Wikipedia:Files for deletion/2009 May 18

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search
< May 17 May 19 >

May 18

[edit]

Brockett-1968.jpg

[edit]
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⚡ 06:03, 18 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:Brockett-1968.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by [[User talk:#File:Brockett-1968.jpg listed for deletion|]] ([ notify] | contribs).
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.

Greg&jenny.jpg

[edit]
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 Stifle (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 12:08, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:Greg&jenny.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Jeffpw (notify | contribs).
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.

Analysis Tianenmen False Fire GIF.gif

[edit]
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 Graeme Bartlett (talk) 11:32, 24 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:Analysis Tianenmen False Fire GIF.gif (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Dilip rajeev (notify | contribs).
  • Animated gif that is a severe violation of the minimal use element of the NFCC. A long animation is absolutely not needed- if anything is required, it is a single frame. J Milburn (talk) 18:28, 18 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep A still frame can not capture the dynamic of the hit. The propaganda said that one of the immolators has died on the scene because of the flames. One death was required to make the whole story believable as being serious. This short animation, contains the most minimum of frames, where it shows how the victim actually falls from being hit. It also shows how heavily the alleged self immolators where dressed up. These kind of heavy gears are used for fire protection, see [1]. --HappyInGeneral (talk) 23:01, 18 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. A still absolutely cannot convey the information currently conveyed by the clip. The gif contains the absolute minimum number of frames needed to convey that. Kindly see the fair use rationale.
Dilip rajeev (talk) 05:46, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
WP:OI? Stifle (talk) 10:18, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Nope. The clip is a capture from the "False Fire" documentary[2].
Dilip rajeev (talk) 19:52, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep on the condition that the caption for the image is composed of cited material. The length is not sufficient to exceed fair use. — Hex (❝?!❞) 12:58, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]


Delete unnecessary animation--PCPP (talk) 05:52, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

ImmolaterStillfromFalseFire.jpg

[edit]
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. According to WP:Non-free content criteria#Enforcement, it is the responsibility of "users seeking to include or retain content to provide a valid rationale, not for those seeking to remove or delete it to show that one cannot be created. A rationale for why these images are irreplaceable has not been successfully made.--Aervanath (talk) 09:27, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:ImmolaterStillfromFalseFire.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Dilip rajeev (notify | contribs).
  • Individual images are of a low resolution and are non-replaceable. Some images are of a historic incident, which happened in 2001. The rest are also taken from the same documentary whose analysis on the particular matter, the image outlines. They are of central relevance in the article as well. Please see my comments below.
Dilip rajeev (talk) 17:22, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep 3 of the 4 pictures presented are screen captures, of low resolution, fair use rationale is presented for these. The 4th picture is a text book presentation of the correct hand gesture, there is no copyright on that part of the image. --HappyInGeneral (talk) 23:04, 18 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. These are screen captures - and the captures were not done from a high resolution video. 796 × 1,200 is just the size or dimension of the composite image - not the resolution of original images. Six images together being just 796 × 1,200 implies individual resolution is very low.

Dilip rajeev (talk) 11:41, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The composition and labelling of the image are original research. — Hex (❝?!❞) 12:59, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]


Kindly note that the 'statements in the image are not original research. The stills are from the "False Fire" documentary. The statements as well as the composition is bsed on and can be sourced to the same documentary. The context in which the image is used and its caption make the sourcing clear. There is nothing of an OR nature in the labels/comments.
Dilip rajeev (talk) 19:48, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete require better sourcing and rewrite of added captions.--PCPP (talk) 05:50, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I have made clear the source and that the info can be directly sourced to the documentary. Could you please be a little less vague and specify what exact info you are looking for? It could as well be added now to the image description page.
Dilip rajeev (talk) 06:45, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. WP:NFCC#3a states: "Multiple items of non-free content are not used if one item can convey equivalent significant information.". One item certainly cannot convey the information carried by the composite image. None of the images in it are redundant. Even if a single image were removed from it, the composite would fail to convey the information it currently does.Dilip rajeev (talk) 18:43, 24 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Wanted to add that the images support central commentary in the article and contribute a lot in terms of conveying information. The article would be much poorer without them and there are no copyright violations in using them either.Dilip rajeev (talk) 18:34, 24 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I understand they contribute a lot, but several photos appear to be screenshots. While they are certainly illustrative, they aren't anything that could be replaced by you walking outside and taking photos to illustrate without using copyrighted materials. — BQZip01 — talk 19:24, 24 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
They are screenshots from the documentary titled False Fire[3]. The purpose is to convey a central piece of information from the documentary. Some of the stills are from the original footage of the staged self-immolation incident which happened in 2001( the footage is part of the false fire documentary ) - and clearly are not replaceable. Others are also stills from the same documentary, used for the purpose of presenting information conveyed by the documentary. Further, I really cannot make up my own set of images and use them to present the perspective of this particular documentary/source - I'll have to draw from the same source if I am to accurately do that - or it would amount to WP:OR. Also these are just a few stills from a 45 min documentary - and clearly fair-use. See image description as well.
Dilip rajeev (talk) 20:33, 24 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The picture has a good source. This is the most important evidence that CCTV tries to hide. I heard that CCTV even tried to delete this from their original video later. If you are not afraid of seeing the evidence, there is no excuse to delete this image. Let the fact stay. (We may consider deleting other images if you think there are too many images. ) Fnhddzs (talk) 01:54, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the media's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Wjd3photos.jpg

[edit]
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 Graeme Bartlett (talk) 11:40, 24 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:Wjd3photos.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Asdfg12345 (notify | contribs).
  • Image is simply not required. It adds little to the article, and the use of a non-free image in this instance is not justified. J Milburn (talk) 18:31, 18 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep This image shows yet another inconsistency in the story presented by the Chinese government. This image shows head to head, the person who was claimed by the government to have been identified and the self imolator. This way the difference is obvious. So in my opinion this image is needed. --HappyInGeneral (talk) 22:52, 18 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Please note that it supports commentary in the section it is used.
Dilip rajeev (talk) 19:56, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete image should be written in English.--PCPP (talk) 05:49, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep -- not as strong a keep as the other two, but there's still no clear infringement of fair use policy here, is there? The image provides a visual illustration of parts of the text of the article, is of low resolution, and does not infringe on the copyright holder.--Asdfg12345 08:29, 21 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep adequate illustration of the issues described in the article. A translation of the Chinese in the image should be provided to help us understand the image better. For all most of us know it could be cursing our ancestors, threatening to make a bowl of oatmeal, or other nonsense. — BQZip01 — talk 03:55, 24 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the media's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Raiders SFCH.jpg

[edit]
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 Drilnoth (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 03:02, 24 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:Raiders SFCH.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Mdiamante (notify | contribs).
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.

Larryking.jpg

[edit]
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 - image fails NFCC#8 in not significantly increasing reader's understanding - Peripitus (Talk) 12:42, 24 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:Larryking.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by David Foster (notify | contribs).
How he looked in the mugshot is not essential information, but just a decoration for the text about his problems with the justice. --Damiens.rf 18:02, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the media's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

PCT - IHTP.ogg

[edit]
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 Graeme Bartlett (talk) 11:45, 24 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:PCT - IHTP.ogg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Alecsdaniel (notify | contribs).
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.

Cliff and Nina.jpg

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

The result of the discussion was: Delete; deleted by Peripitus (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 13:57, 24 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:Cliff and Nina.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Flyer22 (notify | contribs).
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.

A young Tad and Dixie kiss.jpg

[edit]
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 - as failing NFCC#3a and probably NFCC#8 - Peripitus (Talk) 12:31, 24 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:A young Tad and Dixie kiss.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Flyer22 (notify | contribs).
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.

Dixie is back.jpg

[edit]
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 - Note that those seeking to keep the image have not offered any policy basis for the image's inclusion. - Peripitus (Talk) 12:36, 24 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:Dixie is back.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Flyer22 (notify | contribs).
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.

A Wedding For Tad & Dixie!.jpg

[edit]
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: Deleted. Fails NFCC#8. – Quadell (talk) 13:55, 24 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:A Wedding For Tad & Dixie!.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Flyer22 (notify | contribs).
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.

Jesse and Angie deeply in love.jpg

[edit]
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 - fails NFCC#8 at least and probably 3a - Peripitus (Talk) 12:45, 24 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:Jesse and Angie deeply in love.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Flyer22 (notify | contribs).
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.

Angie crying on Jesse's chest upon his death.jpg

[edit]
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: Not deleted. Apparently this passes NFCC#8, since the image itself is notable and subject to sourced commentary, and the image is used in that section. – Quadell (talk) 17:29, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:Angie crying on Jesse's chest upon his death.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Flyer22 (notify | contribs).
Some advice: for the people placing the pictures, please don't place them where they will look pretty, place them right next to the place where their importance is commented with sources, add a summary of the commentary in the caption so people will see more easily that the commentary exists. Reuse the relevant sources if necessary.
For the people nominating, please don't put a "|" character between the caption and the deletion template because then the caption does not appear on the page, I had to look at the source code to read it. --Enric Naval (talk) 15:39, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - No Reason for deletion. - NeutralHomer • Talk • 20:11, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. --Silvestris (talk) 00:04, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Enric Naval and NeutralHomer - ALLST✰R▼echo wuz here @ 06:10, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, fails WP:NFCC#3a and/or WP:NFCC#8. Stifle (talk) 11:08, 22 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I can see why this could be considered a key plot point, but, nothing in our WP:NFCC states that "key plot points" are a reason for inclusion. This image is one of a few copyrighted images on the article violating WP:NFCC#3. Specifically, we don't need an additional non-free image when one does the trick. — BQZip01 — talk 03:24, 24 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment. To Stifle and BQZip01, I cannot see how this image fails at all. And it is not about it simply being a key plot point. Jesse's death at the time and the imagery of that death was almost as big as the famous Luke Snyder and Noah Mayer kiss (if not just as big). His death was heavily commented on and significantly impacted viewers, which I can add more to within the article. It was a key plot point, yes, but it was also one that deeply affected viewers due to the imagery of Jesse dying and Angie crying on his chest. It is this very imagery, not just the moment, that made this scene legendary. It is also why his being "brought back to life" was such a big deal and reported on by several valid sources, as shown in the Rewrite and return subsection on the Background section of the article. One image of this kind would do the trick, and this is the only one of that kind within the article. Flyer22 (talk) 18:34, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Non-free image that does not significantly increase the readers' understanding. We don't need an image to understand that one character was sad when another died. The image doesn't help in understanding how fans felt about the scene either. Jay32183 (talk) 19:42, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the media's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Jesse and Angie, Soap Opera Digest magazine, January 3, 1984.jpg

[edit]
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: Deleted, fails NFCC#8. – Quadell (talk) 14:05, 24 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:Jesse and Angie, Soap Opera Digest magazine, January 3, 1984.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Flyer22 (notify | contribs).
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.

Maria's tombstone.jpg

[edit]
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: Deleted, fails WP:NFCC#8. – Quadell (talk) 02:07, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:Maria's tombstone.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Flyer22 (notify | contribs).
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.

DEtriangle1.jpg

[edit]
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: Deleted, fails NFCC#3 and #8

File:DEtriangle1.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Rocksey (notify | contribs).
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.

Edwedding3.jpg

[edit]
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: Deleted, fails WP:NFCC#8. – Quadell (talk) 02:08, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:Edwedding3.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Rocksey (notify | contribs).
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.

Mag8082.jpg

[edit]
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: Deleted, fails WP:NFCC#8. – Quadell (talk) 02:08, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:Mag8082.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Rocksey (notify | contribs).
  • Delete I can see why this could be considered a key plot point, but, nothing in our WP:NFCC states that "key plot points" are a reason for inclusion. This image is one of a few copyrighted images on the article violating WP:NFCC#3. Specifically, we don't need an additional non-free image when one does the trick. — BQZip01 — talk 03:20, 24 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the media's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Kendall in a coma (Main).JPG

[edit]
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: Deleted, fails WP:NFCC#8. – Quadell (talk) 02:09, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:Kendall in a coma (Main).JPG (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Flyer22 (notify | contribs).
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.

Zach comes to battle his father, The Satin Slayer.jpg

[edit]
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: Deleted. Fails NFCC#3 and #8. – Quadell (talk) 17:30, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:Zach comes to battle his father, The Satin Slayer.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Flyer22 (notify | contribs).
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.

AMC finally gives fans the story that they want. (Main).JPG

[edit]
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: Deleted, fails WP:NFCC#8. – Quadell (talk) 02:10, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:AMC finally gives fans the story that they want. (Main).JPG (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Flyer22 (notify | contribs).
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.

Bianca first meeting Maggie.jpg

[edit]
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: Deleted, fails WP:NFCC#8. – Quadell (talk) 02:11, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:Bianca first meeting Maggie.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Flyer22 (notify | contribs).
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.

Maggie and Bianca (D).jpg

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

The result of the discussion was: Delete. No policy-based reason has been advanced for keeping the image; merely "good image, no reason for deletion" and two further keeps without any justification. Stifle (talk) 10:40, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:Maggie and Bianca (D).jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Flyer22 (notify | contribs).
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.

SIDcover-bam.jpg

[edit]
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: Deleted, fails WP:NFCC#8. – Quadell (talk) 02:12, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:SIDcover-bam.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Flyer22 (notify | contribs).
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.

Luke and Noah fall into each other during tug of war.jpg

[edit]
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: Deleted, does not pass NFCC#8. – Quadell (talk) 17:32, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:Luke and Noah fall into each other during tug of war.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Flyer22 (notify | contribs).

Keep because this is a pivitol moment in Noah's personal development.

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.

Luke and Noah love story.jpg

[edit]
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: Deleted, fails NFCC#3 and #8. – Quadell (talk) 13:49, 24 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:Luke and Noah love story.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Flyer22 (notify | contribs).
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.

Famous Luke and Noah kiss.jpg

[edit]
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: Not deleted. The image itself (not just the characters) is discussed and important to the topic. Passes all NFCC. – Quadell (talk) 13:52, 24 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:Famous Luke and Noah kiss.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Flyer22 (notify | contribs).
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.

Time-SoapOperas-1976.jpg

[edit]
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: Deleted, does not pass NFCC#8. – Quadell (talk) 17:34, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:Time-SoapOperas-1976.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by TAnthony (notify | contribs).
I've beefed up the coverage in soap opera; the Time article itself is expansive and I'd like to incorporate more into the Wiki article anyway, but any direction on how to use it to make use of the image more appropriate would be appreciated.— TAnthonyTalk 19:42, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the media's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

John and Marlena SOD.jpg

[edit]
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: Deleted. Does not pass NFCC#3 and #8. – Quadell (talk) 13:47, 24 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:John and Marlena SOD.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Rocksey (notify | contribs).
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.

Lnlwedding.jpg

[edit]
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. Recommendations and !votes lacking a policy-based reason have been given less weight. Stifle (talk) 10:42, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:Lnlwedding.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Tarheel44 (notify | contribs).
  • This non-free image is decorative in Luke and Laura Spencer and there are free alternatives available for Supercouple. Damiens.rf 20:31, 18 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep. The fact is...it is not decorative in the Supercouple article, in which it is used as the main image. This is the couple who started the term supercouple, which is very much sourced and commented on within the article. There is no free alternative image to use for this couple at their wedding (which started the initial supercouple era), and using any other couple as the lead (intro) image in the article simply because that image is free would be ludicrous. A free image of a celebrity supercouple as the lead image will not do, when taken into consideration that celebrity supercouples did not define the term and came after soap opera supercouples (at least when referencing the term supercouple).
    • If the image has no significant purpose in the Luke Spencer and Laura Webber article, then remove it from there. But it has huge significance in the Supercouple article.
    • Note: This user is on a crusade against almost any image I have uploaded, when most are perfectly valid within the realm of fictional characters. Flyer22 (talk) 23:12, 18 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Good image, no reason for deletion. - NeutralHomer • Talk • 20:17, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. --Silvestris (talk) 00:04, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Flyer22 and NeutralHomer - ALLST✰R▼echo wuz here @ 06:23, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: Both Supercouple and the "Luke and Laura" articles benefit by having a contemporaneous image, and there is not a free image that can replace it. 71.234.215.133 (talk) 16:31, 22 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I can see why this could be considered a key plot point, but, nothing in our WP:NFCC states that "key plot points" are a reason for inclusion. This image is one of two copyrighted images on the article violating WP:NFCC#3. Specifically, we don't need an additional non-free image when one does the trick. — BQZip01 — talk 03:04, 24 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment. Are you carefully reading all of these discussions, besides copying and pasting almost the same response each time? I mean, I know that you are carefully reading some of them, but it does not matter what other images are within the Supercouple article. What matters is that this image is absolutely valid within the article for the reasons I stated above. There is no valid reason that can be given for the deletion of this image. Flyer22 (talk) 03:10, 24 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak delete. The article states "The term was coined in the early 1980s when intense public interest in fictional soap opera couple Luke Spencer and Laura Webber from General Hospital made the pair a popular culture phenomenon." This fact is clearly an important fact in the Supercouple article, but it isn't any clearer or any better explained by having a non-free image illustrate it in the article. – Quadell (talk) 02:21, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the media's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

RobinandPatrickDrake2.jpg

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

The result of the discussion was: Delete. No policy-based reasons for keeping provided. Stifle (talk) 10:43, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:RobinandPatrickDrake2.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Mikeslikb (notify | contribs).
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.

Craig and John Paul airport-goodbye in 2007.jpg

[edit]
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 Stifle (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 12:08, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:Craig and John Paul airport-goodbye in 2007.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Flyer22 (notify | contribs).
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.

JPCraigBed.jpg

[edit]
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. Arguments lacking basis in policy have been given less weight. Stifle (talk) 10:44, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:JPCraigBed.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by ThisIsAce (notify | contribs).
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.

Craig Dean returns.jpg

[edit]
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: Deleted, does not pass NFCC#8. – Quadell (talk) 17:36, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:Craig Dean returns.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Flyer22 (notify | contribs).
  • Decorative non-free screenshot. Helps nothing in understanding the article. Damiens.rf 20:37, 18 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Good image, no reason for deletion. - [[User:Neutralhomer|NeutralHomer]

] • Talk • 20:17, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

GaskillandHersheyLocationshoot.jpg

[edit]
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 Stifle (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 12:08, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:GaskillandHersheyLocationshoot.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Rocksey (notify | contribs).
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.

Rafe and Alison say goodbye.jpg

[edit]
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: Deleted. Fails NFCC#8

File:Rafe and Alison say goodbye.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Rocksey (notify | contribs).
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.

ToddBlair-RHKD.jpg

[edit]
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: Deleted, does not pass NFCC#8. – Quadell (talk) 17:39, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:ToddBlair-RHKD.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Tarheel44 (notify | contribs).
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.

Edencruz1986.jpg

[edit]
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: Not deleted. – Quadell (talk) 18:17, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:Edencruz1986.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Dmarex (notify | contribs).
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.

MorrowCaseParisKiss.jpg

[edit]
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. Arguments carrying no basis in policy have been weighted accordingly. Stifle (talk) 10:46, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:MorrowCaseParisKiss.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Rocksey (notify | contribs).
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.

Nick and Sharon on the cover of Soap Opera Digest, July 16, 1996..jpg

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

The result of the discussion was: Delete; deleted by Peripitus (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 13:57, 24 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:Nick and Sharon on the cover of Soap Opera Digest, July 16, 1996..jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Flyer22 (notify | contribs).
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.

Leo and Greenlee undying love.jpg

[edit]
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. Arguments not backed by policy have been given less weight. Stifle (talk) 10:47, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:Leo and Greenlee undying love.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Flyer22 (notify | contribs).
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.

Leo at Miller's Falls.jpg

[edit]
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: Deleted, does not pass WP:NFCC#8. – Quadell (talk) 18:12, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:Leo at Miller's Falls.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Flyer22 (notify | contribs).
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.

Leo and Greenlee Soap Opera Digest.jpg

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

The result of the discussion was: Delete; deleted by Peripitus (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 13:57, 24 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:Leo and Greenlee Soap Opera Digest.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Flyer22 (notify | contribs).
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.

J.R. and Babe in a shack making love, their frustions wild. B (Main).JPG

[edit]
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: Deleted, does not pass WP:NFCC#8. – Quadell (talk) 18:11, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:J.R. and Babe in a shack making love, their frustions wild. B (Main).JPG (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Flyer22 (notify | contribs).
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.

J.R. holds Krystal hostage, threatens her life (Main).JPG

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

The result of the discussion was: Delete; deleted by Peripitus (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 13:57, 24 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:J.R. holds Krystal hostage, threatens her life (Main).JPG (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Flyer22 (notify | contribs).
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.

J.R. heartbroken that Babe is (supposedly) dead (Main).JPG

[edit]
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: Deleted, does not pass WP:NFCC#8. – Quadell (talk) 18:09, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:J.R. heartbroken that Babe is (supposedly) dead (Main).JPG (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Flyer22 (notify | contribs).
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.

J.R. tells Babe from the moment he saw her, he knew he wanted to be a good man.jpg

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

The result of the discussion was: Delete; deleted by Peripitus (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 13:57, 24 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:J.R. tells Babe from the moment he saw her, he knew he wanted to be a good man.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Flyer22 (notify | contribs).
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.

J.R. and Babe's Celebrity Wedding Exclusive (Main).JPG

[edit]
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: Deleted, does not pass WP:NFCC#8. – Quadell (talk) 18:08, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:J.R. and Babe's Celebrity Wedding Exclusive (Main).JPG (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Flyer22 (notify | contribs).
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.

Ejsavessami.jpg

[edit]
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: Deleted. Fails NFCC#3

File:Ejsavessami.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by KellyAna (notify | contribs).
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.

BradyDimeraPromo.jpg

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

The result of the discussion was: Delete; deleted by Peripitus (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 13:57, 24 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:BradyDimeraPromo.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Radiantbutterfly (notify | contribs).
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.

My Two Mommies.jpg

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

The result of the discussion was: - Delete - no keep policy based opinions offerred - image fails NFCC#8 - Peripitus (Talk) 12:50, 24 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:My Two Mommies.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Loveoandn (notify | contribs).
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.

Todd and Téa on Soap Opera Weekly cover.jpg

[edit]
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 - fails NFCC#8 and 3 - noted that there are no keep policy based arguments offerred - Peripitus (Talk) 12:39, 24 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:Todd and Téa on Soap Opera Weekly cover.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Flyer22 (notify | contribs).
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.

Normal 114788 6298 ful.jpg

[edit]
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. I'm going to have to close against the numbers on this one. Proponents of keeping this image have not sufficiently shown why this image meets the WP:NFCC criteria, especially criterion 3a and criterion 8.--Aervanath (talk) 09:39, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:Normal 114788 6298 ful.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Candyo32 (notify | contribs).
  • Decorative non-free screenshot. Helps nothing in understanding the article. Damiens.rf 20:53, 18 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Todd Manning is a fictional character who has had his faced changed due to plastic surgery within the series. The image is illustrative of what Todd Manning currently looks like now, as portrayed by Trevor St. John, in his interaction with fictional character Téa Delgado. Flyer22 (talk) 19:21, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Good image, no reason for deletion. - NeutralHomer • Talk • 20:20, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. --Silvestris (talk) 00:04, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Flyer22 and NeutralHomer - ALLST✰R▼echo wuz here @ 06:37, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I improved the caption so it's clearer why the photo is there. --Enric Naval (talk) 22:02, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Tea and Todd (with a new face) react with one another for the first time in almost eight years. Keep image! **** —Preceding unsigned comment added by Candyo32 (talk • contribs) 22:10, 21 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • In six years, to be exact. They last saw each other in 2002 before she came back in 2008 and interacted with him then. This particular image from January 2009 is not the first time they interacted with each other since her return, but, yeah, still valid for the reasons I stated above about it. Flyer22 (talk) 22:44, 21 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Completely disagree with Damiens.rf on this one though. I can see why this could be considered a key plot point, but, nothing in our WP:NFCC states that "key plot points" are a reason for inclusion. If this is supposed to show Todd Manning, it should be included on his character page, not its current location; it is about the actress, not this actor. This image is one of many copyrighted images on the article violating WP:NFCC#3. Specifically, we don't need an additional non-free image when one does the trick. — BQZip01 — talk 02:36, 24 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment. The image (besides the fictional moment it is displaying) is about Todd Manning with a new face and his interaction with Téa Delgado/this actress. The image is valid because Todd's new face cannot be conveyed through text alone. Flyer22 (talk) 03:41, 24 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. We already have an image to show what this character looked like in general. Yes, this shows a particular look for the character, but the difference between his look before and after the surgery is not shown to be notable through extensive text and reliable secondary sources. As such, this image only illustrates material which is not necessary in the article. – Quadell (talk) 18:07, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment. Extensive text can always be added. But either way, given that Todd does have a new face, I cannot see how this image is not necessary in the article. Going on a policy-based argument, removal of the image does significantly decrease readers' understanding of what Todd looks like now and these new moments. In fact, the only way they would know what Todd looks like now is either if they are familiar with this character or if they were to click on the Todd Manning article. But the thing is...Wikipedia articles are supposed to be about casual readers as well, not just for the fans of the topic. Flyer22 (talk) 02:01, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the media's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Todd and Téa have sex together for the first time.jpg

[edit]
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: Deleted. Fails NFCC#3.

File:Todd and Téa have sex together for the first time.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Flyer22 (notify | contribs).
  • Decorative non-free screenshot. Helps nothing in understanding the article. Damiens.rf 20:53, 18 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep. Not decorative. It depicts a sexual encounter between two fictional characters, which is noted as significant and has critical commentary to back it up in the Téa Delgado Impact section. The imagery of these two having sex for the first time was rampant all over soap opera websites and within soap opera magazines due to its significance at the time.
    • Note: This user is on a crusade against almost any image I have uploaded, when most are perfectly valid within the realm of fictional characters. Flyer22 (talk) 21:35, 18 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Good image, no reason for deletion. - NeutralHomer • Talk • 20:20, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. --Silvestris (talk) 00:04, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Flyer22 and NeutralHomer - ALLST✰R▼echo wuz here @ 06:38, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete the problem with Flyer22's argument is that I don't see at all how the heck this image is supposed to improve the understanding of the article by the reader, the specific image is not significant by itself and the commentary on the media repercusion can go without the photo. This is not a case where a specific image had a huge impact, like that moment of a film where Bruce Willis showed his naked ass and the photograms where removed from the US version but not from the european version. "good image" is not a reason not to remove an image that is failing WP:NFCC policy. --Enric Naval (talk) 22:14, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment. This specific imagery was shown all over soap opera websites and within soap opera magazines when this couple's first sexual encounter with each other happened. I argue that this imagery did have a huge impact within the soap opera community at the time. This was a hugely popular couple back then and their first sexual encounter was highly anticipated, which is noted within the (Impact) section this image is now placed in. Their time on that deserted island together and their first sexual encounter with each other while there were big moments at the time. Perhaps, if I uploaded an image that shows a better view of them on the island, that would please more people, since it would be displaying the look of the island (and not only them), but this sex scene is what I feel is more significant out of the options and that it does satisfy Wikipedia's image policies. Flyer22 (talk) 23:00, 21 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete partly per Enric Naval. The image doesn't significantly improve the reader's understanding of the topic, and it appears to be solely a random shot from a TV show (and the "couple's first sexual encounter" isn't especially notable). American Eagle (talk) 19:30, 22 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment. It is not a random shot, per explained above by me. And their first sexual encounter with each other was especially notable within the series and to fans. Flyer22 (talk) 23:51, 23 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Completely disagree with Damiens.rf on this one though. I can see why this could be considered a key plot point, but, nothing in our WP:NFCC states that "key plot points" are a reason for inclusion. This image is one of many copyrighted images on the article violating WP:NFCC#3. Specifically, we don't need an additional non-free image when one does the trick. — BQZip01 — talk 02:33, 24 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment. I would not say that the article has many copyrighted images violating WP:NFCC#3. The first image is of the actress who portrays the character, and the second and third images are of the same couple portrayed by two different male actors with the same female. And then there is this one we are debating now, which I feel is valid for the reasons I stated above. Flyer22 (talk) 02:42, 24 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the media's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Daniel Romalotti and Lily Winters on their wedding day, March 24, 2006..jpg

[edit]
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. Arguments lacking basis in policy have been weighted accordingly. Stifle (talk) 10:50, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:Daniel Romalotti and Lily Winters on their wedding day, March 24, 2006..jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Carly Greene (notify | contribs).
  • Decorative non-free screenshot. Helps nothing in understanding the article. Damiens.rf 20:53, 18 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Good image, no reason for deletion. - NeutralHomer • Talk • 20:20, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. --Silvestris (talk) 00:04, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - This image provides a visual depiction of the second actress to play the role of the female lead in the fictional couple the article is about. It is just as important as the top image on the page and not at all just for decoration.
  • It should also be noted that this was the same issue with the Thad and Adrianne mid-show promo 2006.jpg which Damiens.rf also nominated. The difference is, when I brought up that point with that article he rescinded the nomination. When I brought up that this one had the same type of purpose in a different article, not only did he not cancel that nomination, he didn't even bother to reply and engage in discussion. Rocksey (talk) 05:57, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per NeutralHomer and Rocksey - ALLST✰R▼echo wuz here @ 06:39, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • keep shows what the fictional characters look like, no free replacement. There are no other photos on the page serving the same purpose (I think) --Enric Naval (talk) 22:05, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete This image is one of many copyrighted images on the article violating WP:NFCC#3. Specifically, we don't need an additional non-free image when one does the trick. — BQZip01 — talk 02:29, 24 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment. I'm not sure what you mean by this. There isn't more than one image in the article that shows what the fictional character looks like with the second actress in the role. This image would be the one that does the trick. Rocksey (talk) 08:54, 24 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - image clearly fails NFCC#8 - of course it illustrates the character...that is the point of an image (to illustrate something). However it adds no significant understanding of the topic for readers - Peripitus (Talk) 12:48, 24 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • So we're not supposed to have images that show what a character looks like even when the article is about that character? Rocksey (talk) 17:06, 24 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • All the picture adds is that you can see Davetta Sherwood who briefly was in the part. As a casual reader how does it add significantly to my understanding. What is achieved that a free image of Davetta Sherwood would not. - Peripitus (Talk) 12:01, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        • It achieves the same purpose that any image of a fictional character in a role. If Sherwood had only been in the role for a week or maybe even a month, I would agree that it wasn't necessary to have a picture of her in the article. But she was in the role from February to November of 2006 on contract with the show. I know the article should make the span of time more clear. I'll take out the "briefly".Rocksey (talk) 17:16, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the media's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Khalil and Graziadei on location.jpg

[edit]
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: Deleted. Fails NFCC#3 and #8

File:Khalil and Graziadei on location.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Rocksey (notify | contribs).
  • Decorative non-free picture by some unidentified papparazzo. Helps nothing in understanding the article. Damiens.rf 20:54, 18 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Good image, no reason for deletion. - NeutralHomer • Talk • 20:22, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. --Silvestris (talk) 00:04, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - The image is not just decorative as it gives a visual depiction of the filming of a location shoot that added significantly to the fiction, was spotlighted in the press, and noted within the article. The nominators description of the image as a "non-free picture by some unidentified papparazzo" is inaccurate. The source for the image was clearly given as a magazine. I reiterated it on the images page just to make sure it's clear what it is and where it came from. Rocksey (talk) 06:11, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per NeutralHomer and Rocksey - ALLST✰R▼echo wuz here @ 06:39, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Uh, the sentence "they went to Malibu to film shoots" does not get its significance improved because you add a photo of the guys filming in the beach. There is no significance of the image itself, so it's failing WP:NFCC#8. I remind the closing admin that fair use images need to have a good justification of why they qualify for fair use per WP:NFCC. It's the people arguing who have to justify why it fulfills WP:NFCC, you don't need a "reason", failing WP:NFCC is a good enough reason to delete. Idem for other images in this page. --Enric Naval (talk) 21:59, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete This image is one of many copyrighted images on the article violating WP:NFCC#3. Specifically, we don't need an additional non-free image when one does the trick. — BQZip01 — talk 02:29, 24 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the media's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

SConstage-10.jpg

[edit]
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: Deleted. Invalid license, inadequate source.

File:SConstage-10.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Kekkomereq4 (notify | contribs).
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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Files_for_deletion/2009_May_18&oldid=1142599614"