Wikipedia:Files for deletion/2009 July 8



File:Goodmorninggoodnightdusk.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 Tiptoety  talk 22:17, 15 July 2009 (UTC)
 * File:Goodmorninggoodnightdusk.jpg ([ delete] | talk | [ history] | [} logs]) - uploaded by Antoine g92 ( [ notify] | contribs).


 * Additional non-free image that is very similar to the existing non-free image in the article. The differences (colour changed, image reversed and some text added) can easily be described adequately for reader's understanding and this additional image is not needed. Replaceable with a free (text) alternative (fails WP:NFCC) and excessive use of non-free content (fails WP:NFCC) Peripitus (Talk) 02:56, 8 July 2009 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the media's talk page or in a deletion review).  No further edits should be made to this section.

File:Hyneria.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 Tiptoety  talk 22:18, 15 July 2009 (UTC)
 * File:Hyneria.jpg ([ delete] | talk | [ history] | [} logs]) - uploaded by Gryffindor ( [ notify] | contribs).


 * Moved from WP:MFD. The original reason was Does not constitute fair use. Image is being used to identify the Hyneria genus rather than the Walking with Monsters series.  Reason "difficult to find" is not strong enough.  Also checked the license on this, it is copyrighted by BBC and strictly for their use and personal use.  Bob the Wikipedian (talk • contribs) 05:10, 8 July 2009 (UTC) MER-C 06:04, 8 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete - the image claims fair use, but is not used in any articles, and is therefore eligible for relative Speedy Deletion, which I have tagged it for.--Unscented (talk) 20:22, 8 July 2009 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the media's talk page or in a deletion review).  No further edits should be made to this section.

File:New Nightmare Claw.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 Tiptoety  talk 22:28, 15 July 2009 (UTC)
 * File:New Nightmare Claw.JPG ([ delete] | talk | [ history] | [} logs]) - uploaded by Scarce ( [ notify] | contribs).


 * Seems to be in violation of NFCC#3a. This image is used to illustrate a section discussing the claw, but the new claw is already well illustrated on the publicity photo at the start of the section, which also illustrates the change in the character's overall appearance. J Milburn (talk) 11:31, 8 July 2009 (UTC)
 * The image depicts the claw in a different aspect, you can hardly see the claw in the new photo, that what just uploaded for the hat, trenchcoat, face and shirt depiction --- Scarce  ||||  Talk  - Contrib. --- 14:24, 8 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Seems to me that the claw is far better portrayed in the other, as you actually see it on the person. J Milburn (talk) 15:51, 8 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete - we already have an adequate image of the glove in the publicity photo. From what I can see the difference between the photos is not going to significantly impair someone's understanding of the article - Peripitus (Talk) 21:39, 8 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Now that I compare the two, I can see further the better angle you get with the claw photo, the claw tips and the end of fingers are greatly depicted in the claw photo, you can barely see them in the promo pic. Because the pose he's doing and because the claw is so massive in this film, the claw gets bundled together and you can hardly see it's aspects. Look at the claw photo, how it shows everything with great detail, then look at the promo photo, it shows him wearing it. I couldn't think of a better combo of photo to show off his difference in New Nightmare. Freddy is always remembered for wearing the brown fedora, the dark red and green sweater and the very homemade looking claw. In New Nightmare, everything about his appearance changed, and i think these two photos very nicely showcase New Freddy --- Scarce  ||||  Talk  - Contrib. --- 00:02, 9 July 2009 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the media's talk page or in a deletion review).  No further edits should be made to this section.

File:Freddy Krueger Fonzies.png

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

The result of the discussion was: No consensus/keep - problems seem to have been somewhat addressed. The article mentions that the scary appearance caused the ad to be banned in one country which seems to meet the NFCC criteria of the image itself being significant to the topic. --B (talk) 14:55, 16 July 2009 (UTC)
 * File:Freddy Krueger Fonzies.png ([ delete] | talk | [ history] | [} logs]) - uploaded by Scarce ( [ notify] | contribs).


 * This minor appearance is only mentioned in passing, and an image illustrating it is not justified as per NFCC#8. J Milburn (talk) 11:33, 8 July 2009 (UTC)
 * A new depiction of Freddy? Sounds pretty important to me --- Scarce  ||||  Talk  - Contrib. --- 14:26, 8 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Then why is it only mentioned in passing? J Milburn (talk) 15:51, 8 July 2009 (UTC)
 * It's not exactly mentioned in passing, it does have it's own paragraph, plus the comment on the image in the thumb gives a description --- Scarce  ||||  Talk  - Contrib. --- 23:48, 8 July 2009 (UTC)
 * I think the problem with this image is two things. The first is that the source doesn't actually talk about his physical appearance (i.e. how it compares to the films), which means the critical commentary is on the commercial itself and not on anything specifically seen (not to mention that the source looks like someone's web blog). Second, the image is so dark and small that you really cannot tell how Freddy looks in this commercial. Low resolution is important for non-free images, but no so much that you cannot tell what you are viewing. If we could get a source discussing how he actually appears, then a shot from the O.25 sec mark would be good.   BIGNOLE     (Contact me)  00:13, 9 July 2009 (UTC)
 * I've changed the image, it's at the 0.23 mark --- Scarce  ||||  Talk  - Contrib. --- 04:58, 9 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Also I've added an additional citation --- Scarce  ||||  Talk  - Contrib. --- 05:14, 9 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Delete - I can see no discussion of the image that this is required to aid understanding for and there is nothing iconic about a simply profile shot of a character we already have images of. - Peripitus (Talk) 21:48, 13 July 2009 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the media's talk page or in a deletion review).  No further edits should be made to this section.

File:Thisusedtobemyplaygroundmusicvideo.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 AnomieBOT ⚡  04:05, 16 July 2009 (UTC)
 * File:Thisusedtobemyplaygroundmusicvideo.jpg ([ delete] | talk | [ history] | [} logs]) - uploaded by Legolas2186 ( [ notify] | contribs).


 * This image is merely a non-free depiction of the artist, and adds nothing to readers' understanding of the article as required by WP:NFCC. It is used only as decoration in the article and is not the subject of critical commentary. Stifle (talk) 11:58, 8 July 2009 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the media's talk page or in a deletion review).  No further edits should be made to this section.

File:Borderlinemusicvideo.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 AnomieBOT ⚡  04:05, 16 July 2009 (UTC)
 * File:Borderlinemusicvideo.jpg ([ delete] | talk | [ history] | [} logs]) - uploaded by Legolas2186 ( [ notify] | contribs).


 * This image seems to fail WP:NFCC as the image does not add significantly to readers' understanding of the article and its omission would not be detrimental to that understanding. It is merely a non-free depiction of the artist. Stifle (talk) 13:29, 8 July 2009 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the media's talk page or in a deletion review).  No further edits should be made to this section.

File:Bedtimestorymusicvideo.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 AnomieBOT ⚡  04:05, 16 July 2009 (UTC)
 * File:Bedtimestorymusicvideo.jpg ([ delete] | talk | [ history] | [} logs]) - uploaded by Legolas2186 ( [ notify] | contribs).


 * This image fails WP:NFCC as four non-free images are being used when one would suffice. Should be replaced by a single screenshot. Stifle (talk) 13:29, 8 July 2009 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the media's talk page or in a deletion review).  No further edits should be made to this section.

File:Tinchremix.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 AnomieBOT ⚡  17:08, 24 July 2009 (UTC)
 * File:Tinchremix.jpg ([ delete] | talk | [ history] | [} logs]) - uploaded by Jayy008 ( [ notify] | contribs).


 * Two album covers being used in the article when one would suffice. May, however, be PD-ineligible. Stifle (talk) 14:26, 8 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep' The digital remix cover is quite different from the main single. - Epson291 (talk) 10:49, 9 July 2009 (UTC)
 * And why, exactly, does seeing the cover significantly improve readers' understanding of the article? Stifle (talk) 13:40, 13 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep: This is the cover for the remix single, it was released a different times so should be seperately shown Jayy008 (talk) 18:33, 9 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Same question as above. Stifle (talk) 13:40, 13 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete - No sourced commentary and nothing above, in the article, nor on the image page that shows how this significantly adds to reader's understanding. If this is a common font it may be PD-text but as a non-free image it does not meet NFCC#3a and 8 - Peripitus (Talk) 04:24, 20 July 2009 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the media's talk page or in a deletion review).  No further edits should be made to this section.

File:EddieCrushKent Cap.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 AnomieBOT ⚡  04:05, 16 July 2009 (UTC)
 * File:EddieCrushKent Cap.jpg ([ delete] | talk | [ history] | [} logs]) - uploaded by Mikecrush ( [ notify] | contribs).


 * There is a separate, free, image of this man, so this non-free one fails WP:NFCC. Stifle (talk) 14:27, 8 July 2009 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the media's talk page or in a deletion review).  No further edits should be made to this section.

File:Tbtcvidsnap.jpeg

 * 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 AnomieBOT ⚡  04:05, 16 July 2009 (UTC)
 * File:Tbtcvidsnap.jpeg ([ delete] | talk | [ history] | [} logs]) - uploaded by Suede67 ( [ notify] | contribs).


 * This image is little more than a non-free image of the performer and fails WP:NFCC and WP:NFCC. Stifle (talk) 14:33, 8 July 2009 (UTC)
 * There's no non-free equivalent, as the video is copyrighted. And it does improve understanding, in my opinion. The millenium mill is not widely seen in the video and is only seen in some shots, as the video mostly features the singer walking through the city, and stop motion shots of him are more prominent. Suede67 (talk) 14:39, 8 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Will someone reply?! Suede67 (talk) 18:33, 10 July 2009 (UTC)
 * I need some feedback. As I see it, it's perfectly acceptable use. If someone doesnt think so, which they do, because they cared to revert my edit, tell me why! Suede67 (talk) 19:20, 13 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Regardless of my opinion about the image, removing the discussion was wrong. --Damiens .rf 19:23, 13 July 2009 (UTC)
 * And since you asked: delete: this non-free image is being used purely as a decoration, and not as a necessary visual aid for a well-sourced discussion about the visual merits of the music video it was taken from. --Damiens .rf 19:24, 13 July 2009 (UTC)
 * That's better. Should've done that before. Suede67 (talk) 19:27, 13 July 2009 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the media's talk page or in a deletion review).  No further edits should be made to this section.

File:Stevie Nicks in Talk to Me.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 AnomieBOT ⚡  04:05, 16 July 2009 (UTC)
 * File:Stevie Nicks in Talk to Me.jpg ([ delete] | talk | [ history] | [} logs]) - uploaded by Roodngis ( [ notify] | contribs).


 * This image is only a non-free image of the artist, adding nothing to readers' understanding of the article. See WP:NFCC. Stifle (talk) 14:35, 8 July 2009 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the media's talk page or in a deletion review).  No further edits should be made to this section.

File:Stevie Nicks in Seven Wonders.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 AnomieBOT ⚡  04:05, 16 July 2009 (UTC)
 * File:Stevie Nicks in Seven Wonders.JPG ([ delete] | talk | [ history] | [} logs]) - uploaded by Roodngis ( [ notify] | contribs).


 * This is only a non-free image of the singer, and adds nothing to readers' understanding of the article. Fails WP:NFCC. Stifle (talk) 14:36, 8 July 2009 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the media's talk page or in a deletion review).  No further edits should be made to this section.

File:Stevie Nicks in Edge of Seventeen 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; deleted by AnomieBOT ⚡  04:05, 16 July 2009 (UTC)
 * File:Stevie Nicks in Edge of Seventeen screenshot.JPG ([ delete] | talk | [ history] | [} logs]) - uploaded by Roodngis ( [ notify] | contribs).


 * This is only a non-free image of the singer, and adds nothing to readers' understanding of the article. Fails WP:NFCC. Stifle (talk) 14:36, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

I have to agree...it's also, frankly, an awful photo. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.123.94.182 (talk) 00:24, 14 July 2009 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the media's talk page or in a deletion review).  No further edits should be made to this section.

File:Stevie Nicks in Dreams.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 AnomieBOT ⚡  04:05, 16 July 2009 (UTC)
 * File:Stevie Nicks in Dreams.JPG ([ delete] | talk | [ history] | [} logs]) - uploaded by Roodngis ( [ notify] | contribs).


 * This is only a non-free image of the singer, and adds nothing to readers' understanding of the article. Fails WP:NFCC. Stifle (talk) 14:36, 8 July 2009 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the media's talk page or in a deletion review).  No further edits should be made to this section.

File:SpielbergCyndiLauperGoonies.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 AnomieBOT ⚡  04:05, 16 July 2009 (UTC)
 * File:SpielbergCyndiLauperGoonies.jpg ([ delete] | talk | [ history] | [} logs]) - uploaded by LordHarris ( [ notify] | contribs).


 * This image is unlikely to meet WP:NFCC. Also, the rationale appears to have been copied from another image and is generic. Stifle (talk) 14:38, 8 July 2009 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the media's talk page or in a deletion review).  No further edits should be made to this section.

File:Jimmyhatlo43.jpg
<div class="boilerplate metadata vfd xfd-closed" style="background-color:#f3f9ff; margin:1em 0 0 0; padding:0 10px 0 10px; border:1px solid #aaa;">
 * 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 AnomieBOT ⚡  17:08, 24 July 2009 (UTC)
 * File:Jimmyhatlo43.jpg ([ delete] | talk | [ history] | [} logs]) - uploaded by Pepso2 ( [ notify] | contribs).


 * Rationale claims image is "To identify the art style of the cartoonist profiled in the encyclopedic article", but there is already an example of the author's work. Image is also extremely high resolution. J Milburn (talk) 16:56, 8 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Now changed to more specific rationale, plus resolution reduced. Pepso2 (talk) 18:20, 8 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Hatlo did three distinctly different syndicated features. Why not show all three to clarify? Pepso2 (talk) 20:15, 8 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep - Other panel has been deleted, so this is now the only example of his famed feature. It's needed to show why he was such a major talent in the field. Pepso2 (talk) 14:06, 10 July 2009 (UTC)


 * I'm not convinced we need an example of his cartoons in an article, tbh. Regardless, though, we already have an FU image, File:Jimmyhatloself.jpg. If this is kept, the other one must be deleted as excessive use. ÷seresin 18:04, 10 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Remove from Comic strip: Even if a free substitute can not be found there, one could be created. Delete this image from Jimmy Hatlo and reduce resolution of the other (or vice versa). One non-free image is enough to show a sample of the artist's work. —teb728 t c 15:51, 21 July 2009 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the media's talk page or in a deletion review).  No further edits should be made to this section.

File:MyersFenech.jpg
<div class="boilerplate metadata vfd xfd-closed" style="background-color:#f3f9ff; margin:1em 0 0 0; padding:0 10px 0 10px; border:1px solid #aaa;">
 * 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 AnomieBOT ⚡  01:01, 24 July 2009 (UTC)
 * File:MyersFenech.jpg ([ delete] | talk | [ history] | [} logs]) - uploaded by Hnatiw ( [ notify] | contribs).

(talk) 17:08, 8 July 2009 (UTC) (talk) 12:37, 9 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Image is used to decorate a list of characters. What this character looks like is not important. J Milburn
 * The word "decorate" would indicate a superficial slant to the contribution - this is not the case; The appearance of a character is of general interest to anyone who would be inclined to read the short character bios as presented within the article. To question the image's validity is to question all visual references that accompany character bios and articles. Shall we remove the picture of Mike Myers that sits atop his article as well? What defines a "decoration" vs. a "visual reference"? A sensible answer will no doubt throw my opinion in your favour. Hnatiw
 * I would support this picture if it helped the reader visualize the character being described, assuming that there is a visual component to the character description. I don't see any such description here. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.154.72.251 (talk) 12:17, 10 July 2009 (UTC)
 * The picture is the "visual component" of the description; A photograph - in this case - is the most neutral and unbiased way of exemplifying the character's appearance. The written description should complement what is known visually - not the other way around.Hnatiw (talk) 19:57, 10 July 2009 (UTC)
 * I found the picture useful. Myers character's have a wide range of physical appearances, and I think it is useful to see how the character is being portrayed. Is the picture absolutely necessary? Of course not, but it certainly contributes. Rekov (talk) 18:50, 12 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete', "useful" is not a compelling argument. The image is simply used for decoration alongside a lisst of characters with no discussion of the image. The image adds nothing significant to reader's understanding - Peripitus (Talk) 21:51, 13 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep, It looks like whoever added the ifdc inadvertently caused the caption to disappear as well, so most of the above comments are based on it being a lone image with no caption. With the original caption restored, the image serves a purpose. I didn't even know who that was without the caption, which is also a reason to keep it, because the image illustrates how different Myers appears in this role from his real-life appearance. Brianwc (talk) 22:14, 15 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete It is a picture. Picures are evil and wrong. All pictures should be replaced with words, preferably as many words as possible so that there is more to read. Unlike pictures, words don't have any decorative purpose. Only words should be present in a true traditional encyclopeaeaaedia. Reading is also difficult and requires more time than looking at a picture, thus ensuring the goals of the intellectual elite are upheld. 124.171.75.21 (talk) 09:48, 18 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete The use of this non-free image is not necessary for reader understanding. —teb728 t c 15:53, 21 July 2009 (UTC)
 * KEEP SO MUCH IT HURTS OH JESUS YES! 76.179.49.203 (talk) 23:45, 23 July 2009 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the media's talk page or in a deletion review).  No further edits should be made to this section.

File:Downed LTTE aircraft.jpg
<div class="boilerplate metadata vfd xfd-closed" style="background-color:#f3f9ff; margin:1em 0 0 0; padding:0 10px 0 10px; border:1px solid #aaa;">
 * 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 position is that the image fails WP:NFCC - Peripitus (Talk) 02:34, 16 July 2009 (UTC)
 * File:Downed LTTE aircraft.jpg ([ delete] | talk | [ history] | [} logs]) - uploaded by Snowolfd4 ( [ notify] | contribs).


 * It's not necessary to show the reader a picture of the downed aircraft to make him understand the discussion about events involved in the 2009 suicide air raid on Colombo, nor its implications. Nice, picture, yes. Free alternatives? Unlikely. Necessary for the article? No, it's just a infobox illustration for the article. Damiens .rf 18:03, 8 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep It is necessary to show the aircraft. For one, the LTTE disputed that it was shot down, and the picture pretty much confirms it was. There was also wide speculation as to what type of aircraft was used in the attacks, and what sort of planes the Tigers had acquired. The picture also has historical significance, as this was the first aircraft shot down in combat in Sri Lanka post WWII. It is also one of the few complete pictures ever obtained of an LTTE aircraft.
 * Also note, the article (picture included) may it to the front page of Wikipedia, and no one else thought that the picture "not necessary" for the article. -- snowolf D4  (  talk  /  @   ) 14:42, 12 July 2009 (UTC)
 * We don't need to show the picture to confirm the plane was shot down. We just need to attribute the information to a reliable source.
 * We can explain what type of aircraft was used in the attacks and what sort of planes the Tigers had acquired using only free text.
 * The picture has no historical significance. The event does. And this is not automatically inherited by its pictures.
 * --Damiens .rf 02:07, 13 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Again, the shooting down was disputed by the LTTE, and the reliable sources used these pictures to confirm the shooting down.
 * By that reasoning, we wouldn't need any pictures on Wikipedia at all. Why bother uploading pictures when we can just descirbe everything using "free text"? If that's the case, WP:FU should be MFDed.
 * The image does have historical significance, because it wasn't one that was just snapped by some passerby and never seen again until now. This set of pictures were widely published in Sri Lankan and international media. And, like I said, they were used to confirm the event, making them historically significant. -- snowolf D4  (  talk  /  @   ) 23:04, 14 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Delete per Damiens.rf. Stifle (talk) 11:03, 14 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Per above, the nominators rational is disputed. -- snowolf D4  (  talk  /  @   ) 15:22, 15 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Strong Delete per Damiens.rf. --Icemansatriani (talk) 06:01, 15 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Per above, the nominators rational is disputed. -- snowolf D4  (  talk  /  @   ) 15:22, 15 July 2009 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the media's talk page or in a deletion review).  No further edits should be made to this section.

File:LisaLopesImg.jpg
<div class="boilerplate metadata vfd xfd-closed" style="background-color:#f3f9ff; margin:1em 0 0 0; padding:0 10px 0 10px; border:1px solid #aaa;">
 * 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 Tiptoety  talk 22:59, 16 July 2009 (UTC)
 * File:LisaLopesImg.jpg ([ delete] | talk | [ history] | [} logs]) - uploaded by QuasyBoy ( [ notify] | contribs).


 * Lisa Lopes was a famous artist that has been photographed professionally and non-professionally a hundred of times. It's possible to produce a free image of her. We don't use non-free images on these cases. Damiens .rf 18:21, 8 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep until a free image is found. Stifle (talk) 07:58, 9 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep we do when they're dead, keep until a free image is found. - Epson291 (talk) 10:45, 9 July 2009 (UTC)
 * There's no blanket permission on non-free images of dead people. In such cases where it's not unreasonable to expect a free image to popup, we prefer to use not image in the meantime. --Damiens .rf 20:13, 9 July 2009 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the media's talk page or in a deletion review).  No further edits should be made to this section.

File:Mantz.jpg
<div class="boilerplate metadata vfd xfd-closed" style="background-color:#f3f9ff; margin:1em 0 0 0; padding:0 10px 0 10px; border:1px solid #aaa;">
 * 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 AnomieBOT ⚡  17:08, 24 July 2009 (UTC)
 * File:Mantz.jpg ([ delete] | talk | [ history] | [} logs]) - uploaded by Bzuk ( [ notify] | contribs).


 * Image not found at source. Can't verify copyright holder. Damiens .rf  18:31, 8 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Original source is now a dead link, but image is resurrected at [www.aerovintage.com/mantz6.jpg Paul Mantz]. FWiW Bzuk (talk) 22:20, 8 July 2009 (UTC).
 * That's someone's website. We still don't know who the copyright holder is. --Damiens .rf 22:37, 8 July 2009 (UTC)
 * The original posting indicated that the Mantz family donated their photographs and other artifacts to the EAA Museum which then held the rights to the material. The image was first posted on the website with that information noted. FWiW Bzuk (talk) 01:51, 9 July 2009 (UTC).
 * How am I supposed to verify this information? --Damiens .rf 15:01, 10 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete - some searching has led me to believe that this is not a family photo but part of a Hollywood publicity shot. The image is a crop of other images on the net and I expect was used with permission rather than being released under a free licence. Of course if copyright has lapsed, under the odd US rules about this, then it would be PD but without a clear source and author this cannot be verified - Peripitus (Talk) 21:55, 13 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep as fair use unless a free substitute can be found. —teb728 t c 15:59, 21 July 2009 (UTC)
 * What you ask for goes completely against our policies. --Damiens .rf 17:57, 21 July 2009 (UTC)
 * In what way? Wikipedia’s non-free content policy allows the use of non-free photos subject to certain restrictions. My stated assumption that no free substitute can be found implies that it fulfils WP:NFCC. This is the only non-free image is used in the article, fulfilling WP:NFCC. The photo is cropped and low-resolution, fulfilling WP:NFCC. The use is to identify the subject of the article: By a well accepted precedent that use fulfills WP:NFCC. One source is http://www.aerovintage.com/mantz-bio.htm; adding that source to the image description page would fulfill WP:NFCC. The image description page is tagged Non-free fair use in, fulfilling WP:NFCC. Although a there is still no detailed non-free use rationale, one could be created easily which would fulfill WP:NFCC. That covers all the usual objections to non-free photos. What else do you want? —teb728 t c 22:00, 21 July 2009 (UTC) Update: I have provided the missing source and non-free use rationale. —teb728 t c 22:17, 21 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Nice try. But you know that WP:NFCC actually asks for "information about the artist, publisher and copyright holder" (and not only about a random webpage where the image can be downloaded from), and this is a precondition to judging the use in regards to WP:NFCC. Also, since we're at it, WP:NFCC is not only about free substitutes that can be found, but also about the ones that can be created. --Damiens .rf 23:52, 21 July 2009 (UTC)
 * On #10, did you intentionally omit the words "supplemented, where possible"? On #1, I addressed creation in the rationale which I provided: Inasmuch as Mantz is dead, no free photo of him could be created. Sorry but I am not able to echo your "nice try." —teb728 t c 03:07, 22 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Yes, that was intentional, since the "where possible" clause is intended for notable works where the author is widely unknown (as anonymous work of arts), not for the cases where the webpage from which you downloaded the image didn't specify the copyright holder. --Damiens .rf 15:22, 22 July 2009 (UTC)
 * If the original source can be found, and it is proved that the image was published without a (c) notice then it will be PD-US. The man was widely photographed and finding a public domain image with clear provenance simply requires effort, just look for a pre-1929 image with no (c) notice or a post 1929 one with provenance and no copyright renewal. I can see no need for an image that may-or-may-not be free (as we don't know the copyright owner nor the original publication date) when a free image can be found - Peripitus (Talk) 02:55, 22 July 2009 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the media's talk page or in a deletion review).  No further edits should be made to this section.