Wikipedia:Files for deletion/2011 May 22



File:Ditkoselfportrait.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: keep Skier Dude  ( talk ) 03:50, 31 May 2011 (UTC)
 * File:Ditkoselfportrait.png ([ delete] | talk | [ history] | links | [ logs]) – uploaded by Hiding ( [ notify] | contribs | uploads | upload log).

Violates WP:NFCC and WP:NFC both #1, just because we don't have a free image, or it is hard to get one, doesn't mean we can't get one  C T J F 8 3  00:53, 22 May 2011 (UTC)


 * Keep, doesn't fail either policy. If you look at the exceptions to WP:NFC, this quite clearly falls into a similar state; you will never get a free image which clearly delineates the man at this important stage in his career and his art style simultaneously.  This is an iconic image in its own right and a free image which can exactly replicate all facets of this image cannot be made. This isn't a photograph, it is a drawn piece of art by the artist himself. When, as directed at WP:NFCC you ask yourself "Can this non-free content be replaced by a free version that has the same effect?", the answer is quite clearly no for this multi-faceted image. Hiding T 17:35, 22 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep - As pointed out elsewhere NFCC dose not prohibit the use of a non-free image if free ones exist. It prods an editor to use a free image if they have one available or to accept that if another editor has one, it can and should replace the non-free image. Also, UUI, as a guideline, acknowledges that there are exceptions to the premise that a free image of a living person is always obtainable. IIUC in this case, the person depicted does not participate in functions where free use photos are assumed to be taken and that he does not volunteer to be photographed. In light of WP:MUG, the only way we would have a free use image would be one of him taken when he is not expecting to be photographed. - J Greb (talk) 18:07, 22 May 2011 (UTC)


 * Keep - For the reasons cited above. Ditko is notoriously reclusive, and there may very well be no photographs of him outside of perhaps one in a copyrighted book. This is the very definition of "no free-use image available."--Tenebrae (talk) 00:37, 23 May 2011 (UTC)


 * Keep - For the reasons cited above. Kurt Parker (talk) 13:57, 23 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete - As an image to show what the man looks like, it's replaceable by any other free drawing. As an image to show the artist's style, it's repetitive of multiple other images of his drawings. --Damiens .rf 15:03, 25 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep. Obvious encyclopedic value for Steve Ditko.  No replacement drawing would be a self-portrait in his own style, and drawing comic art is what he does.  Even a snapshot would not serve all the purposes served by this picture.  And no such image would represent the man at the height of his career in the 1960s. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 16:22, 27 May 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:BengkalisMap.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 ⚡  12:07, 30 May 2011 (UTC)
 * File:BengkalisMap.jpg ([ delete] | talk | [ history] | links | [ logs]) – uploaded by Me iwan ( [ notify] | contribs | uploads | upload log).

Currently unused and extremely low resolution map. I fail to see how it can be put to any encyclopedic use. Crisco 1492 (talk) 05:55, 22 May 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:PICT0014-1-.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 ⚡  12:07, 30 May 2011 (UTC)
 * File:PICT0014-1-.jpg ([ delete] | talk | [ history] | links | [ logs]) – uploaded by Nez202 ( [ notify] | contribs | uploads | upload log).

Unusably low quality image of a common subject.  S ven M anguard  Wha?  07:06, 22 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom. Low quality is an understatement. Crisco 1492 (talk) 08:37, 22 May 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:PICT0015-1-.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 ⚡  12:07, 30 May 2011 (UTC)
 * File:PICT0015-1-.jpg ([ delete] | talk | [ history] | links | [ logs]) – uploaded by Nez202 ( [ notify] | contribs | uploads | upload log).

Unusably low quality image of a common subject.  S ven M anguard  Wha?  07:06, 22 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete Very low quality. Nom is right. Crisco 1492 (talk) 08:38, 22 May 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:PICT0013-1-.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 ⚡  12:07, 30 May 2011 (UTC)
 * File:PICT0013-1-.jpg ([ delete] | talk | [ history] | links | [ logs]) – uploaded by Nez202 ( [ notify] | contribs | uploads | upload log).

Very low quality image of an unidentified species of owl (common subject). Orphaned.  S ven M anguard  Wha?  07:07, 22 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete Per Nom. Crisco 1492 (talk) 08:41, 22 May 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:PICT0030.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 ⚡  12:07, 30 May 2011 (UTC)
 * File:PICT0030.JPG ([ delete] | talk | [ history] | links | [ logs]) – uploaded by Jhoyer ( [ notify] | contribs | uploads | upload log).

Orphaned, low quality image of a generic object.  S ven M anguard  Wha?  07:47, 22 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete Low quality. Nom is right. Crisco 1492 (talk) 08:40, 22 May 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:PICT0032.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 ⚡  12:07, 30 May 2011 (UTC)
 * File:PICT0032.JPG ([ delete] | talk | [ history] | links | [ logs]) – uploaded by Guv111 ( [ notify] | contribs | uploads | upload log).

Originally a row of houses, usurped by an image of a building. Neither subject is notable; images not at all likely to ever be used.  S ven M anguard  Wha?  07:54, 22 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Move and rename to Commons. They may have a use for it; the quality does not warrant deletion. Crisco 1492 (talk) 08:39, 22 May 2011 (UTC)
 * I tried tracking down the building that was described, but I can't find it. Perhaps a user in India might be able to make better sense of it, or know of an alternative to Google that might be able to track it down.  S ven M anguard   Wha?  03:12, 24 May 2011 (UTC)
 * According to the upload summary it seems to be in "10th of Ramadan City", which apparently is in Egypt, not India, but I can't find anything more specific either. In any case, this one can't be kept anyway, because the uploader never provided a valid copyright/release statement for it. Fut.Perf. ☼ 06:11, 25 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Oh right, forgot about architecture being copyrighted Crisco 1492 (talk) 14:48, 25 May 2011 (UTC)
 * That's actually not what I meant (and honestly I didn't look up the status of FOP in Egypt). What I meant was that the uploader of the second version didn't bother to write anything in the image description. What's there now is only the license statement of the old file. Nothing in that page counts as a license and source statement regarding the second file. Fut.Perf. ☼ 14:55, 25 May 2011 (UTC)
 * That's a good reason for deletion too. Okay, I'm good. Delete Crisco 1492 (talk) 15:10, 25 May 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:Dwightmanageroffice.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 - While adding value to articles is required for non-free images it is far from a sufficiency. Non-free images must meet the requirements of NFCC#8 by significantly increasing reader's understanding of the topic, in a way that cannot be covered by free content, and their removal must likewise significantly detract from that understanding. Simply being mentioned, or showing something, or illustrating something, is inadequate reason to host such images. - Peripitus (Talk) 10:29, 30 May 2011 (UTC)
 * File:Dwightmanageroffice.png ([ delete] | talk | [ history] | links | [ logs]) – uploaded by NetflixSoup ( [ notify] | contribs | uploads | upload log).

Another non-free TV episode screenshot. Not embedded in analytical commentary, not needed to understand the article, not the object of discussion. Merely shows one of the show's regular characters sitting in an office. Character already has his own article, with a photograph. Fails NFCC#8 (no crucial contribution to understanding) and #3 (minimality; duplication with image of character article) Fut.Perf. ☼ 08:27, 22 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep I've not edited this article, nor did I upload the image, but I believe it actually does have value in that the over-the-top decor in Dwight's office illustrates the fervor with which he has taken on this new position. The image also illustrates the Uday Hussein-inspired desk, which is part of the critical commentary of the article, but the text alone isn't as helpful to the reader's understanding as the image would be. However, if the article is kept, should update the fair use rationale to reflect these things. —  Hun  ter   Ka  hn  19:03, 23 May 2011 (UTC)


 * Delete It's a regular character sitting behind a desk. The room is decorated gaudily. I don't see how the image is valuable.  S ven M anguard   Wha?  03:16, 24 May 2011 (UTC)
 * A "gaudily-decorated" office could like like any number of things. Could be this or this or this or this or whatever. The infobox erases any such ambiguity and is much more helpful than a simple text description like "gaudily". (Plus it shows the desk, as previously mentioned.) —  Hun ter   Ka  hn  04:14, 24 May 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:Berlin, Palast der Republik, Bulat Okudshawa.jpg

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

The result of the discussion was: keep Magog the Ogre (talk) 16:50, 25 May 2011 (UTC)
 * File:Berlin, Palast der Republik, Bulat Okudshawa.jpg ([ delete] | talk | [ history] | links | [ logs]) – uploaded by Garret Beaumain ( [ notify] | contribs | uploads | upload log).

Superseded by higher resolution File:Bundesarchiv Bild 183-R1202-0019, Berlin, Palast der Republik, Bulat Okudshawa cropped.jpg, which is on commons, but is of a slightly different crop (not eligible for WP:CSD). Magog the Ogre (talk) 08:45, 22 May 2011 (UTC)
 * I, uploader, don't object. If there's a higher-res crop, it is better.--Garret Beaumain (talk) 08:49, 22 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep The other one is larger but of worse quality by far. The one up for deletion is less blurry and has less noticeable .jpeg compression damage.  S ven M anguard   Wha?  07:24, 24 May 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:Mueez.gif

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

The result of the discussion was: Delete; deleted by AnomieBOT ⚡  12:07, 30 May 2011 (UTC)
 * File:Mueez.gif ([ delete] | talk | [ history] | links | [ logs]) – uploaded by Mueezs ( [ notify] | contribs | uploads | upload log).

Orphaned, unencyclopedic, low quality Acather96 (talk) 17:07, 22 May 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:Voluntaryism.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: Wrong forum. The file is on Commons. Please nominate it for deletion there if you still feel it should be deleted. AnomieBOT ⚡ 21:12, 22 May 2011 (UTC)
 * File:Voluntaryism.png ([ delete] | talk | [ history] | links | [ logs]) – uploaded by id4abel ( [ notify] | contribs | uploads | upload log).

Obsolete, file has been replaced by a better version VforVoluntary_normal.svg Abel (talk) 20:15, 22 May 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:Abd Al-Rahman Al-Jabarti.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 ⚡  12:07, 30 May 2011 (UTC)
 * File:Abd Al-Rahman Al-Jabarti.jpg ([ delete] | talk | [ history] | links | [ logs]) – uploaded by Middayexpress ( [ notify] | contribs | uploads | upload log).

Non-free, very low quality drawing of unknown authorship, purporting to be a modern artist's (fictional) portrait of an historical personality, of whom no authentic contemporary portraits appear to exist. Fails both NFCC#1 and #8. It would be replaceable with any self-made drawing of any arbitrary face of a bearded man of vaguely oriental features and a turban that anybody could create. It also makes no contribution to understanding the article, since this anonymous artist's imagination of the subject's features is just as valid as yours or mine. – Speedy deletion was rejected by an admin based on the argument that the source from which the image was taken, by using the image, made the assertion that this was an "accurate representation" of what he looked like, and that for a Wikipedian to make any other portrait now would be "original research". Both claims are fallacious on several counts: first, fictional portraits never come with the implicit assertion of being an "accurate representation" of somebody's actual features (if an author actually intended it to be that, they would have to be insane); second, "original research" isn't prohibited with images; third, even if this image did purport to be a accurate representation of the subject's looks, that assertion would be so obviously ridiculous there would be no need to take it seriously (and the source is not technically a reliable one anyway). Needless to say, the image is not in itself the object of discussion and is in no way notable itself. Fut.Perf. ☼ 20:35, 22 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Speedy delete, based on the simple fact that we can't make up our own copyright laws. The admin who declined the deletion is responsible for the fact that the copyright violation continues during this discussion. Hans Adler 07:10, 23 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep As this fair-use image's uploader, I was not notified of this new deletion discussion as WP:FFD instructs (step #3 Give due notice). Moreover, the image is actually of adequate quality, and its author (Ahmad Ghareeb), source (Ahmad Ghareeb.com) and subject (Abd al-Rahman al-Jabarti) are all clearly indicated on the file description page. The contents of the image are also indeed the subject of commentary, as the pic is used on the scholar's biographical wiki article and in a section of another wiki article where the gentleman is discussed. Based on all of this, the admin was quite right to reject the previous speedy deletion attempt. Middayexpress (talk) 17:44, 23 May 2011 (UTC)
 * You seem to be confused about what "subject of commentary" means. It means that our article talks about the image. Show us where it does. It doesn't. Not with a single word. In neither of the two articles. Fut.Perf. ☼ 18:06, 23 May 2011 (UTC)
 * You are confusing WP:NFCI's criterion #9 ("Images that are themselves subject of commentary") with that policy's criterion #8. Step #8 does not require that the image itself be the subject of commentary. It only asks that the image be of "iconic status or historical importance" and used "as subjects of commentary", the latter referring to critical commentary -- no different to the aforecited steps #1, 4, 5, 6 and 7. The fact is, the file was uploaded under fair use clause #8, not #9. And since the image is indeed of historical importance given its subject and since it is used for critical commentary on the scholar's biographical wiki article and in a section of another wiki article where the gentleman is discussed, it certainly meets that criteria. Middayexpress (talk) 18:32, 23 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Did you just claim that this image is of "iconic status or historical importance"? Seriously? Here are some examples of what is actually meant by this rule: iconic (the original, that is), historical importance, both. For a claim that the image is iconic you would have to prove that people automatically think of that image when they hear of the person. Historical importance obviously doesn't apply. Hans Adler 19:12, 23 May 2011 (UTC)
 * As clearly indicated both above and on the image's description page, the image's subject is of historical importance (i.e. WP:NFCI's criterion #8, what I listed as the file's actual fair use rationale), not the image itself (WP:NFCI criterion #9, which I did not list as the file's fair use rationale). This is obvious, as the admin already pointed out. Middayexpress (talk) 19:38, 23 May 2011 (UTC)
 * You are misreading the NFCI list. The current wording clearly demands that the image itself, not the subject it depicts, needs to be of historical importance; furthermore, it demands that the image must be the subject of commentary, i.e. that the article must be explicitly talking about the image. (Please note that the word "subject" means something entirely different in each of these two statements; you seem to be confused about that too.) Neither of the two conditions is met. Fut.Perf. ☼ 19:42, 23 May 2011 (UTC)
 * I beg to differ. You are misreading the WP:NFCI list. And I'll prove it by actually reproducing below the two parts of it relevant to this discussion; namely, Acceptable Use points #8 & 9:


 * 8. Images with iconic status or historical importance: As subjects of commentary.
 * 9. Images that are themselves subject of commentary.


 * As can clearly be seen, only  Acceptable Use point #9 pertains to the image itself. Point #8 only asks that the image be of "iconic status or historical importance" and used "as subjects of commentary", the latter referring to critical commentary -- no different to the aforecited steps #1, 4, 5, 6 and 7. And the file of course was uploaded under Acceptable Use clause #8 ("historical importance" given its subject), not #9. Middayexpress (talk) 19:55, 23 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Sorry, I don't know if English is your native language, but you clearly need to get some more reading practice before we can continue this fruitfully. Fut.Perf. ☼ 20:04, 23 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Now, now; no need to be patronizing. I just realized that this whole deletion attempt is rendered even more dubious by the fact that Wikipedians have not even formed a consensus as to what exactly the aforecited WP:NFCI Acceptable Use criteria mean. Middayexpress (talk) 20:10, 23 May 2011 (UTC)
 * The wording in NFCI only has illustrative character. Yes, somebody made a suggestion to change it and there was some discussion about what wording would best fit current actual practice. None of the suggestions that were aired would ever have affected our present case. It was all about historic images; this one isn't an historic image. It's modern. Fut.Perf. ☼ 20:24, 23 May 2011 (UTC)
 * I'm afraid you are mistaken, as the (still ongoing) Rfc involves the very WP:NFCI Acceptable Use criterion that I uploaded the image under (and some I didn't too; viz. point #9) and which you are presently disputing. Per the nominator :
 * "The non-free content guideline says under "Acceptable use" for images: "Images with iconic status or historical importance: As subjects of commentary." Should it require that images of historical importance be subjects of commentary, i.e. that the images themselves, rather than the events they depict, be discussed in the article or by the sources, before we may claim fair use? That is, must the Wikipedia article, or the sources, actually discuss the image before fair-use can be claimed?"
 * One unfortunately cannot credibly claim that something is against a particular policy when there clearly is no consensus on that policy to begin with. This is especially true when that very part of the policy is under an Rfc. Middayexpress (talk) 20:41, 23 May 2011 (UTC)


 * Delete The image is itself a fictional construct, as shown by the level of generic as opposed to detailed features. As such, it's useless.  S ven M anguard   Wha?  03:25, 24 May 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:Parks and Recreation the fight.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 ⚡  12:07, 30 May 2011 (UTC)
 * File:Parks and Recreation the fight.jpg ([ delete] | talk | [ history] | links | [ logs]) – uploaded by Hunter Kahn ( [ notify] | contribs | uploads | upload log).

Yet another unnecessary TV episode screenshot. Will this never stop? As so often: seemingly random scene, not embedded in analytical commentary, not needed to understand the article, fails NFCC#8. Fut.Perf. ☼ 22:59, 22 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep As much as you seem to take exception to these television screenshot images, I take exception to your constant, unequivocal deletion nominations for these images. No offense intended to you personally here, but the condescending tone of your nomination suggests to me that you're opposed to screenshot images in general, even though WP:FUC does allow screenshots to be used in certain justifiable situations. This particular image has a lengthy fair use rationale description which you don't respond to in any specifics. The image illustrates various elements of the episode, as that rationale explains, and its inclusion increases the readers understanding of the article. Just because you have a philosophical disagreement with the idea of television screenshots doesn't justify these blanket deletion nominations. —  Hun ter   Ka  hn  23:09, 22 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete - This is just a headshot of a smiling man, and its omission would not be detrimental for the understanding of the text describing the scene this still was taken from. --Damiens .rf 15:33, 23 May 2011 (UTC)
 * So you're once again opting not to address the fair use rationale then? —  Hun ter   Ka  hn  19:00, 23 May 2011 (UTC)
 * The FUR falsely claims that the comic quality of the scene "cannot be portrayed in words nearly as vividly or effectively as the image". This is simply wrong: sure, it will be difficult to convey it in words, but the image can't convey it either. The image simply shows an overweight mustachioed guy with a silly smile. Nothing funny about it, at all. Nothing that shows me how and why it was funny. Whatever the comedic quality of the scene, in the acting, the dancing, the talking, the singing, or whatever it was, it's just not in the image. If it is true that the scene was funny, I can still only take the reviewers' word for it. Fut.Perf. ☼ 19:27, 23 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Whether or not in your subjective opinion the image is funny hardly seems relevant. Personally, I find it pretty funny. Besides, the portion of the FUC you are citing doesn't refer to the "comic quality" of the scene, but rather to the scene itself. The full text of the sentence is: "Although the scene itself is described in text, it cannot be portrayed in words nearly as vividly or effectively as the image." —  Hun ter   Ka  hn  04:19, 24 May 2011 (UTC)
 * The question is why does the article needs to portray the image that as vividly and effectively? A short video would surely portray it more vividly and effectively than the image, and an HD video even more vividly and effectively (we can go 3D as well). We're not looking for the more vivid way to portray this (and why not others?) scenes on the series. We want to convey the relevant information to the readers. Reading the article will never work as a substitute for really watching the episode. --<span style="padding:0.1em 1em;background-color:blue;color:white;border:0.2em solid red;border-left:border:0.5em double red;font-weight:bold">Damiens .rf 09:17, 24 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Video is not available. If it were, I'd use it, but as the image fair use rationale indicates, the image is not replacable with something better. As for why this scene, it illustrates several aspects that are discussed in critical commentary within the article, including the improvisation, and the critical acclaim of both this shot and the bar scenes in general. And while you're right that it's no substitute for watching the episode, we should assume the reader has not seen it and that we are trying to convey as much information as possible, so I believe the image does have value, however marginal. —  Hun ter   Ka  hn  17:33, 24 May 2011 (UTC)
 * There's really something with my brain that prevents me to have a better understanding of the "improvisation, and the critical acclaim of both this shot and the bar scenes in general" by looking to this headshot of an actor smiling. We'll have to agree to disagree. --<span style="padding:0.1em 1em;background-color:blue;color:white;border:0.2em solid red;border-left:border:0.5em double red;font-weight:bold">Damiens .rf 17:41, 24 May 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:Sky logo Germany.svg
<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: Withdrawn by nominator. –Drilnoth (T • C • L) 13:01, 25 May 2011 (UTC)
 * File:Sky logo Germany.svg ([ delete] | talk | [ history] | links | [ logs]) – uploaded by The TV Boy ( [ notify] | contribs | uploads | upload log).

Orphaned, having been replaced in the article by the (more recent?) File:Sky Logo 2004 Transparent.png. This would likely qualify as, but it seems kind of redundant to have both it and the other file so, delete. –Drilnoth (T • C • L) 23:00, 22 May 2011 (UTC)
 * I don't know, but maybe a transfer to Commons should be better, because I thought there must be a basic word mark non-colored logo in Wikipedia of "SKY".--The TV Boy (talk) 09:28, 25 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Ah, good point. I'll clean up the page and tag it to be moved. Withdrawn. –Drilnoth (T • C • L) 13:01, 25 May 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.