be worthless. I have to be told what is going on. As I mentioned above, this is so easily describable (indeed in this case words would do better than this image can) that even if there were supporting text I'd still be in favor of axing this. Sven Manguard Wha? 07:20, 17 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I've decided to withdraw my support for this image (above) because, although I'm the one that uploaded it in the first place, I've decided Sven is correct; the image is of poor quality, and the benefit of having the image to display the rivalry between the two characters is offset by the quality issues. I think a better image of the fight would probably serve a better purpose, but I'm not sure one could be captured because the fight itself is so fast, so I'm not necessarily planning to upload one. — Hun ter Ka hn 19:21, 22 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Repeated Canvassing is likely to bring ILIKEIT votes here. The closing admin is respectfully reminded to vote counts and judge the arguments according to our policies. --Damiens.rf 19:41, 23 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- For the sake of keeping this conversation in one place (there are so many deletion noms open right now), please see my response to this here. I've removed the messages, but some further guidance on whether this is indeed canvassing would be appreciated. — Hun ter Ka hn 19:46, 23 May 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:JasminumSambac 2 years old.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: Moved to Commons: File:Jasminum sambac 2 years old.jpg. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 05:32, 24 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned, unencyclopedic due to unidentifiable subject Acather96 (talk) 20:38, 16 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

After uploading this image the uploader's next edit, 7 minutes later, was to add the file to Jasminum sambac but, due to a capitalisation error, ("MG" instead of "Mg") it appeared as a redlink,[2] and was removed from the article several days later.[3] I've added appropriate summary information and moved the file to File:JasminumSambac 2 years old.jpg, but have left the redirect active until the conclusion of this discussion. --AussieLegend (talk) 12:20, 17 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: The file was moved from File:Mg 7394.jpg to File:JasminumSambac 2 years old.jpg by AussieLegend (talk · contribs) at 12:11, 17 May 2011 (UTC). AnomieBOT ⚡ 14:07, 17 May 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:Persian Gulf by Gamal Abdel Nasser.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 Peripitus (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 13:09, 26 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Non-free image of an historical written document, used to demonstrate a certain of word choice in the text shown. Fails NFCC#8: we don't use non-free images to prove historical facts. We use reliable sources for that purpose. If it is a significant historical fact that somebody used a certain word in a certain text, cite a reliable source that says he did so. We don't need to see an image to understand this. Fut.Perf. ☼ 20:39, 16 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

wp:NFCC#8 states that: "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." It does not mention anything about the avoidance of the use of non-free images for proving historical facts. As per wp:NFCC#8 it can be understood that the presence of image should have a significant effect in understanding of the reader and its omission prevents him from this understanding. The article in which the image is used is Persian Gulf naming dispute, so it is about the dispute on its naming. If you read the contents of that article it is mentioned that the use of "Arabian gulf" came into existence as a result of Gamal Abdel Nasser's pan-Arabist methods. So here we have a historical document which approves the same. It shows that even the Gamal Abdel Nasser, himself was using the name "Persian gulf" before adopting his pan-Arabist ideas for renaming it into the "Arabian gulf". So in such a critical case, the presence of that historical document has a significant effect on readers understanding about how the distortion of name took place. Note that the main topic of the article is about the naming dispute. So the presence of such image increases the understanding of reader significantly. There is no mention about avoidance of the use of historical documents, but the only thing that is mentioned is increasing the understanding significantly, which it does. I couldn't see any contradiction between that wp:NFCC#8 and the rationale of this image. If I'm wrong please justify me. Thank you. --Wayiran (talk) 21:15, 16 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

If you are saying this is wp:OR, we can support the same by reliable sources. But still the presence of this document, increases the reader's understanding about the fact. --Wayiran (talk) 21:20, 16 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, no, it doesn't. 99% of our readers won't even be able to read it anyway. The only thing they need to understand the thing is a textual description quoting, in translation, what he actually said. The visual appearance of the telegram is entirely irrelevant to the point being made. Fut.Perf. ☼ 21:26, 16 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You are right. The majority of readers can't understand what is written there. But anyway when there is a copy of the original document there, its just like more confidence about the reliability of the mentioned document; in this way it will increase their understanding. Also we can underline the part written Persian gulf, and in caption say that the underlined part is "Persian gulf". You might be right, but what I feel overall is that it will somehow increase the understanding of it's readers. Thanks anyway --Wayiran (talk) 21:50, 16 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I just found out that this official Egyptian document is in public domain. I've changed the copyright status, accordingly. We're discussing a moot point here, it's a free document per PD-Egypt. As for your concerns about the verifiability of the text, I will cite the news source for the text of the translation and its significance, in the image caption. --Wayiran (talk) 08:29, 17 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- The PD condition applies only to "Official documents [...] such as laws, regulations, resolutions and decisions, international conventions, court decisions, award of arbitrators and decisions of administrative committees having judicial competence". I don't see how a telegram falls into this category. The rule does not automatically apply to any odd document merely because it was produced by a state organ. Fut.Perf. ☼ 08:37, 17 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

A sitting president's sealed/stamped letter is an official document of the state no matter how you spin it. The "etc" in front of official documents applies here, or you'd have to prove otherwise. There is no restrictions or qualifications listed for official documents, or you'd need to prove that, the "etc" does not cover all official documents of the state. The law says "such as", not "limited to". The other items listed in paranthes are merely examples of what in official document might be, not a condition of exclusivity, the "etc" covers other items such as the head of the state's letter. --Wayiran (talk) 08:46, 17 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

If this is an issue, which it looks like it might be, take it to WP:MCQ. Let a neutral expert sort it out. Sven Manguard Wha? 18:38, 17 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, that's a great suggestion. I'll post a RFC there tomorrow. --Wayiran (talk) 20:02, 17 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as unencyclopedic. It does not matter whether it is free or not. Encyclopedias do not publish primary sources. If there is a reliable published source that says Nassar said “Persian Gulf,” you can cite that. If there is no such source, then it would be original research; an image published in Wikipedia cannot be used for verification, for Wikipedia is not a reliable source. —teb728 t c 08:54, 19 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- There are sources, and they will be cited for the caption. But this is an important document that could be displayed for better understanding of the reader. --Wayiran (talk) 13:34, 19 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per my comments. --Wayiran (talk) 21:32, 21 May 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:Aaron.jpg

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

The result of the discussion was: Delete; deleted as F4 by Future Perfect at Sunrise (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) A file with this name on Commons is now visible. AnomieBOT ⚡ 08:05, 17 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Completely bonked upload history with multiple unrelated images uploaded on top of each other without copyright information. Only the very first, from 2007, ever had a plausible author/copyright statement, but that image was an unencyclopedic photograph of a non-notable kid used only in a short-lived A7/attack page. All later images were uploaded over it without making any change to the copyright declaration and are most likely copyvios. Oh yes, and the second upload, the one that was in use for much of the time until today, was uploaded by an editor who was later blocked as a serial copyvio offender, so it's probably bad too. Fut.Perf. ☼ 20:48, 16 May 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:Deangelo's accident.jpg

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

The result of the discussion was: Delete; deleted as F7 by Future Perfect at Sunrise (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 08:15, 21 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Non-free TV episode screenshot. Apparently random scene, not embedded in analytical commentary, not needed to understand the article. Fails NFCC#8, just like so many others. Fut.Perf. ☼ 21:22, 16 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete not needed image.--Breawycker (talk to me!) Review Me! 22:38, 16 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete now orphaned. See 19 May deletion discussion on replacement image, sigh, move on. Sven Manguard Wha? 18:38, 19 May 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:ThesaB.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 Skier Dude (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 05:19, 24 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

OR, UE. Someone's wedding photos WP:NOTHOST, also
File:ThesaBgirls.jpg and
File:Darylllbryant.jpg
Ronhjones ^(Talk) 21:49, 16 May 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:Portalgame.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: Kept. Relevant and informative to the article. --Hadal (talk) 23:16, 31 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This image is no longer warranted. This image is redundant to the other three images- portals are illustrated by the diagram and the portrait, the graphics are shown by the portrait and the cube is shown by the merch image. The image is no longer used where it was; it is now simply tacked on to the plot section. J Milburn (talk) 22:13, 16 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. It is not currently used well; however, I think that it is vital to have an image that shows an accurate depiction of the gameplay, more so than, say, an image of Chell. - The New Age Retro Hippie used Ruler! Now, he can figure out the length of things easily. 00:51, 17 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral leaning Delete - It's a shame that the image of Chell isn't better. There's one portal there, but if I had the PC version I'm sure I'd be able to rig up an image with both portals and Chell showing. (Curve your hand in an L shape. Put one portal in your palm and the other in your finger joints, if Chell is staring into the one in your palm, she'll be facing towards out of the one in your fingers. It's a perfect shot, you can pull it off on one or two places very easily.) As it is, this image itself really useful, as it dosen't show the mechanics of the portal, just that they are pretty circles. Sven Manguard Wha? 08:03, 17 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Unfortunately while the main contributor to the article, I didn't upload that file, so I didn't see this until it was deleted from the page, but this discussion is not yet closed (and two votes like this should not be a delete, but that I'll take up with the admin). Both the Chell image and the gameplay image AND the free portal workings were in the article at the time of its FAC a few years ago (eg all reviewed for NFCC) [4] so there's already some validation for its use in addition to the free image, and the look of the test chambers is described within the text of the article regarding its sterile white nature, a factor the Chell image can't really give. If anything, the Chell image is now duplicative (since we have an article on her specifically). --MASEM (t) 12:20, 26 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- If you are able to reduce the amount of NFC in this article (note also the above comment about merging the two images) then go for it. J Milburn (talk) 13:23, 26 May 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:ANTFarmCast.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: Kept - Peripitus (Talk) 11:50, 26 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

per WP:FILMNFI since it lacks significance to justify fair use. This is only a portrait of the main characters of the well-known television series, and adds nothing to readers' understanding of the article. Sbtdu (talk) 22:59, 16 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Other Disney Channel Original Series pages have the same images released by Disney. It seem as if this user has been on my case about this one image for no apparent reason ever since I uploaded it. I say keep it. --DisneyFriends (talk) 02:11, 17 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. It is an image of cast members in character as a group for the show. It is descriptive and cannot easily be replaced by a free alternative. Elizium23 (talk) 04:56, 17 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I really don't see the issue with including an in-character cast photo in the cast section of a television article. Since this is a television article and not a film article I'm not sure of the relevance of WP:FILMNFI here. There's nothing in MOS:TV, which is relevant, to preclude its use. The image identifies the characters in the program in a way that can't adequately be done with prose so it seems to have appropriate significance. Its use doesn't seem to breach WP:NFCC#8 for this reason and since there's no free alternative for in-character cast photos, WP:NFCC#1 seems fine too. Most TV program articles include cast photos so there's adequate precedent for retention of the image. --AussieLegend (talk) 06:06, 17 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep My opinion of the Manual of Style, and people who quote it in arguments, is exceedingly low. The only thing that matters here is the NFCC, which is policy. I tightened up the image description page, but other than that, this is fine. Sven Manguard Wha? 07:51, 17 May 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.