Wikipedia:Files for deletion/2011 May 3

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 (status of file not stated by bot, added by — BQZip01 — ^talk)

File:Bill the Goat.jpg (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Joaquin Murietta (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log).

This is a low-resolution duplicate of File:US Navy 000902-N-9848G-002 U.S. Naval Academy mascot.jpg. It is cropped somewhat, but given the small size I feel this file isn't needed. XLerate (talk) 01:20, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep It is PD and being used. I see no valid rationale for deletion. — BQZip01 — ^talk 03:14, 4 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.

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 VernoWhitney (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 15:07, 10 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

File:Eric Turner.jpg (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Warnellw (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log).

Nonfree image used to illustrate the article of a living person. Clearly fails NFCC. 68.35.40.154 (talk) 02:51, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 21:57, 3 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.

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: All of these, 1.3 though 1.19, have been withdrawn. What is needed here is a case by case examination, extensive cleanup, and perhaps a few deletions. At this point, however, there is consensus against a deletion of this scale. I really do believe that people have taken fair use to an absolutely laughable and appallingly overboard place on the

File:Hirst-Beautiful.jpg (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Tyrenius (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log).

Non free image used as gallery fodder. Fails NFCC#1 in spin art, fails NFCC#8 and NFCC#3a in all pages it is used in.

• Keep Works of visual art must be seen and there is no No free equivalent available. Words alone do not work to describe something that must be seen. Unique visual painting and absolutely essential to demonstrate the meaning of the work and this article, passes per
  WP:NFCC#8. Essential in order to demonstrate the visual meaning of important contemporary painting, This is a seminal work of this particular artist...Modernist (talk) 11:08, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Keep Major work by a prominent artist. JNW (talk) 11:43, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep impossible to describe adequately with words. Casliber (talk · contribs) 11:57, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per others. Needed at Damien Hirst. Perhaps Swen would like to specify which images he does think suitable to use to illustrate contemporary art, or should it just be left unillustrated? Johnbod (talk) 13:08, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • My issue is that there are dozens of non-free images on some of these pages. I was unaware of the foundation's statement, but having dozens of non-free images on a page is simply unacceptable. I did not intentionally place up for deletion all the non-free images in a particular section, I prioritized on a) Non-free images in sections where free use images also in the same galleries, and b) Non-free images that were seemingly redundant to other non-free images. I have nothing against using a few, maybe a half dozen even, fair-use images in a page. Having two dozen or more is just too much.
    Wha? 20:30, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply
    ]
• Keep per the highly respected users above. If there's an issue on certain page(s), deal with it there; nominating the image for deletion is absolutely not the right way to handle the perceived problem. MANdARAX • XAЯAbИAM 20:54, 3 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.

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; see above.

File:Spin painting annick gendron.jpg (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Oscar glutermerck (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log).

Non free image used as gallery fodder. Fails NFCC#1 in spin art, fails NFCC#8 in all pages it is used in.

• Comment. Before I vote anything, I'll make one comment here that goes for the whole series of modern paintings nominations below. Using illustrations of artworks for articles about the art is the core of what Fair Use is actually all about, and the main reason why we preserve the whole exception about allowing non-free images in the first place. It is also true that articles about visual art styles, painters etc., if they have substantial analytic content, may often be in very genuine need of illustration, so I'm prepared to give article authors quite a bit of leeway if they feel they need more than just one or two images in an article (especially where we are dealing with actual art, which poses substantial issues of understanding and aesthetic appreciation, and not just trivial pop-culture junk). However, we also see here the dangers of that perversion of policy and process that is the use of meaningless boilerplate FURs, unfortunately practiced by so many uploaders. I expect that some of the images nominated here do in fact have some important function in some one or other of the articles they are used in. But I can't be bothered to read all those articles from beginning to end to find out if and where that is the case. The FURs ought to tell me, at a quick glance. But they don't. Instead, all the image descriptions I've seen are filled with the same stereotypical rows of wordy, unreadable, completely meaningless pseudo-legalese canned "rationales", usually repeated multiple times in identical form. What they ought to be doing is to provide a quick, simple, individual explanation saying: "I need this particular image to illustrate such-and-such an artistic concept, or such-and-such an aesthetic effect, which is crucial for the artistic history of X because of Y." That's what uploaders are told to do, all over the place. Why, oh why, is it that nobody ever does what these FURs are supposed to be there for? Fut.Perf. ☼ 11:14, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed - the FuR's can and should be re-written better...Modernist (talk) 11:28, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep and - Comment As
  WP:NFCC#8
  :

Significance. 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.

Visual art is the parmount place where this applies. The understanding is in the seeing, and no amount of words can substitute for that. Template:Non-free 2D art states that the use of non-free images for critical commentary on

• the work in question,
• the artistic genre or technique of the work of art or
• the school to which the artist belongs

are all legitimate. The description of changing modes and ideas in art is critical commentary, whose meaning can only be properly comprehended by literally seeing it...Modernist (talk) 11:59, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep The only colour image at Annick Gendron. Swven, please stop wasting everyone's time with these inaccurate and ill-prepared noms. Johnbod (talk) 13:11, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • My issue is that there are dozens of non-free images on some of these pages. I was unaware of the foundation's statement, but having dozens of non-free images on a page is simply unacceptable. I did not intentionally place up for deletion all the non-free images in a particular section, I prioritized on a) Non-free images in sections where free use images also in the same galleries, and b) Non-free images that were seemingly redundant to other non-free images. I have nothing against using a few, maybe a half dozen even, fair-use images in a page. Having two dozen or more is just too much.
    Wha? 20:31, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply
    ]
• Keep The image appears, appropriately used, on only two pages and is not part of a gallery – let alone "fodder" – on either. MANdARAX • XAЯAbИAM 21:07, 3 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.

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; see above.

File:'Where', 252 x 362 cm. magna on canvas painting by Morris Louis, Hirshhorn Museum and Sculpture Garden, 1960.jpg (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Wmpearl (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log).

Non free image used as gallery fodder. Fails NFCC#1, NFCC#8, and in many pages, NFCC#3a.

• Keep Works of visual art must be seen and there is no No free equivalent available. Words alone do not work to describe something that must be seen. Unique visual painting and absolutely essential to demonstrate the meaning of the work and this article; passes per
  WP:NFCC#8. Essential in order to demonstrate the visual meaning of important contemporary painting, This is a seminal work of this particular artist who is deceased...Modernist (talk) 10:41, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Keep Major work by a prominent artist; Emblematic Louis work. JNW (talk) 11:43, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per JNW & Modernist. Only image in artist's article. Johnbod (talk) 13:20, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • My issue is that there are dozens of non-free images on some of these pages. I was unaware of the foundation's statement, but having dozens of non-free images on a page is simply unacceptable. I did not intentionally place up for deletion all the non-free images in a particular section, I prioritized on a) Non-free images in sections where free use images also in the same galleries, and b) Non-free images that were seemingly redundant to other non-free images. I have nothing against using a few, maybe a half dozen even, fair-use images in a page. Having two dozen or more is just too much.
    Wha? 20:31, 3 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.

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; see above.

File:Josef Albers's painting 'Homage to the Square', 1965.jpg (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Wpearl (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log).

Non free image used as gallery fodder. Fails NFCC#1, NFCC#8 and in most pages where it's used, NFCC#3a.

• Keep Works of visual art must be seen and there is no No free equivalent available. Unique visual painting and absolutely essential to demonstrate the meaning of the work; passes per
  WP:NFCC#8. Essential in order to demonstrate the visual meaning of important contemporary painting, Words alone do not work to describe something that must be seen. This is the seminal work of this particular artist...Modernist (talk) 10:39, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Keep Fine example of an Albers squares painting. Major work by a prominent artist. JNW (talk) 11:43, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per JNW & Modernist. You have nominated both of the 2 images in this important artist's article. Johnbod (talk) 13:22, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • My issue is that there are dozens of non-free images on some of these pages. I was unaware of the foundation's statement, but having dozens of non-free images on a page is simply unacceptable. I did not intentionally place up for deletion all the non-free images in a particular section, I prioritized on a) Non-free images in sections where free use images also in the same galleries, and b) Non-free images that were seemingly redundant to other non-free images. I have nothing against using a few, maybe a half dozen even, fair-use images in a page. Having two dozen or more is just too much.
    Wha? 20:33, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  • Note, on this specific one: I didn't mean to take out all of an artist's work, I was looking mainly at the Western Art and the 20th century art pages, where there were dozens on non-free images.
    Wha? 20:33, 3 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.

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; see above.

File:'Proto-Form (B)', oil on fiberboard work by Joseph Albers, 1938, Hirshhorn Museum and Sculpture Garden.jpg (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Wmpearl (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log).

Non free image used as gallery fodder. Fails NFCC#1, NFCC#8.

• Keep Works of visual art must be seen and there is no No free equivalent available. Unique visual painting and absolutely essential to demonstrate the meaning of the work; depicting the visual art of Albers' painting passes per
  WP:NFCC#8...Modernist (talk) 10:36, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Keep Major work by a prominent artist. JNW (talk) 11:43, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per others. Only 2 small images of his works in the article. Gallery fodder? Get with the programme Swen. Johnbod (talk) 13:00, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • My issue is that there are dozens of non-free images on some of these pages. I was unaware of the foundation's statement, but having dozens of non-free images on a page is simply unacceptable. I did not intentionally place up for deletion all the non-free images in a particular section, I prioritized on a) Non-free images in sections where free use images also in the same galleries, and b) Non-free images that were seemingly redundant to other non-free images. I have nothing against using a few, maybe a half dozen even, fair-use images in a page. Having two dozen or more is just too much.
    Wha? 20:33, 3 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.

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; see above.

File:'Bridge' by Kenneth Noland, 1964..jpg (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Wmpearl (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log).

Non free image used as gallery fodder. Fails NFCC#1, NFCC#8 and in most pages where it's used, NFCC#3a.

• Keep Works of visual art must be seen and there is no No free equivalent available. Words alone do not work to describe something that must be seen, passes per
  WP:NFCC#8. Essential in order to demonstrate the visual meaning of important contemporary painting...Modernist (talk) 10:38, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Keep Major work by a prominent artist. JNW (talk) 11:43, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per JNW & Modernist. Only 2 images in artist's article. Johnbod (talk) 13:22, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • My issue is that there are dozens of non-free images on some of these pages. I was unaware of the foundation's statement, but having dozens of non-free images on a page is simply unacceptable. I did not intentionally place up for deletion all the non-free images in a particular section, I prioritized on a) Non-free images in sections where free use images also in the same galleries, and b) Non-free images that were seemingly redundant to other non-free images. I have nothing against using a few, maybe a half dozen even, fair-use images in a page. Having two dozen or more is just too much.
    Wha? 20:33, 3 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.

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; see above.

File:Mino Argento's New York, 1973.JPG (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by MA3ARG (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log).

Non free image used as gallery fodder. Fails NFCC#1, NFCC#8 and in most pages where it's used, NFCC#3a.

• Keep per JNW & Modernist. One of only 2 images of work in artist's article, the only work from the last 80 years(!) in Italian art. Johnbod (talk) 13:25, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per above...Modernist (talk) 13:30, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • My issue is that there are dozens of non-free images on some of these pages. I was unaware of the foundation's statement, but having dozens of non-free images on a page is simply unacceptable. I did not intentionally place up for deletion all the non-free images in a particular section, I prioritized on a) Non-free images in sections where free use images also in the same galleries, and b) Non-free images that were seemingly redundant to other non-free images. I have nothing against using a few, maybe a half dozen even, fair-use images in a page. Having two dozen or more is just too much.
    Wha? 20:34, 3 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.

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; see above.

File:Voice of Fire photo.jpg (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Freshacconci (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log).

Non free image used as gallery fodder. Fails NFCC#1, NFCC#8 and in most pages where it's used, NFCC#3a.

• Keep Works of visual art must be seen and there is no No free equivalent available. Words alone do not work to describe something that must be seen passes per
  WP:NFCC#8. Essential in order to demonstrate the visual meaning of important contemporary painting, This is a seminal work of this particular artist who is deceased...Modernist (talk) 10:44, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Keep Major work by a prominent artist. JNW (talk) 11:45, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per JNW & Modernist. The painting has its own article FFS! Nom totally inadequate to justify deletion of this. Please stop wasting everybod'y time. Johnbod (talk) 13:28, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep The image of Voice of Fire is "gallery fodder" in the article Voice of Fire? This was obviously a frivolous nomination made without even bothering to check how it's used. MANdARAX • XAЯAbИAM 20:42, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • My issue is that there are dozens of non-free images on some of these pages. I was unaware of the foundation's statement, but having dozens of non-free images on a page is simply unacceptable. I did not intentionally place up for deletion all the non-free images in a particular section, I prioritized on a) Non-free images in sections where free use images also in the same galleries, and b) Non-free images that were seemingly redundant to other non-free images. I have nothing against using a few, maybe a half dozen even, fair-use images in a page. Having two dozen or more is just too much.
    Wha? 20:44, 3 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.

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; see above.

File:Untitled painting by Larry Poons, ca.1964.jpg (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Wmpearl (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log).

Non free image used as gallery fodder. Fails NFCC#1, NFCC#8 and in most pages where it's used, NFCC#3a.

• Keep Works of visual art must be seen and there is no No free equivalent available. Words alone do not work to describe something that must be seen. Unique visual painting and absolutely essential to demonstrate the meaning of the work and this article passes per
  WP:NFCC#8. Essential in order to demonstrate the visual meaning of important contemporary painting, This is a seminal work of this particular artist...Modernist (talk) 10:48, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Keep Relevant image, the only one used to illustrate the artist's biography. JNW (talk) 11:46, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per JNW & Modernist. Only image in artist's article. Johnbod (talk) 13:28, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • My issue is that there are dozens of non-free images on some of these pages. I was unaware of the foundation's statement, but having dozens of non-free images on a page is simply unacceptable. I did not intentionally place up for deletion all the non-free images in a particular section, I prioritized on a) Non-free images in sections where free use images also in the same galleries, and b) Non-free images that were seemingly redundant to other non-free images. I have nothing against using a few, maybe a half dozen even, fair-use images in a page. Having two dozen or more is just too much.
    Wha? 20:44, 3 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.

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; see above.

File:Robert Mangold's acrylic and pencil 'X Within X Orange', 1981.jpg (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Wpearl (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log).

Non free image used as gallery fodder. Fails NFCC#1, NFCC#8 and in most pages where it's used, NFCC#3a.

• Keep Works of visual art must be seen and there is no No free equivalent available. Words alone do not work to describe something that must be seen passes per
  WP:NFCC#8. Essential in order to demonstrate the visual meaning of important contemporary painting, This is a seminal work of this particular artist...Modernist (talk) 10:49, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Keep Major work by a prominent artist. JNW (talk) 11:43, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per JNW & Modernist. Only image in artist's article. Yet another lazy nom. Johnbod (talk) 13:29, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • My issue is that there are dozens of non-free images on some of these pages. I was unaware of the foundation's statement, but having dozens of non-free images on a page is simply unacceptable. I did not intentionally place up for deletion all the non-free images in a particular section, I prioritized on a) Non-free images in sections where free use images also in the same galleries, and b) Non-free images that were seemingly redundant to other non-free images. I have nothing against using a few, maybe a half dozen even, fair-use images in a page. Having two dozen or more is just too much.
    Wha? 20:45, 3 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.

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; see above.

File:Frank Stella's 'Harran II', 1967.jpg (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Wpearl (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log).

Non free image used as gallery fodder. Fails NFCC#1, NFCC#8 and in most pages where it's used, NFCC#3a.

• Keep Works of visual art must be seen and there is no No free equivalent available. Words alone do not work to describe something that must be seen passes per
  WP:NFCC#8. Essential in order to demonstrate the visual meaning of important contemporary painting, This is a seminal work of this particular artist...Modernist (talk) 10:50, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Keep Major work by a prominent artist. JNW (talk) 11:43, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per others. Needed at Frank Stella - maybe not in all other uses. Johnbod (talk) 13:03, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • My issue is that there are dozens of non-free images on some of these pages. I was unaware of the foundation's statement, but having dozens of non-free images on a page is simply unacceptable. I did not intentionally place up for deletion all the non-free images in a particular section, I prioritized on a) Non-free images in sections where free use images also in the same galleries, and b) Non-free images that were seemingly redundant to other non-free images. I have nothing against using a few, maybe a half dozen even, fair-use images in a page. Having two dozen or more is just too much.
    Wha? 20:45, 3 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.

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; see above.

File:BlackGreyBeat.jpg (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by CHE (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log).

Non free image used as gallery fodder. Fails NFCC#1, NFCC#8 and in most pages where it's used, NFCC#3a.

• Keep Works of visual art must be seen and there is no No free equivalent available. Words alone do not work to describe something that must be seen. Unique visual painting and absolutely essential to demonstrate the meaning of the work and this article passes per
  WP:NFCC#8. Essential in order to demonstrate the visual meaning of important contemporary painting, This is a seminal work of this particular artist who is deceased...Modernist (talk) 10:51, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Keep Major work by a prominent artist. Cited in artist's bio as a major work. JNW (talk) 11:47, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per others, one of only 2 works at Gene Davis (painter). Johnbod (talk) 13:05, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • My issue is that there are dozens of non-free images on some of these pages. I was unaware of the foundation's statement, but having dozens of non-free images on a page is simply unacceptable. I did not intentionally place up for deletion all the non-free images in a particular section, I prioritized on a) Non-free images in sections where free use images also in the same galleries, and b) Non-free images that were seemingly redundant to other non-free images. I have nothing against using a few, maybe a half dozen even, fair-use images in a page. Having two dozen or more is just too much.
    Wha? 20:46, 3 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.

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; see above.

File:20070624 Dubuffet - Court les rues.JPG (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by TonyTheTiger (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log).

Non free image used as gallery fodder. Fails NFCC#1, NFCC#8 and in most pages where it's used, NFCC#3a.

Keep Many of the articles in which it was used have been lazily formatted with galleries at the tops of sections, but the image could easily be integrated into the sections with a little more effort by the involved editors.--

WP:FOUR) 06:49, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply

]

• Keep Works of visual art must be seen and there is no No free equivalent available. Words alone do not work to describe something that must be seen. Unique visual painting and absolutely essential to demonstrate the meaning of the work and this article, passes per
  WP:NFCC#8. Essential in order to demonstrate the visual meaning of important contemporary painting, This is a seminal work of this particular artist...Modernist (talk) 10:55, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Keep Major work by a prominent artist. JNW (talk) 11:43, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per JNW & Modernist. Only image in artist's article. Johnbod (talk) 13:30, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • My issue is that there are dozens of non-free images on some of these pages. I was unaware of the foundation's statement, but having dozens of non-free images on a page is simply unacceptable. I did not intentionally place up for deletion all the non-free images in a particular section, I prioritized on a) Non-free images in sections where free use images also in the same galleries, and b) Non-free images that were seemingly redundant to other non-free images. I have nothing against using a few, maybe a half dozen even, fair-use images in a page. Having two dozen or more is just too much.
    Wha? 20:46, 3 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.

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; see above.

File:Jasper Johns's 'Map', 1961.jpg (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Wpearl (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log).

Non free image used as gallery fodder. Fails NFCC#1, NFCC#8 and in most pages where it's used, NFCC#3a.

• Keep Works of visual art must be seen and there is no No free equivalent available. Words alone do not work to describe something that must be seen. Unique visual painting and absolutely essential to demonstrate the meaning of the work and this article, passes per
  WP:NFCC#8. Essential in order to demonstrate the visual meaning of important contemporary painting, This is a seminal work of this particular artist...Modernist (talk) 10:57, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Keep Major work--one of his map paintings-- by a prominent artist. JNW (talk) 11:43, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per JNW & Modernist. One of only 3 images in this major artist's article. Johnbod (talk) 13:31, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • My issue is that there are dozens of non-free images on some of these pages. I was unaware of the foundation's statement, but having dozens of non-free images on a page is simply unacceptable. I did not intentionally place up for deletion all the non-free images in a particular section, I prioritized on a) Non-free images in sections where free use images also in the same galleries, and b) Non-free images that were seemingly redundant to other non-free images. I have nothing against using a few, maybe a half dozen even, fair-use images in a page. Having two dozen or more is just too much.
    Wha? 20:46, 3 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.

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; see above.

File:Milton Avery - 'Green Sea', oil on canvas 1958, University of Kentucky Art Museum (Lexington, Kentucky).jpg (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Wmpearl (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log).

Non free image used as gallery fodder. Fails NFCC#1, NFCC#8 and in most pages where it's used, NFCC#3a.

• Keep Works of visual art must be seen and there is no No free equivalent available. Words alone do not work to describe something that must be seen. Unique visual painting and absolutely essential to demonstrate the meaning of the work and this article, passes per
  WP:NFCC#8. Essential in order to demonstrate the visual meaning of important contemporary painting, This is a seminal work of this particular artist who is deceased...Modernist (talk) 10:58, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Keep Excellent example of an Avery landscape. Major work by a prominent artist. JNW (talk) 11:43, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per JNW & Modernist. The only image in his article. Ill-prepared nom. Johnbod (talk) 13:16, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • My issue is that there are dozens of non-free images on some of these pages. I was unaware of the foundation's statement, but having dozens of non-free images on a page is simply unacceptable. I did not intentionally place up for deletion all the non-free images in a particular section, I prioritized on a) Non-free images in sections where free use images also in the same galleries, and b) Non-free images that were seemingly redundant to other non-free images. I have nothing against using a few, maybe a half dozen even, fair-use images in a page. Having two dozen or more is just too much.
    Wha? 20:47, 3 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.

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; see above.

File:Meschers EK 42 (8355).jpg (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Hadams6 (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log).

Non free image used as gallery fodder. Fails NFCC#1, NFCC#8 and in most pages where it's used, NFCC#3a.

• Keep Works of visual art must be seen and there is no No free equivalent available. Words alone do not work to describe something that must be seen. Unique visual painting and absolutely essential to demonstrate the meaning of the work and this article, passes per
  WP:NFCC#8. Essential in order to demonstrate the visual meaning of important contemporary painting, This is a seminal work of this particular artist...Modernist (talk) 10:59, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Keep Major work by a prominent artist. The only work currently featured in the artist's biography. JNW (talk) 11:49, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per JNW & Modernist. Johnbod (talk) 13:15, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • My issue is that there are dozens of non-free images on some of these pages. I was unaware of the foundation's statement, but having dozens of non-free images on a page is simply unacceptable. I did not intentionally place up for deletion all the non-free images in a particular section, I prioritized on a) Non-free images in sections where free use images also in the same galleries, and b) Non-free images that were seemingly redundant to other non-free images. I have nothing against using a few, maybe a half dozen even, fair-use images in a page. Having two dozen or more is just too much.
    Wha? 20:47, 3 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.

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; see above.

File:Freud, girl-white-dog.jpg (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Cactus.man (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log).

Non free image used as gallery fodder. Fails NFCC#1, NFCC#8 and in most pages where it's used, NFCC#3a.

• Keep Works of visual art must be seen and there is no No free equivalent available. Words alone do not work to describe something that must be seen. Unique visual painting and absolutely essential to demonstrate the meaning of the work and this article, passes per
  WP:NFCC#8. Essential in order to demonstrate the visual meaning of important contemporary painting, This is a seminal work of this particular artist...Modernist (talk) 11:00, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Keep Notable work from artist's early period. Major work by a prominent artist. JNW (talk) 11:43, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep One of only 2 images of his work at
  Lucien Freud. Yaaaaawwwwn! Johnbod (talk) 13:14, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Keep To describe this as "gallery fodder", with respect to the image use in
  Lucien Freud, is somewhat wide of the mark. As Johnbod
  correctly states, this is only one of two images in the article on the artist himself, hardly a "gallery". I have not reviewed the use in other articles yet, but its use in the main article on the artist is entirely valid in illustrating one of Freud's themes, viz (from the article):
  

"Freud's portraits often depict only the sitter .... or alternatively juxtaposed with something else, as in Girl With a White Dog (1951–52) and Naked Man With Rat (1977–78). The use of animals in his compositions is widespread, and often features pet and owner."

This file is clearly not a candidate for deletion, although review of its use in other articles may be warranted, but I make no comment on that at present. Modernist is absolutely correct in all that he states above. Image use in articles relating to the visual arts is an imperative to aid reader understanding, and the fair use criteria at the time of upload clearly reflected this. There are times to apply interpretation of "the rules" appropriately to ensure that the spirit rather than the letter of said rules prevails. This is one of those situations. --Cactus.man ✍ 17:30, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• • My issue is that there are dozens of non-free images on some of these pages. I was unaware of the foundation's statement, but having dozens of non-free images on a page is simply unacceptable. I did not intentionally place up for deletion all the non-free images in a particular section, I prioritized on a) Non-free images in sections where free use images also in the same galleries, and b) Non-free images that were seemingly redundant to other non-free images. I have nothing against using a few, maybe a half dozen even, fair-use images in a page. Having two dozen or more is just too much.
    Wha? 20:47, 3 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.

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 VernoWhitney (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 15:07, 10 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

File:The Beginning of the End.png (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Thedemonhog (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log).

The stated purpose of use is to "identify the episode," yet the scene depicted in the image doesn't appear to be subject to

• Delete. While the scene shown in the image is mentioned in the plot section, the image makes no appreciable contribution to understanding that textual coverage, which is perfectly understandable all on its own. Fails NFCC#8. Fut.Perf. ☼ 16:47, 3 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.

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 VernoWhitney (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 16:07, 10 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

File:Mother and Child Reunion (DTNG).JPG (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Matthewedwards (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log).

It is not clear how this image's omission would be

• Delete. While there ostensibly is some critical commentary on the scene, it is not clear at all how the image helps to understand those critical judgments and to appreciate the staging of the scene. Somebody says the scene was "creepy" and one actor's performance was "stellar", but I can see nothing in the image that would help me appreciate how and why that was the case. Fut.Perf. ☼ 16:51, 3 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.

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 - My reading of the discussion below is that there is a consensus that the image does not pass NFCC#8. Peripitus (Talk) 10:29, 11 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

File:Doctor Who The Impossible Astronaut.jpg (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Edokter (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log).

This image doesn't seem to be subject to

• Keep. His companions are horrified to witness the astronaut killing him before he can fully regenerate. Not everyone watches Doctor Who, so you cannot expect every reader to know what a regeneration looks like. In fact, we have to presume the reader knows nothing. — Edokter (talk) — 17:20, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  In what sense is that "critical commentary"? It's a one-clause-short-of-a-sentence plot point, written from an in-universe perspective, which doesn't even have the image's subject as its subject (rather, the focus is on the reaction of the companions). If I could just quote from the

  WikiProject Doctor Who manual of style [1] for a moment: Non-free screenshots should not solely rely on a plot point to justify their use [...] it must also rely on other sections of the article; for example, a key part of the production of the episode, or an aspect of the episode which is notable among television critics. Do you think that this file meets that threshold, Edokter? ╟─TreasuryTag►secretariat─╢ 17:24, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply

  ]

  Why would I need to "know what a regeneration looks like" in order to understand what the text says about the scene? I don't. In fact, after looking at the image, I still don't. It doesn't matter either way. What's important for the plot is that it is some kind of process, and during that process somebody comes and shoots the guy. Simple. Fut.Perf. ☼ 17:29, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• keep – visually shows the emotional scene which is discussed in the production section (Gillan being upset about it) and an event which was commented heavily on by reviewers. Helps set the emotional tone (death of the Doctor) which in my opinion just text doesn't fully achieve which helps the understanding of the reactions better. _Xeworlebi ^(talk) 17:38, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  But that's about Karen Gillan, and about how she was "acting her heart out." That was what was commented on. This image doesn't show that. Like I said just above, it doesn't even have the image's subject as its subject (rather, the focus is on the reaction of the companions). How does this file help us to understand Karen's emotional response better? ╟─TreasuryTag►prorogation─╢ 17:42, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  As I said, this helps (me) to understand why she reacted that way not how, the subject is the Doctors death which is in the picture and described and commented on in every section of the article; plot, production, reception, … _Xeworlebi ^(talk) 12:19, 7 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• keep - Illustrates a major plot point, and helps to show a difficult to understand concept. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jasonfward (talk • contribs)

  Is it subject to

  critical commentary in the article, because that's required? ╟─TreasuryTag►Not-content─╢ 19:16, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply

  ]

• delete: the "major plot point" is not in need of illustration to be understood, and the "difficult to understand concept" (I suppose you mean that of "regenerating") isn't the object of any particular discussion in the article. The article speaks of it as if it was simply taking it for granted, so why would we need an illustration of it here? It has a whole article to itself. (And if it really were germane to this article, it too could be described in words: "during 'regenerating', glowing light rays are seen emanating from a person's body bla bla bla". Not difficult to imagine at all. Fut.Perf. ☼ 19:38, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Clear delete. This is silly. There have been multiple attempts to find an image to decorate the infobox and then try to stretch critera to justify it. Would anyone writing about the plot here have said "hey this particular image is essential to the reader's understanding"? Of course not. This is simply a long line of trying to weasel round the NFCC. Regeneration is not even visually described in the text, so knowing what it looks like is hardly critical to anything. The way regeneration is portrayed is not important to the article - or a major feature of the episode. Besides the image isn't really useful in giving the reader an idea of what it looks like anyway.--Scott Mac 11:53, 7 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment. The NFCC rationale used for this image pretty clearly doesn't fly (or shouldn't). However, there seems to be a pretty clear consensus-in-practice that a single screenshot from a TV episodes can be used to illustrate the episode articles, providing identifying information. Particularly for long-running shows, the screenshot can provide important contextual information, especially since most TV watchers don't really keep track of the titles of episodes they've seen -- indeed, at least for many US TV series, the titles aren't even used in the broadcasts. Visual cues can be helpful in a way that textual descriptions often aren't (we all know that proverb). There are hundreds of Doctor Who episode screenshots alone, and roughly 20,000 overall (although a significant share of those illustrate character articles). Rather than picking them off piecemeal, based on the poorly written rationales rather than potential encyclopedic function, we should have a centralized discussion on the underlying issues and make our treatment of such images consistent. (The NFCC issue is independent of the case-by-case decision on how well-chosen a particular image may be; some seem rather randomly selected.) Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 17:46, 7 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  I concur. — BQZip01 — ^talk 21:03, 7 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  The NFCC rationale used for this image pretty clearly doesn't fly – I agree entirely, therefore it should be deleted now, for why hold back from doing/starting something that needs to be done? I do also agree that there is a wider issue, though, of course! ╟─TreasuryTag►sheriff─╢ 22:20, 7 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  Just because a rationale isn't appropriate, it doesn't mean the image can't be used. The rationale could be improved or the image could be used elsewhere. We shouldn't delete images solely because they need some improvement on a rationale. — BQZip01 — ^talk 18:09, 8 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  Do you have any suggestions for bringing the rationale in this case up to scratch? ╟─TreasuryTag►Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster─╢ 18:15, 8 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  I don't really have an input on this image's rationale other than "The NFCC rationale used for this image pretty clearly doesn't fly" isn't a good reason for deletion. — BQZip01 — ^talk 09:03, 9 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  So you're saying that there's a rectifiable fault with the image which means that it shouldn't be deleted, but you can't even suggest how the fault could be rectified? Thanks for that. So helpful. ╟─TreasuryTag►condominium─╢ 09:05, 9 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete again, fails NFCC as there is no critical commentary adequate to support it. Again noting that if kept this must be moved from the infobox to the article to accompany critical commentary --Errant ^(chat!) 20:10, 7 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• keep contents of this image is mentioned in every section of the article, the infobox is thus the most appropriate place for it —Preceding unsigned comment added by 204.12.251.46 (talk) 20:55, 7 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  Can you explain how it would be hard for you to understand the article without it? ╟─TreasuryTag►Regional Counting Officer─╢ 22:14, 7 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  I've blocked that IP address as an open proxy. It won't be replying. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 22:17, 7 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Template:Infobox_television_episode just states image should be relevant to the episode.REVUpminster (talk) 22:50, 7 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  And what about Wikipedia's

  policy on non-free content, which (and this may surprise you) takes precedence over some random template page? ╟─TreasuryTag►assemblyman─╢ 22:56, 7 May 2011 (UTC)[reply

  ]

  Maybe you can tweak the rationale similar to your own screenshots of Dr WHO episodes to keep everybody happy as all the above is getting out of hand.REVUpminster (talk) 23:25, 7 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  If you think that this image's faults can be solved by "tweaking the rationale" then you either haven't read the discussion above or don't understand the non-free content policy. Sorry. ╟─TreasuryTag►hemicycle─╢ 08:52, 8 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  If the documentation page for a template contradicts a policy, then the obvious thing to do is to fix the template page. Done now. Fut.Perf. ☼ 06:38, 8 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Regatding the purported critical commentary discussed, the character is reacting to an event (a character's killing), not the aesthetics or visuals specifically. The event can be described in prose, so the image doesn't meet
  WP:NFCC#8. — Fourthords | =/\= | 19:58, 9 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.

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⚡ 11:06, 11 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

File:Tomb Raiderfilm2.jpg (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Dr. Blofeld (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log).

Non-essential movie screenshot. Merely shows two protagonists in a nondescript random scene. Not the object of analytical commentary. Meaningless boilerplate FUR; the only ostensibly meaningful bit in it (significant in identifying the subject of the article, which is the film itself) is plain wrong, because that's not what the image is being used for (the infobox has a different piece of cover art). Fails NFCC#8. Fut.Perf. ☼ 20:12, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. This image is being used to illustrate the "Cast" section with a nonfree image of living persons, and therefore clearly fails NFCC requirements. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 20:24, 3 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.

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) A file with this name on Commons is now visible. AnomieBOT⚡ 12:06, 11 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

File:Nitro.png (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Lyndametref (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log).

Orphan file. Looks more like Nitromethane - needs an "R" at bottom left to show it's about a group.  Ronhjones  ^(Talk) 22:02, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep move to commons, alternate representation of nitromethane, or "nitro" in automotive circles. 64.229.100.153 (talk) 05:17, 4 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.

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⚡ 12:06, 11 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

File:Nitrile.png (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Lyndametref (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log).

Orphan file. Looks more like Acetonitrile, needs an "R" on the left to show it's about a group  Ronhjones  ^(Talk) 22:04, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Rename to "Acetonitrile.png" and move to commons, as an alternate representation. 64.229.100.153 (talk) 05:20, 4 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.

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⚡ 11:06, 11 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

File:Airborne ranger.field manual.jpg (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Roger Gianni (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log).

It is a mere duplicate (even if not exact) of File:Airborne Ranger Coverart.png, used in the same article, Airborne Ranger. The purpose of visual identification allows the second image, but not both. The manual of a videogame is not a product independent of the videogame itself. Cambalachero (talk) 23:21, 3 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.