Wikipedia:Files for deletion/2013 January 6

< January 5	January 7 >

January 6

File:Ralph Offenhouse.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 James086 ^Talk 16:22, 14 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Image has been replaced in The Neutral Zone article and the Ralph Offenhouse article has been merged into a list. Therefore this image no longer appears in any articles. Miyagawa (talk) 00:30, 6 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

delete If it weren't for the LP theory (which in this case is probably applicable) this could find use in Peter Mark Richman given the lack of any other image of the actor. Otherwise I don't see us using it. Mangoe (talk) 13:22, 6 January 2013 (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:MTV Greece Screenshot.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 James086 ^Talk 16:24, 14 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This image does not pass the NFCC by being used for decorative purposes. (#8) Guerillero | My Talk 08:32, 6 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Obvious delete, completely random screenshot, presumably of some unidentified music video or other, otherwise unrelated to the topic of the article. Fut.Perf. ☼ 13:15, 6 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
delete I can't even figure out what this is a picture of. Is it a bumper in the show? Is it part of a video? Are we even seeing a scene in Greece? I don't know about its value as decoration, but it certainly isn't helping my understanding. Mangoe (talk) 13:16, 6 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Looks to me like somebody dancing tsifteteli in a dried-up canalized riverbed. Probably from a music video being played on the TV channel. Fut.Perf. ☼ 13:51, 6 January 2013 (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:ST-TNG Symbiosis.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 James086 ^Talk 16:26, 14 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Non-free TV episode screenshot, used in infobox. Apparently random scene, easily described in words, not embedded in critical discussion, not necessary for understanding any particularly important part of the article. Article consists almost entirely of plot summary, no critical analysis. Image was evidently uploaded on the mistaken assumption that every episode article can have an "identifying" image as a matter of course; FUR only says "Visual ID on episode". Obvious NFCC#8 failure. Fut.Perf. ☼ 08:59, 6 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

delete This at least shows the guest stars, so one could press the (IMO weak) argument that identifies the episode that way. But it's not a good shot for the purpose, and I don't recall these particular alien humanoids being particularly distinctive or memorable. And after that, it's a routine alien-vs.-alien fight scene. Mangoe (talk) 13:13, 6 January 2013 (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.

And do you call this a good picture?? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heart_of_Glory - A picture of the warp core. Lol. --Sage Veritas (talk) 12:31, 3 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

File:ST-TNG Skin of Evil.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 Explicit (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 02:01, 15 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Non-free TV episode screenshot, used in infobox. Apparently random scene, easily described in words, not embedded in critical discussion, not necessary for understanding any particularly important part of the article. Obviously insufficient FUR ("Visual ID on episode"). Obvious NFCC#8 failure. Fut.Perf. ☼ 09:01, 6 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

delete This, unfortunately, is a classic example of why not all these screenshots can be kept. It's a pretty routine ST scene, and the key person in it, Denise Crosby, is at an angle where she isn't immediately recognizable. More to the point, everything that's important about this scene has to be described in text. I would add that it's obviously not a random scene if you actually bother to read anything about it, so I'm wondering if this is just another approach to a boilerplate nomination. Still, I cannot defend keeping this image. Mangoe (talk) 13:08, 6 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment The above image is a like-for-like replacement for File:YarKilled.png (in a different file format), which was replaced as part of an ongoing task of mine - replacing the poor quality SD images from ST-TNG with better quality (but still low-res) HD images, and standardising image titles. However, the requests I put in to get images renamed have prompted a few FfD discussions, and this is not different.

The old image was present on the article on 20 December 2012, when the article recieved GA status. Hence, it can possibly be argued that the image does contribute to the article. In light of this, I would also like to propose that if this image is not appropriate, we find one which is - possibly this one, or this one, which show Yar more clearly, and the marking of her face. Eladkse (talk) 18:51, 6 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete There might be a better image from that episode to represent this but it is certainly not this one given how generic it is. The argument that the article's passed GA is not a valid argument (WP:ITSGA). --MASEM (t) 15:00, 7 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- You misunderstand my comment - I wasn't specifically saying that GA implies that the image should be kept. My main point was if we could change the image if this one is not appropriate. I have already made two suggestions above. Eladkse (talk) 16:17, 7 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  - I don't think either of those work - there's little about Yar's death outside of being a plot element that really is discussed in a manner that needs illustration. That said, there is a lot of discussion about the effects around the shots they used for the creature in the article, and this would justify an image that includes that creature (with or without Yar, but enough to show the creature as having rising from the tar-like substance). That doesn't affect this image though. --MASEM (t) 17:55, 7 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    - No, that's fine. I never said it affected whether this should be deleted. It's just that the filename would be reused for any new image on the episode, so I thought I would make the suggestion. Out of interest, per your comments on what might be suitable, what are your thoughts on one of these images of the creature: [1] [2] [3] Eladkse (talk) 18:20, 7 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - critical to understanding. Particularly notable in the "mundaneness" in the first killing off of a major character in the Star Trek franchise, which is well communicated by an image in a way that words can't. Removing the image would leave readers with a substantially impaired understanding of the subject matter. WilyD 10:16, 10 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Is there some reason that this image is more important to the article than any of the 3 that Eladkse linked? I think one of those would be far more appropriate for inclusion as I can easily imagine people huddling around an corpse. It's not so easy to picture an animated tar pit. James086 ^Talk 16:47, 14 January 2013 (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:Robotic Richard Simmons.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. Consensus here is to delete regardless of the original FFD nomination. The image has been deemed unnecessary to the article. James086 ^Talk 17:03, 14 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Please see DRV discussion. Since FFD was far from clear I have decided to relist this but I recommend that those commenting explain clearly how this meets/doesn't meet the NFCC as assertions and straight opinions add no value to the discussion. Spartaz ^Humbug! 11:59, 6 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. While there is substantial discussion of the scene from which this image is taken, the image as such does little or nothing to make any particular points of that discussion understood. The only aspect of discussion that I can think of that could potentially create a need of visual support would be if the text discussed the specific artistic choices in making the cartoon robot reminiscent of the real-live personality in question, but this aspect is in fact not being discussed in the text at all (and the technique is so routine across multiple episodes and such a common element of the style of the this series that it would hardly warrant specific discussion here.) To all the other things that are discussed in the text – the comic success of the scene or the lack thereof; its appropriateness or lack thereof in the context of the plot structure, etc. – the image makes essentially no contribution. It doesn't tell us why the scene was funny or not (presumably, only the dialogue would); it doesn't help us to understand why the scene would have been distracting to audiences, and so on. Fut.Perf. ☼ 12:32, 6 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

"A need of visual support" is not the standard for fair use, and if only "a need of visual support" would suffice, then Wikipedia would contain very few fair use images indeed. The standard is whether the image enhances the viewer's understanding of the topic; and it enhances mine. I'm not an American, or a subject-matter expert in popular culture, or a Simpsons enthusiast. I don't know who Richard Simmons is based just on the name. I have no idea what a Robotic Richard Simmons would look like unless you show me a picture.—S Marshall T/C 12:59, 6 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- I have no idea who Richard Simmons is either, or what he looks like. For that purpose, we have an article, which is conveniently labelled Richard Simmons and has a photo of him, and is linked to from the episode text. As for the question of what a Simpsons cartoon version of him would look like, that is no different from the myriad of other cameo appearances of American real-life personalities in the show – it's a common stylistic feature of the Simpsons that it will introduce cartoon figures with faces and hairstyles vaguely resembling some celebrity or other; it happens in almost every episode and the effect is pretty much always the same. Fut.Perf. ☼ 13:13, 6 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- This isn't the same as every other cameo appearance by real-life people though, as none (or at least none-other I can think of) are depicted as a robot. While robots do feature quite prominently in Futurama, they don't in The Simpsons and the depiction is very different between the Richard Simmons robot and e.g. Bender so this does not give any help and may actually mislead people who have not seen/don't remember the episode. The image of the real-life Richard Simmons in the article does not help my understanding of the topic at all and so is not a replacement for the image under discussion here. Indeed I believe that the best way to aid people's understanding is to present the images of the real and robotic Richard Simmons together - which obviously requires keeping this image. Thryduulf (talk) 13:41, 6 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
note that I have expanded the replacability section of the NFUR slightly to note that other screenshots from the episode (noted as possible replacements) would be equally non-free and that it can not be replaced by a free image. Thryduulf (talk) 13:41, 6 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I have added back non-free image and used free image as part of gallery. I'll improve rationale soon --George Ho (talk) 15:45, 6 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment and I will not be voting. Since my initial understanding was nil, reading the text and looking at the two images has, I suppose, significantly enhanced my understanding. There will be other people (some of them here) similarly enhanced. One photo of Simmons himself does not suffice. However, the specific topic being discussed in the article seems to me so utterly unimportant that the encyclopedia would not be impaired if the images were removed (but importance of a topic is an editorial matter and not for FfD). The image would then be orphaned. Thoroughly bad deletion practices at FfD in the past have inflamed matters so an attempt now to edit the article in this way would be resisted as predatory. It seems absurd to suppose our use of the image contravenes fair use law so the quandary is with WMF policy which is to have an encyclopedia containing free content (with a few exceptions). Does this image "complement (within narrow limits) articles about copyrighted contemporary works" or is it otherwise a "limited exception"?[4] If not, am I misinterpreting WP:NFCC when thinking that its criteria have been met? I don't know. Thincat (talk) 11:17, 7 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, per my extensive comments in the DRV discussion. Mackensen (talk) 14:48, 7 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete While the issue of the scene is discussed in text w/ sourcing, none of the text implicitly requires a non-free image to understand what is given; "Richard Simmons drawn as a robot in Groenig's style" is not a fundamental necessity to understand the fate of that scene. NFCC#8 is not met. --MASEM (t) 14:52, 7 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- See above for my comments about how this drawing of a robot is significantly different to the robots in Groening's Futurama (which features a lot more of them, and therefore will be what people consider his style) and so this image is necessary to understand the depiction here. Whether it is necessary to understand this scene to understand the episode is a different question there seems to be disagreement on, but while it remains in the article it should be taken to be so. I agree completely with Thincat's comments about deletion practices at FFD meaning that neutral discussion on this topic is going to be very difficult at this time. Thryduulf (talk) 15:54, 7 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  - We don't need to see a plot element to understand a plot element. I understand that there are diffs between this robot and Groenig's robots of Futurama, but the artistic details of the Simmons robot are not at all the subject of discussion. --MASEM (t) 16:18, 7 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete A television series like The Simpsons includes a lot of sight gags. This one is altogether trivial. And although the scene itself has a number of citations, none of them is for the design of the robot. Was there significant controversy about how to draw Richard Simmmons? If not, then what is the function of the non-free media? This would be a different story if this was an integral scene that had several citations regarding its actual appearance. Since it's not, there is no justification for keeping this according to WP:NFCC#8. (Note also that the article in which it's used is an episode that does not even include this scene.) —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 18:40, 9 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
delete I had been staying out of this, but this time I'm going to have to agree with Koavf. I'm not seeing what is especially informative about this picture beyond its description of being a robotic Simmons. Mangoe (talk) 02:57, 10 January 2013 (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:Nightttshade.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 G7 by Nyttend (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 02:01, 7 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Uploader's request;Unencyclopedic Akalillyt (talk) 16:38, 6 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted. For future reference, you may tag your own uploads with {{db-g7}}. If someone think that the image is still useful, the tag may be removed, but it will normally result in deletion. Nyttend (talk) 00:45, 7 January 2013 (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:Older and Far Away.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 No reason for this particular image to appear in the article. No analysis of the character depicted is given nor is there anything notable about her appearance (in this fictional universe). James086 ^Talk 16:36, 14 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This is being used in the infbox of Older and Far Away, the Buffy The Vampire Slayer episode this is a screenshot of. The fair use rationale given is "It illustrates the television episode in question and aids commentary and identification on the plot outline", however not once in the article text is the image referred to. The image is not captioned, and it is not clear to me (someone who has seen many but not all BtVS episodes) which character it is being represented, why or what the significance (if any) of this particular screenshot from the episode is. Reading the article there is nothing in it that obviously releates to the image, and it is not apparent that there is anything in this episode that requires an image to enhance the understanding of - it all seems like a fairly standard BtVS plot to me. BtVS is a show that has many significant episodes where images are needed to understand them, but this is not one of them. Thryduulf (talk) 17:09, 6 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Unsure - The article Older and Far Away is very messy and consisting of only plot. More improvement is needed before nominating this image for deletion again. --George Ho (talk) 17:13, 6 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Again? I can't find any reference to this image having been previously nominated. File:Buffy614.jpg that was used in this article previously was speedily deleted in 2008 (WP:CSD#F7 invalid fair use rationale), but that was a different image showing Dawn giving Buffy a present while Willow looks on - an image that is clearly related to the article, although it wouldn't enhance the understanding of it. Also, I've notified Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Buffyverse about this discussion. Thryduulf (talk) 17:23, 6 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Textbook case of a screenshot that shouldn't be there. Articles that consist only of plot renarration virtually never justify a non-free image. Also typical invalid generic pseudo-FUR. Fut.Perf. ☼ 17:26, 6 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
at this point, delete It's possible there could be text to link the image to the text (like a caption). As it is, I have to guess what it is a picture of. It certainly isn't helping my understanding. Mangoe (talk) 17:57, 6 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I'll add the caption on the main page.--NeoBatfreak (talk) 20:15, 6 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, I just added the caption to the article. At this point now, I nominate keep.--NeoBatfreak (talk) 20:20, 6 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- While that does now explain who the image is of, it does not address how the image significantly increases the readers' understanding of the article. Is the character's appearance significant for example (the article text doesn't imply so)? Is something about the selected scene critical to the episode? Is there some aspect of the picture that cannot be adequeately described in the text? Thryduulf (talk)
While there's no source to justify it in the article (presumably reviews and DVD commentaries would do the job), a caption could ideally say "The character Halfrek was created as a plot device to bring Dawn's feelings of loneliness to the attention of the other characters. Kali Rocha previously portrayed Cecily a season earlier in "Fool for Love"; writer Drew Greenberg intentionally included lines to imply the two characters were one in the same." However, there is probably a better image for use in the article. And it would be better placed in an analysis or production or reception section rather than the infobox.Zythe (talk) 16:32, 10 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- That would likely be a good addition to the article if sourceable, but why would it need an illustration of the character to enhance readers' understanding of it? Thryduulf (talk) 18:39, 10 January 2013 (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:Ellengay.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: Withdrawn. --George Ho (talk) 09:20, 8 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I planned to contact the uploader of this file, but he is blocked for now. Anyway, an audio from The Puppy Episode is more significant to illustrate than any image, like this one. This image is still (paused), consisting of mere expressions from Ellen DeGeneres and Laura Dern. Yes, it is a still image from a scene of Elle's coming out, but images don't make sounds; they make faces. Like I said, if anyone can make an audio or video file of her coming out, that would be better. But I'm discussing this image, and this image has got to go. George Ho (talk) 21:09, 6 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, per Wikipedia:Non-free content#Images; the image passes "Film and television screenshots: For critical commentary and discussion of the work in question." and "Images with iconic status or historical importance: Iconic or historical images that are themselves the subject of sourced commentary in the article are generally appropriate. Iconic and historical images which are not subject of commentary themselves but significantly aid in illustrating historical events may be used judiciously, but they must meet all aspects of the non-free content criteria, particularly no free alternatives, respect for commercial opportunity, and contextual significance." Flyer22 (talk) 21:22, 6 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I also informed Wikipedia talk:WikiProject LGBT studies of this discussion. Flyer22 (talk) 21:25, 6 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Have you read my rationale yet? I said that we could make an audio or a video as this image's replacement, can we? I know that that moment is iconic, but a mere image, even with captions, won't suffice. --George Ho (talk) 21:28, 6 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Well, anybody can download it from Youtube, then convert it to OGV, and finally upload it to Wikipedia. Unfortunately, I don't know how to convert it to OGV or OGG. --George Ho (talk) 21:38, 6 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I read your rationale. But the fact is that it does not trump that this image very clearly passes the acceptable means of use listed at Wikipedia:Non-free content; it should have never been nominated for deletion, especially with regard to its use in The Puppy Episode article. Using an audio clip instead is something that should have been discussed at the articles the image is used for. Nominating the article based on your opinion that "a mere image, even with captions, won't suffice" is not how things are supposed to work. Flyer22 (talk) 21:40, 6 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I would have asked an audio replacement earlier, but I don't know anybody who is pro at developing an OGG file. In fact, softwares that develop (record/create) OGG files is too complicate for me and any other person. I don't think an average Wikipedian can be good at converting video/audio into OGG very well. --George Ho (talk) 23:13, 6 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

When I said "even with captions", I meant that, without captions, a reader may not know what is going on in this image. Captions may help readers understand the image, but a still image still doesn't help readers either. You see Ellen going to a microphone to say something, but, without captions, a reader may not know what she is going to say. --George Ho (talk) 04:14, 7 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Flyer22. - Presidentman talk · contribs (Talkback) 00:31, 7 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

How is this image different from File:Coachs Daughter.jpg? Both images are of critical moments (see Coach's Daughter) that could be easily illustrated by either video or audio. --George Ho (talk) 00:44, 7 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Such matters are a case-by-case basis issue, as mentioned in the discussion you linked. So using WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS does not help your argument. The Puppy Episode had an incredible impact, and the image for it is used in two other articles (although it should be removed from the Coming out article since it is not aiding critical commentary in any significant way there). There is no requirement to use a video or audio in place of an image. And, as made explicitly clear above, the image you have put up for deletion passes the acceptable means of use listed at Wikipedia:Non-free content. Besides that, images are commonly used in the infobox of episode articles, such as WP:Featured article Pilot (Smallville). So, with all of that in mind, I don't understand how you view this deletion nomination as valid. Flyer22 (talk) 01:47, 7 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'm a bit confused, but as best as I can understand it the rationale is that we should delete this single low resolution screenshot, in favor of a full blown audio or video clip? That's rather turning WP:NFCC on its head, isn't it, to argue that something that copies minimally from the original should be replaced with something that copies much more substantially from the original? postdlf (talk) 02:13, 7 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Well... what about 5 or 15 seconds of the sound or video clip? Is that too substantial? --George Ho (talk) 03:54, 7 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  - WP:NFCC calls for the least use possible, which this picture meets. An audio or video clip would not, and may violate WP:NFCC #3b. - Presidentman talk · contribs (Talkback) 12:59, 7 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. One of the most historic outings ever, it marks a changed before/after context in popular culture for LGBTQ people. Insomesia (talk) 13:20, 7 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I don't understand the deletion argument. Sure, having an audio clip would also be desirable, but that's not an argument for deleting the image. We have a policy to include images where possible. Body language; facial expression; choice of self-presentation (clothes, hair); all these are uniquely discernable from an image, not an audio clip. Paul B (talk) 14:43, 7 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Pictures don't talk or verbally come out of the closet. This picture is recognizable to those who watched the whole episode, including me, but we don't know if it helps those who didn't watch. Is caption required or not required to understand the image? If not, then how can the caption help me what the picture is going to say? Image of Steve Urkel or The Boys in the Bar doesn't need captions, right? --George Ho (talk) 23:31, 7 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I think that it seems odd to nominate the picture for deletion in anticipation of having audio instead. I don't know much about the rules for image deletions, but based on my admittedly-not-super-extensive AfD experience, it seems like it would only be appropriate to nominate this for deletion after an acceptable, or preferable, substitute is obtained. I agree that the still is not amazingly helpful as compared to audio, but it's not useless. I am not sure I agree with the others above that 5 seconds of audio would violate WP:NFCC (it's not like we're using the whole episode, just a tiny portion, and it really would helpful be for critical commentary), but I do agree that it's odd to nominate a still for violating NFCC on the basis that a more extensive use of non-free content would be preferable. AgnosticAphid talk 09:08, 8 January 2013 (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.