Wikipedia:Files for deletion/2011 February 24



File:Sinead rips into the Pope.jpg

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

The result of the discussion was: no consensus. Both sides made very good points, but the discussion does not lend itself to a clear course of action. SchuminWeb (Talk) 02:10, 4 March 2011 (UTC)
 * File:Sinead rips into the Pope.jpg ([ delete] | talk | [ history] | links | [ logs]) – uploaded by Grandma Got Divorced ( [ notify] | contribs | uploads).

As the image is sourced to (sold and distributed by) Getty Images I had tagged it for deletion as such. However it was declined because the image is the subject of sourced commentary. Here is the sourced commentary.
 * 1) In the Sinead O'Connor article the direct discussion *about the image* is: She then presented a photo of Pope John Paul II to the camera while singing the word "evil", after which she tore the photo into pieces, said "Fight the real enemy", and threw the pieces towards the camera
 * 2) In the Saturday Night Live article the direct discussion *about the image* is She then presented a photo of Pope John Paul II to the camera while singing the word "evil", after which she tore the photo into pieces, said "Fight the real enemy," and threw the pieces towards the camera

Forgetting about the Getty Image source for a second, both of those are the exact same wording and neither require a reader to actually see this image to understand the text. In the overall context of the SNL article there is an entire section about Criticism and controversy that have no images, free or otherwise. Someone tearing an image in half is well explained by text alone - someone getting into a pseudo sexual position called "Wrath of Ganesh", satirizing the Hindu god Ganesh. is not so easy to visualize - yet there is no image of Jim Carry. The same concept applies to the Notable appearances section of the Sinead O'Conner article.

Now lets put back the Getty Image Source. Policy is very explicit on use of content from a commercial content provider. Soundvisions1 (talk) 04:00, 24 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep sourced commentary and of course Getty has just taken a screenshot of the show. Getty didn't have a photographer at the studio. I added to the Getty pool some of my images at Flickr and they now show up as Getty images. See: http://www.flickr.com/gettyimages/ --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 22:01, 25 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Reply: You miss the point/s fully. If you wanted to use this image in an article you would need to pay Getty - how they obtained it is not the important part. *This* image was obtained from Getty Images and this is the image being discussed. *This* image is from a commercial content provider. Even if it were a frame grab from your personal collection of SNL episodes it would still be under copyright and the need to use it would still be in question. The kind of text that is needed is the kind that actually relates to something that can not be described with text alone. One can read "she tore the photo into pieces" 100% understand it. Soundvisions1 (talk) 00:51, 26 February 2011 (UTC)
 * This* *This* *This* *This* *This* *This* *This* *This* thinking is, I believe, incorrect. I have not seen precedence for excluding screenshots from fair use based on a claim from a commercial provider, since the same 2D image will be identical from my screen. As to whether it can adequately be described by text is why we are each expressing our opinions here now. Please respect my opinion, there is no need for you to personally challenge it, that is for the closer to weigh. Broadway Video would be the proper copyright holder and Yvonne Hemsey appears to be the New York photographer who submitted the screenshot to Getty. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 02:54, 26 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Reply - it is not what you think you see, the policy is explicit. As far as "Please respect my opinion here is no need for you to personally challenge it" - that is part of the issue - this is not a discussion based on an opinion (such as "Well the image is not pretty and it is unused") it is a policy based issue where policy on such material is clear. NFCC 2 applies. Period. Again - the image being discussed here is from Getty Images, not your TV. As for the "personally challenge it" side - if you understand the concept of Burden of evidence at Wikipedia it is up to you to establish (verify) what I am saying is not true - in this case that Wikipedia has no policy that, one, explicitly states material from a commercial content provider is allowed and, two, that use of *this* material is akin to what is accepted - such as The Falling Man. Now if you ignore Wikipedia policy on commercial content sourced material than you need to explain how "she tore the photo into pieces" is *not* understood and, per the non-free content policy, thus *meets* number 8, Contextual significance. As I have said already, the kind of text that is needed to support *any* content that is non-free, but far more so with non-free content from a commercial content provider such as Getty, is the kind that actually relates to something that can not be described with text alone. That is what the policy requires - this is a policy based discussion. (See also Non-free content criteria - Enforcement) Soundvisions1 (talk) 16:00, 27 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete. Getty do not have a credible copyright claim in this image, but the original producers certainly do. This is not a free image and we need a strong justification for using it. At present we do not have one. Thparkth (talk) 14:26, 1 March 2011 (UTC)


 * Random comment - if the issue is that it came from Getty, but it is generally agreed that the screenshot would otherwise be fair use, why not just take the screenshot ourselves? The video is at http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iYw8JR1N90o . --B (talk) 00:43, 3 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Random reply: That would only solve part of the problem here. There is still no valid reason why we need to see an image of this when the text alone is enough. As I have said/asked - does anyone truly *not* understand what "she tore the photo into pieces" means? Soundvisions1 (talk) 01:14, 3 March 2011 (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:Igeum.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. Enough doubt has been cast on the source of this image to place it in that "when in doubt, delete" category. SchuminWeb (Talk) 02:13, 4 March 2011 (UTC)
 * File:Igeum.jpg ([ delete] | talk | [ history] | links | [ logs]) – uploaded by Flamebroil ( [ notify] | contribs | uploads).

Author: M.T. Bale and uploader = Flamebroil. Is that the same person? Uploader changed name at some time so perhaps it is the same person. How can we tell? 62.243.126.154 (talk) 08:21, 24 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep - in the absence of other evidence, we should trust the uploader when they say "I, the copyright holder". Certainly the production of this image would be consistent with the uploader's other activities in Wikipedia. Thparkth (talk) 14:34, 1 March 2011 (UTC)


 * Comment: My issue isn't with the uploader, it is with the source. This is sourced as "traced from original" and names the original source as "Gyeongnam Archaeological Institute, Sacheon Igeum-dong Yujeok, GARI, Jinju, 2003." The only way this derivative could be in the public domain is if the original is - do we know if it is? If not this would need to be labeled with derivative and re-tagged as non-free, and a FUR added. Soundvisions1 (talk) 03:49, 2 March 2011 (UTC)
 * This user's uploads look pretty dubious. Compare and contrast the quality of File:Igeum.jpg vs File:Mumunsitemap.png and File:Mumunsitesmap.jpg, which he claims to have made.  In the six days between creating File:Mumunsitemap.png, he got some much nicer cartography software and figured out that he should render his map as a png?  I'm inclined to believe him that he traced Igeum.jpg just like he said (copyvio as a derivative work) and that the other two were found somewhere on the internet. --B (talk) 02:14, 3 March 2011 (UTC)
 * From looking at his images that have been moved to Commons, in File:Yoshinogari1.jpg he also claims to be M. T. Bale. But at File:Orim-dongmegalithpetroglyph.jpg, he seems to refer to Bale in the third person. ("Martin Bale  [line break in original]  Bale redrew this image from original by Jeonnam University Museum, 1992. Yeosu-si Orim-dong Jiseok-myo [Excavation Report of Orim-dong Megalithic Burials, Yeosu]. Jeonnam University Museum, Greater Gwangju.")  So on second thought, maybe he isn't Bale. --B (talk) 02:21, 3 March 2011 (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:Bless The Bride.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. Ultimately, for a magazine cover to remain outside of, say, an article about the magazine itself, the significance of the specific magazine cover would need to be discussed in the article. I remember that there was much discussion some years back about a similar issue on the Space Shuttle Columbia disaster article, where a CNN screen-grab and I believe also a Time magazine cover were being used to illustrate the vehicle's breakup, rather than anything to do with the material as it came through under that source. Ultimately, for Columbia, File:STS-107 reentry.jpg ultimately came about, which was a NASA image of the breakup, which satisfied all applicable guidelines. So for the image at hand, you might (note that I say "might") get away with a non-free image showing the musical that's not a magazine cover or similar to illustrate the concept, since I believe it may very well be impossible to land a free image of this. But the use of a magazine cover requires sourced commentary specifically on the magazine cover, and we don't have that. SchuminWeb (Talk) 05:06, 4 March 2011 (UTC)
 * File:Bless The Bride.jpeg ([ delete] | talk | [ history] | links | [ logs]) – uploaded by Bertie1pug1 ( [ notify] | contribs | uploads).

Magazine cover used in the article about something that happened to be on the cover of that magazine. Use is entirely decorative and does not enhance readers' understanding of the article. Stifle (talk) 12:10, 24 February 2011 (UTC)


 * Retain On similar grounds we'd have no "illustrative" pictures in any wiki articles, and restrict ourselves entirely to charts and diagrams. In fact the picture presents actual protraits (rather than caricatures) of the stars of the original production of this (very old) musical and is far from being "purely decorative". Many articles on musicals, films, plays, operas and other dramatic works have posters or magazine or program covers as illustrations, as here, while often being far LESS informative - in that stars are much less likely to be authentically portrayed. This illustration "enhances readers' understanding of the article" every bit as much if not more than any of these do. --Soundofmusicals (talk) 03:01, 25 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Retain. The photo on the cover is a publicity shot for the musical Bless the Bride.  It shows the style and setting of the original production of the musical and its original stars, in costume, and it provides context for the discussion of the musical in the article.  -- Ssilvers (talk) 03:11, 25 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Where is the discussion of the photo, though? Stifle (talk) 09:00, 25 February 2011 (UTC)
 * The SUBJECT of the photo (the two stars) is/are discussed of course.--Soundofmusicals (talk) 09:12, 25 February 2011 (UTC)
 * *Retain: Articles about various arts are often best identified or given cultural context through their third-party media coverage. In fact, that's one of the main ways in which a subject becomes notable.  So including an image of the cover of a magazine that is covering the subject seems like a perfectly fine use to me. &mdash; KieferSkunk (talk) &mdash; 04:26, 25 February 2011 (UTC) - New opinion posted below.
 * Have any of you read WP:NFCC? This discussion only arises because the image is non-free. If it was a free picture, there would be no question that it is appropriate. Stifle (talk) 08:58, 25 February 2011 (UTC)
 * But virually all illustrations of articles on dramatic works are "non-free" - and the vast majority of them very much more recent (this image is over 60 years old). The other point is very simply that is does add valuable pictorial information (like what the stars looked like). If this is not valuable information, why do we have portraits in biographical articles? --Soundofmusicals (talk) 09:05, 25 February 2011 (UTC)
 * We have portraits in biographical articles if they are free. You appear to be missing this important distinction. Stifle (talk) 10:32, 25 February 2011 (UTC)
 * You "missed it" until your original objections had been met and you needed to shift your ground to continue the argument. Is this productive? The precedent it would set would mean that all non-free publicity material for theatrical performances would need to go. This borders on the ludicrous, especially for material that was specifically released by its original owners exactly so as to be distributed as widely as possible.--Soundofmusicals (talk) 08:50, 1 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Soundofmusicals: To be fair, I think Stifle has a point here. I disagree that the image should be deleted on the grounds that it's not free, but I can see a case for removing it because the cover of the magazine doesn't make it clear that the photo is related to Bless the Bride.  One would have to know the historical context of that magazine issue to understand it, or an explanation would need to be added (such as in the caption) stating which issue it was and what the photo was about.  In other words, I can see how the image doesn't provide the right context on its own, but deleting it might not be the correct response - instead, we might want to improve the article so that the image's context is easy to understand. &mdash; KieferSkunk (talk) &mdash; 00:38, 26 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Redacting my own comment because the image is accompanied by a perfectly appropriate caption in the article. I hadn't bothered to check that before making my lengthy comment here. &mdash; KieferSkunk (talk) &mdash; 00:38, 26 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Stifle: I honestly don't see how this image violates WP:NFCC. As mentioned elsewhere, the image does provide context to the article, the context is properly identified in the caption, and the people shown in the image are discussed in the article.  The image itself does not have to be discussed in order to be relevant and encyclopedic. &mdash; KieferSkunk (talk) &mdash; 00:45, 26 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Retain Image is essential to the article and is correctly tagged as a non-free image Jack1956 (talk) 09:16, 25 February 2011 (UTC)
 * If the image is so essential, why isn't it discussed in the article? Stifle (talk) 10:31, 25 February 2011 (UTC)
 * The people in the picture are mentioned and their performances discussed. What else about the picure COULD be discussed? Make a suggestion and we'll discuss it, I'm sure.--Soundofmusicals (talk) 11:31, 25 February 2011 (UTC)
 * The image helps identify the subject and give it context. The article is not required to identify, give context to or discuss the image.  As a parallel: Most articles on video games include an image of the game's box art, flyer art, and/or screenshots of their gameplay, and yet in the vast majority of cases, the images themselves need no discussion in the article (beyond a caption, usually).  If we had to discuss a non-free image in the article to justify its existence there, every article would have sentences in it like "Two of the performers in this musical were pictured on the cover of this popular magazine, dated such-and-such-date".  It would be unnecessary and would clutter most articles beyond usefulness, not to mention possibly introduce WP:WEIGHT issues. &mdash; KieferSkunk (talk) &mdash; 00:30, 26 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Retain A no-brainer, I'd say. Tim riley (talk) 12:53, 25 February 2011 (UTC)


 * Delete: After looking over the article I can say, at least in regards to it's current use, this does fail policy. It is a magazine that has a cover with two of the actors form a musical on the cover of it. The article is not about the magazine, it is about the musical. An image such as this would be fine as it is a flyer/poster for the musical. There are many examples of acceptable and unacceptable use of non-free content to be found and many of them deal with what the material is *of* and how it is used. You don't use a book cover in an article about the artist who created the book cover unless there is very specific text in the article about that specific cover. You don't use an album cover in the info box for the act who recorded the album. You don't use a one sheet for a film in an infox about a TV show based on the film. Living or dead, current or past - it does not matter when it is non-free content being discussed because in order to use such content the subject of the article must be about the subject (What is the picture of) of the image itself, not the content (What appears in the image). So, an one example, File:Platform book cover.jpg is a book cover - that is the subject of the image. The content of the image is text, yellow, a female, breasts in a bikini top, a belly button, skin, someone on a beach, sand and water. The image can be used in an article about the book itself but it cannot be used in an infobox of articles about sand, water, text, breasts, bikinis, belly buttons, skin or the color yellow. In other words - to quote two of the guideline examples - Acceptable use - Cover art from various items, for identification only in the context of critical commentary of that item (not for identification without critical commentary). Unacceptable use - A magazine or book cover, to illustrate the article on the person whose photograph is on the cover. This image falls under the "unacceptable use" Soundvisions1 (talk) 01:29, 26 February 2011 (UTC)


 * It can be safely assumed that the original picture was supplied to the editors of this publication (and probably simultaneously to other members of the contemporary British "show-biz" press) specifically in order that they might publish it, on cover or elsewhere, as part of a publicity campaign intended to sell seats to the original production. It is in this sense no different from a flyer or poster. If a flyer or poster (or a CD cover) is legitimate then this certainly is. We could trim the photograph from the image of the cover - and be within our rights, as the publishers of the magazine have no copyright over the image itself - they were reproducing it with the (strongly implied) permission of the actual owners, the producers of the show. To do this would be a less than ideal compromise of this thoroughly artificial "dispute", as the cropped image would be less informative (there is implied information about notability and context in the fact of the image actually appearing on a well-known magazine's cover) - but if it will save the important principle involved, and allow us to continue the totally unobjectionable practice of using images intended for publicity purposes to continue to supply that publicity!! (not to mention encyclopedic information)... --Soundofmusicals (talk) 05:21, 28 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Reply: Unacceptable use - A magazine or book cover, to illustrate the article on the person whose photograph is on the cover. Policy and guidlines are explicit on this one. This is not a discussion to change those, if you disagree with policy or guidlines you need to take it up at the appropriate talk pages. Soundvisions1 (talk) 12:02, 28 February 2011 (UTC)
 * BUT this is NOT illustrating an article about either or both of the people involved but a musical comedy in which they appeared. If you want to go all legalistic then you need to actually match the condition! everyone has been reading your arguments - return the compliment if you can find the time. --Soundofmusicals (talk) 08:43, 1 March 2011 (UTC)
 * I know you are just being ironic however unless you feel that 1+1=15 than what I said, and what the policy says and what the explicit guidelines that explain the policy say, are clear. If you wish to discuss policy and if you feel it is not valid please do so at their talk pages. What I deal with is 99% images and copyright. I understand that the Wikipedia policy on such matters is hard to understand at times but I had hoped the guideline examples would be clear, however if you seriously do not understand this is my one final attempt at explaining it here:
 * What is this material? It is an image of a magazine. Specifically a magazine cover.
 * What is the subject of the image? It shows a magazine cover.
 * What is the content of the image? It is a magazine cover. That cover contains text, handwritten name, the color blue, and a black and white image of a man and woman.
 * Is the material free or non-free? It is non-free.
 * How can such material be used on Wikipedia? Per the allowable EDP our guidelines on non-free content state that The use of non-free images on Wikipedia must fall within purposely stricter standards than defined by copyright law as defined by our non-free content criteria as described below.
 * Acceptable use - Cover art from various items, for identification only in the context of critical commentary of that item (not for identification without critical commentary).
 * Unacceptable use - A magazine or book cover, to illustrate the article on the person whose photograph is on the cover.
 * So this material would be acceptable to use in an article about the magazine itself. It might even be acceptable if this particular issue of this particular magazine was considered somehow iconic or had caused some controversy and had been the subject of discussion in reliable sources. How is this image currently being used? Is it in an article about the magazine itself? No. Is there any sort of indication this particular issue of this particular magazine was of any notability in regards to the current use? No. What is it being used for? To illustrate Lizbeth Webb and Georges Guetary in costume in the musical Bless the Bride. That use is not an acceptable use of identification only in the context of critical commentary of that item - meaning an article about the magazine itself. Soundvisions1 (talk) 15:51, 1 March 2011 (UTC)


 * Saying the same thing louder and at greater length isn't a new argument - numbering points doesn't make an argument valid. The basic premise behind all fair use (and a sensible reading of the policy you keep quoting out of context) is that if we use a non-free image we do so in a way that the original owner of the image could not reasonably object to. Hence, for instance, it is fair to make a brief quotation from copyright text to illustrate a point from that text. This image is almost entirely taken up with an photograph that "belongs" to the people (as individuals very probably dead) who produced the show in question, just after the Second World War. They would most certainly not have objected to us (or anyone else) using the image in any way that did not defame or "rubbish" the show. It's a publicity shot for heaven's sake - meant to be stuck up on (metaphorical and real) walls just like a poster.


 * SO, is it the peripheral matter - the other parts of the original magazine cover that are the problem? If they really are, then we could easily crop them away, revealing the publicity photograph as it was before the layout editor of the magazine stuck it there. Would this be preferable in any way? I think not. Presenting the central image in context on the magazine cover conveys several interesting points of information, and generally makes a much more interesting image than the bare photograph would. The "art work" is really so minimal that one could legitimately wonder if it is actually "copyrightable" in any sense at all. As you say - it basically comprises the colour blue and the name of the magazine in a commercially available font. Is the colour blue copyright? is the font used copyright (possible but I doubt it) is the name of the magazine copyright? We could probably even start a magazine of our own of the same name if we were so inclined.


 * The rule you quoted so emphatically and still seem to feel so strongly about would have some application if the article were about either of the prople in it. It is not, it is about a show they were in. The rule, as I read it, does not seem to say that an image of a magazine cover can ONLY be used in an article about the magazine. I was not being ironic - just asking you to address this point rather than fly off at yet another tangent.


 * I am not fighting just to keep a pretty and eminently suitable image, perfectly illustrating an interesting article about its famous composer's most beautiful and perfect little musical. I also think that a sensible fair use policy - that doesn't go into stupid legalistic wranging, but that steers a proper course between too liberal or too conservative an interpretation of "fair-use" guidelines - one in fact based on pragmatic common sense rather than dogmatic posturing. Delete this image, or even crop the "magazine cover" border from it, and you're opening yet another can of worms on a road to the "goal" of a "free image only" wikipedia. (Excuse mixed metaphor.) God save us all from that.--Soundofmusicals (talk) 10:15, 2 March 2011 (UTC)


 * I am not saying it to say it over, I am saying it because you seem to have a clear misunderstanding of Wikipedia policy on non free content. In the real world this may not be an issue, but Wikipedia is not the real world and it based it's policy on the concept of fair use but (bold added) The use of non-free images on Wikipedia must fall within purposely stricter standards than defined by copyright law as defined by our non-free content criteria as described below. That is not my reading of it - that is how it is. You need to understand Wikipedia current policy is not a real world "fair use" policy, it is a non-free content policy, or an EDP. There is no other tangent at all other than this image, as is currently being used, fails our policy requirement for such use. Per your edit summary I have asked for "an authoritative third party" to visit. Soundvisions1 (talk)

Delete: I was asked to step in here as an "authoritative third party", per the request (in edit summary) of User:Soundofmusicals. The policy/guideline issue here is very clear cut. Before I get to that, I'd like to rebut the "retain" reasons already given: The core issue here is the use of third party copyrighted works to depict something. I don't want to get too far down into legalspeak here, but the issue has to do with transformative use, an important element of Fair Use law. If we take a copyrighted cast photo from a production and use it here to illustrate an article on that production, it would constitute a transformative use; we are directly using their material and discussing it. If we take a third party copyrighted work, we have to provide a transformative use not just for the original copyrighted work being depicted, but also for the third party's copyrights as well. That is the key underlying issue NFC #8. So unless there is secondary sourced discussion about the cover of that issue of 'Theatre World', using it to depict anything from this play is not just a violation of WP:NFCC, but also Fair Use law in the U.S. There's really no wiggle room on this. I strongly suggest using one of the many advertising posters from the play, or if the depiction of the characters on the cover of the magazine is in fact a publicity photo from the production, find the original publicity photo (and don't just cop out cover elements from the magazine and declare it to be the actual publicity photo; that would constitute a derivative work). --Hammersoft (talk) 14:39, 2 March 2011 (UTC)
 * "Many articles on musicals ... have posters or magazine or program covers as illustrations"; Posters from the musical fine. Program covers, fine. Magazine covers, not fine. Also note that WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS arguments rarely hold water.
 * "The photo on the cover is a publicity shot"; that doesn't make it more acceptable within the constraints of WP:NFCC policy.
 * "Articles about various arts are often best identified or given cultural context through their third-party media coverage"; If there is reliable [[WP:SECONDARY|secondary sources] regarding the media coverage surrounding it such that an image from the media ties directly into discussion of the media coverage, then fine. Otherwise, it's taking copyrighted works from a third party source.
 * "Image is essential to the article and is correctly tagged as a non-free image"; nobody is contesting that is properly tagged as a non-free file. If the image is essential, where is the properly sourced discussion regarding the coverage of this play in 'Theatre World'?
 * For what it's worth, regarding the "Many articles on musicals ... have posters or magazine..." comment: I think this argument wasn't so much going after WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS, but rather pointing out that if the policy really is that strict, then there are possibly hundreds of articles on various performing arts that are violating this policy. It means that many people will have misunderstood and violated the policy and lots of work will need to be done to bring them all in line.  I don't have specific examples for you, but if it turns out that we've been "doing it wrong" for so long, it might point to a deficiency in people's general understanding of the policy.  (To my knowledge, I'm not responsible for any such violations myself - I'm just trying to interpret the argument.) &mdash; KieferSkunk (talk) &mdash; 20:03, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

Delete: I originally voted Retain, but the discussion since then has convinced me that the image's use violates NFCC policy, and that even without a policy violation, the image doesn't adequately illustrate the subject of the article. You cannot tell just by looking at the image that it has anything to do with the musical - you must read the caption, be able to read the fine print on the magazine cover, know something about the people pictured, or be able to read the magazine itself to be able to tell that the people pictured starred in the musical. A publicity poster or flyer about the musical, clearly showing its title, would be a far more suitable image. &mdash; KieferSkunk (talk) &mdash; 20:11, 2 March 2011 (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:Thank you for player.png

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

The result of the discussion was: Delete; deleted by AnomieBOT ⚡  19:11, 1 March 2011 (UTC)
 * File:Thank you for player.png ([ delete] | talk | [ history] | links | [ logs]) – uploaded by Chessage ( [ notify] | contribs | uploads).

This image is only used in one article (Puchi Carat) and does not contribute significantly to understanding the game or its impact on the industry. A suitable image of gameplay from this game would be far more useful to the article. &mdash; KieferSkunk (talk) &mdash; 17:22, 24 February 2011 (UTC)


 * More to the point: The image and its caption in the article only show that the game contains significant errors in its English translation, something that is true for a large number of non-English games and media. The fact that translation errors exist is not in itself notable, nor is the specific error in this case. &mdash; KieferSkunk (talk) &mdash; 17:26, 24 February 2011 (UTC)


 * Delete: As currently being used there is no need for the image. In the context of Wikipedia non-free content policy the image does not meet all 10 of the criteria, namely number 8. "Contextual significance." The FUR states this image is being used To show the reader translation errors within the game yet there is no mention in the article about any sort of "translation errors." It isn't even hinted at and in doing a look over of the article since 2007 I don't see where it was ever mentioned. If the issue were notable I would feel between 2007 and 2011 text would have been sourced and placed into the article. Soundvisions1 (talk) 18:39, 24 February 2011 (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:Tania-Page-May25.png

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

The result of the discussion was: Delete; deleted by AnomieBOT ⚡  02:01, 4 March 2011 (UTC)
 * File:Tania-Page-May25.png ([ delete] | talk | [ history] | links | [ logs]) – uploaded by Dannyboybaby1234 ( [ notify] | contribs | uploads).

Image is in a list with other non-free images, non notable character, no explanation of why the screenshot should be used. With no rationale, should this be allowed?  RAIN*the*ONE  BAM 20:29, 24 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete: I removed all the non-free images from that article, and also List of minor Emmerdale characters (2009) and List of minor Emmerdale characters (1990). They all constitute a violation of WP:NFLISTS. I've tagged all the images with orfud and some with nrd, and notified the uploaders. --Hammersoft (talk) 14:59, 2 March 2011 (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.