Wikipedia:Files for deletion/2011 May 1

< April 30	May 2 >

May 1

File:Signatures1256.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 as F4 by Nyttend (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 00:00, 8 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Image quality too low for signature (focus of the image) to be legible. Sven Manguard Wha? 04:03, 1 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete low quality and unreadable it is unlikely to have any encyclopedic value. MilborneOne (talk) 18:46, 1 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Deleted under F4 — it had no source. Nyttend (talk) 22:04, 7 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

-->

File:Goose1977.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 VernoWhitney (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 18:12, 8 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

OR-subject not identified Skier Dude (talk) 04:08, 1 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete probably was for a user page but editor had not edited since early 2010, it has no encyclopedic value. MilborneOne (talk) 18:57, 1 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Wikipedia is not flickr. Sven Manguard Wha? 19:30, 1 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Serena and Blair in Columbia.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 Peripitus (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 12:08, 9 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Non-free TV episode screenshot, used in infobox. Apparently random, nondescript scene, not embedded in analytical commentary, not necessary to understand article. Meaningless FUR implying the image was taken randomly merely for the sake of having an image ("to show an image of the third episode"). Fails NFCC#8. Fut.Perf. ☼ 08:38, 1 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Image does not add significantly to the article. Sven Manguard Wha? 19:33, 1 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Blair and Dan face a growing relationship.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 Peripitus (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 12:08, 9 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Non-free TV episode screenshot, used in infobox. Apparently random, nondescript scene, not embedded in analytical commentary, not necessary to understand article. Meaningless FUR. Fails NFCC#8. Fut.Perf. ☼ 08:40, 1 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Image does not add significantly to the article. Sven Manguard Wha? 19:33, 1 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Dan and Serena at Cotillion.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 Peripitus (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 12:08, 9 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Non-free TV episode screenshot, used in infobox. Apparently random scene, not embedded in analytical commentary, not necessary to understand article. Meaningless FUR implying the image was taken randomly merely for the sake of having an image ("to show an image of the episode"). Fails NFCC#8. Fut.Perf. ☼ 08:41, 1 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Gossip Girl All About My Brother Blair and Jenny in a power struggle.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 Peripitus (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 12:08, 9 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Non-free TV episode screenshot, used in infobox. Apparently random scene, not embedded in analytical commentary, not necessary to understand article. Meaningless FUR implying the image was taken randomly merely for the sake of having an image ("to show an image of the episode"). Fails NFCC#8. Fut.Perf. ☼ 08:42, 1 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Gossip Girl Chuck and Eva.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 Peripitus (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 12:08, 9 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Non-free TV episode screenshot, used in infobox. Apparently random scene, not embedded in analytical commentary, not necessary to understand article. Meaningless FUR implying the image was taken randomly merely for the sake of having an image ("to show an image of the episode"). Fails NFCC#8. Fut.Perf. ☼ 08:45, 1 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Image does not add significantly to the article. Sven Manguard Wha? 19:35, 1 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Gossip Girl The Lost Boy Chuck and Blair in a bidding war.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 Peripitus (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 12:08, 9 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Non-free TV episode screenshot, used in infobox. Apparently random scene, not embedded in analytical commentary, not necessary to understand article. Meaningless FUR implying the image was taken randomly merely for the sake of having an image ("to show an image of the episode"). Fails NFCC#8. Fut.Perf. ☼ 08:45, 1 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Image does not add significantly to the article. Sven Manguard Wha? 19:35, 1 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Gossip Girl Much I Do About Nothing Promotional poster.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 Peripitus (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 12:08, 9 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Non-free promotional image for TV episode, used in infobox. Apparently random scene, not embedded in analytical commentary, not necessary to understand article. Meaningless FUR implying the image was taken randomly merely for the sake of having an image ("to show an image of the episode"). Fails NFCC#8. Fut.Perf. ☼ 08:48, 1 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Gossip Girl The Goodbye Gossip Girl Advertisement.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 Peripitus (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 12:08, 9 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Non-free promotional image for TV episode, used in infobox. Apparently random scene, not embedded in analytical commentary, not necessary to understand article. Meaningless FUR implying the image was taken randomly merely for the sake of having an image ("to show an image of the episode"). Fails NFCC#8. Fut.Perf. ☼ 08:49, 1 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Books Of Bismil0592.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 Peripitus (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 12:08, 9 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Tiny, blurring photograph showing several, presumably copyrighted, book covers. Non-free (i.e. derivative work), extremely low quality; too poor to serve any appreciable function that would stand NFCC#8. Fut.Perf. ☼ 11:09, 1 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Per nom. Sven Manguard Wha? 19:51, 1 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Funeral at Rajghat1249.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 Peripitus (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 12:08, 9 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Tiny, blurry photograph of an old (presumably PD) photograph in a book. Uploader claims to be author of the book, so presumably he must have access to better original copies than this extremely low-quality derived photograph. Contents indiscernible, too poor quality to be of any use in this form. Fut.Perf. ☼ 11:12, 1 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom; per above nom. Sven Manguard Wha? 19:52, 1 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Accused Of Cacori Conspiracy1271.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 Peripitus (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 12:08, 9 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

same as above Fut.Perf. ☼ 11:13, 1 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per above nom. Sven Manguard Wha? 19:52, 1 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Rare Photo1282.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 Peripitus (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 12:08, 9 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

same as above Fut.Perf. ☼ 11:13, 1 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per above nom. Sven Manguard Wha? 19:52, 1 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:MAP OF INDIA1259.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 Peripitus (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 12:08, 9 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

as above Fut.Perf. ☼ 11:14, 1 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per above nom. Sven Manguard Wha? 19:52, 1 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Father of Bismil1193.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 Peripitus (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 12:08, 9 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

as above Fut.Perf. ☼ 11:16, 1 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per above nom. Sven Manguard Wha? 19:53, 1 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Arijspieter.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: Wrong forum. The file is on Commons. Please nominate it for deletion there if you still feel it should be deleted. AnomieBOT ⚡ 19:10, 1 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned, it has become useless, please delete it arijspieter (talk) 19:07, 1 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Trevor's found.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 Peripitus (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 12:08, 9 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Non-free screenshot from TV series, used alongside many others in a big plot overview article. Tendency towards over-use of non-free images. This one seems of very little value for understanding the text section next to it; the idea that a lot of police cars and ambulances are parked in a street can easily be conveyed in text. Fails NFCC#8 (contextual significance) and #3 (minimality) Fut.Perf. ☼ 20:16, 1 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete uhh... yeah. Delete, fails #8, probably #1 too. Sven Manguard Wha? 20:57, 1 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
keep This illustrates probably the most famous and significant moment in the programme's history. Please stop it with these counter-productive malicious deletion requests. They only serve to undermine work done by editors and detract from pages. Mtaylor848 (talk) 19:26, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: The use does not significantly increase reader understanding as required by WP:NFCC#8 The text describing the killing and the discovery of the body is perfectly understandable without being illustrated by a screenshot. We don’t need to decorate every significant plot point with a picture. —teb728 t c 22:54, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Brookside - Game Over.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 Peripitus (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 12:08, 9 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

From same series as the above. Shows a scene that can easily be described in words; little or nothing in the visual presence of this image appears necessary to understand the article. Over-use of non-free images. Fut.Perf. ☼ 20:18, 1 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete uhh... yeah. Delete, fails #8, probably #1 too. Sven Manguard Wha? 20:56, 1 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
keep This illustrates the final moments in the programme which ran for 21 years. This is not an incidental moment and deletion would adversely affect the quality of the page. There are plenty of similar precedents set. Please stop it with these counter-productive malicious deletion requests. They only serve to undermine work done by editors and detract from pages. Mtaylor848 (talk) 19:27, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: It would serve the same encyclopedic purpose if free text said “GAME OVER” was painted on the boarded-up windows of several houses; so the use fails WP:NFCC#1. Oh, the text already says that; so there is no need to decorate it with a redundant non-free screenshot. The fact that there are violations of image policy elsewhere is no excuse. —teb728 t c 23:23, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Cagney-TheGallantHours.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 Peripitus (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 12:08, 9 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The use does not significantly increase reader understanding as required by WP:NFCC#8 The mention that Halsey was portrayed in the film is perfectly understandable without being illustrated by a screenshot. —teb728 t c 21:18, 1 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Girl regenerating.png

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

The result of the discussion was: Delete; deleted by Peripitus (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 12:08, 9 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

So let's see how this image fares with regard to the non-free content criteria.

Its salient content (an unknown girl, or "mystery girl" in the article's own words, whose hands are glowing with energy) could probably be conveyed by text adequately enough.
Probably fine.
Now fine. ~~The image is of an absurdly high resolution (1366 pixels). The FUR claims that it is "of a resolution much reduced from the original," but this is simply a lie.~~
Fine.
Borderline...
Probably fine.
Currently used in an article, though this could change.
I am not aware that this image increases readers' understanding of the topic. The girl in question is indeed a "mystery girl," about whom very little is yet known. She is given a tiny amount of coverage in the article and the image simply has no contextual significance; it is merely decorative. Indeed, its uploader specifically set out to find a decorative for the article, seemingly believing that if no free pictures were available, then it is automatically permissible to use a non-free one.
Fine.
Fine.~~, aside from the untruthful fair-use rationale.~~

Altogether, therefore, this image is seriously deficient as regards the non-free content policy, so let's zap it before it grows much older. ╟─Treasury Tag►Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster─╢ 21:37, 1 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, illustrates a vital plot point from the episode which is commented on in the article, though not analyzed at any length. I've already uploaded a reduced-resolution version, so that takes care of #3. And quit calling editors liars. And avoid the sound effects when posting notifications.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 21:49, 1 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
It does not illustrate a vital plot point. We don't know the slightest thing about this girl. It's not subject to critical commentary in the article, which is specifically required. The uploader just thought, "What's a pretty image?" and then hit 'upload'. And quit calling editors liars. What term do you suggest I use for a person who deliberately tells lies? ╟─Treasury Tag►without portfolio─╢ 21:51, 1 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
a because when taking screenshots, all quality degrade so the claim is partially true. And secondly, I just copy and pasted most of the rational from another of Doctor Who's screenshot. Edit: Looks like the quality HAS been shrunk.--Tyw7 (☎ Contact me! • Contributions) Changing the world one edit at a time! 22:26, 1 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Well for future reference, blind copy-pasting often leads to problems of that sort! OK, I'll strike my 'lie' language above. ╟─Treasury Tag►inspectorate─╢ 22:32, 1 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

<rant mode="on">You "just copied and pasted most of the rational" from somewhere else, without bothering to check whether it was true, and you are saying this as if it was an excuse for something? Well, don't ever do that again. The whole point about rationales is that they must be individual explanations for each particular case, and to be that, the most important thing about them is that they must be truthful. Why do so many editors fail to understand this very simple thing? You are supposed to be giving a reason explaining why you think something should be done. Everywhere else on Wikipedia, people in all sorts of processes are expected to provide reasons for why they think something should be done, and it never crosses anybody's mind that one could just blindly copy over such reasons from somewhere else. Just imagine I was voting somewhere on an RfA, or nominating an AfD, or filling out a block reason, and blindly copying over the reason for it from some other case without bothering to check if it fits. Why is it that when filling out FURs people think they can get away with it? </rant> Fut.Perf. ☼ 23:06, 1 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, doesn't provide sufficient commentary (I mean everybody knows what regeneration looks like). -- Matthew RD 22:30, 1 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah but not of another character that may be (or may not be) important in future episodes --Tyw7  (☎ Contact me! • Contributions)   Changing the world one edit at a time! 22:34, 1 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
May or may not indeed. In fact, in your own words "the regenrating girl is not that important to the plotline. Heck! It only appear at the very last scene as a teaser." If the image is not subject to critical commentary in the article (if it is, please could you quote it?) then it is not valid. I'm sorry if this disappoints you, and if it causes a rift in the "tradition that all Doctor Who episodes have at least one scene from the episode." [1] – ╟─Treasury Tag►cabinet─╢ 22:36, 1 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
So that those wanting to know what does the "mystery" girl regeneration looks like... --Tyw7  (☎ Contact me! • Contributions)   Changing the world one edit at a time! 22:39, 1 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
...should buy the DVD? :) Seriously, though, Wikipedia isn't a fan-site. What about people who want to know what Canton Delaware Whatsit looks like? Or people who want to know what Dr Renfrew looks like? We have specific criteria which copyrighted images have to meet in order to be allowed. If you think the criteria should be expanded to include the sort of things you want, then by all means start a proposal; I would even consider supporting it! ╟─Treasury Tag►CANUKUS─╢ 22:43, 1 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
So would the "cover" of the episode just before the "play" be ok ;) Also, IMO all scenes are important... must upload entire episode to Wikipedia ;) --Tyw7  (☎ Contact me! • Contributions)   Changing the world one edit at a time! 22:48, 1 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
delete, after reading the article with its miserably chaotic plot summary I still have not the slightest idea what the significance of that scene is supposed to be, let alone why I'm supposed to be in need of seeing an image of the scene to understand something about it. Fut.Perf. ☼ 22:54, 1 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Don't blame the editors for the lousy summary, blame the writter of the story. Trust me, the episode is as lousy and confusing as the current summary. --Tyw7 (☎ Contact me! • Contributions) Changing the world one edit at a time! 22:58, 1 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: The use does not significantly increase reader understanding as required by WP:NFCC#8. As nearly as I can guess (from either the article or the discussion above) the image is used in a mistaken belief that any infobox image is better than none. —teb728 t c 01:20, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: This was right at the end of the episode, and isn't really to do with the main plot of the episode. An image more to do with the main plot would be much more appropriate. 188.221.79.22 (talk) 13:20, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: not a good representation of the episode, and does not have much (if any) critical commentary in the article text. As a side note; the image shouldn't be in the infobox but next to the critical commentary within the article to meet our NFCC --Errant ^(chat!) 14:52, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I can't imagine that an image with no critical commentary to warrant its use is the best image to use to show this episode. - The New Age Retro Hippie used Ruler! Now, he can figure out the length of things easily. 01:18, 4 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. This image contains MAJOR "spoilers". The girl isn't a mystery girl for anyone who's seen the previous episode, and the act depicted as well as the tag line indicating "regeneration" both reveal a major surprise that's supposed to be saved for the last scene of the episode. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.238.185.232 (talk) 03:40, 6 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note This file is also used in Regeneration (Doctor Who) to show a character other than the Doctor regenerating --Tyw7 (☎ Contact me! • Contributions) → Do a good turn daily 23:54, 6 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, perhaps not for Day of the Moon, but for Regeneration (Doctor Who). It will need a fair use rationale for it, though. Glimmer721 ^talk 00:41, 7 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Changed FUR. --Tyw7 (☎ Contact me! • Contributions) → Shake 'n Bake 01:06, 7 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Can you quote to me the critical commentary on that page which the image is subject to? And can you also explain how its omission would be detrimental to the reader's understanding of the subject, given that there are other images of regeneration already there? Thanks. ╟─Treasury Tag►Lord Speaker─╢ 08:34, 7 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
What do you mean? I just changed the FUR reason from Day of the Moon to Regeneration (Doctor Who). Also, the article shows how another character other than the Doctor regenerates (see article for yourself!) --Tyw7 (☎ Contact me! • Contributions) Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia. 15:24, 7 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
You don't understand. It's not enough to be mentioned in the article, it has to be a particularly notable scene. We already know what regeneration looks like; in this case, all we have to do is imagine what the Doctor does, but on a different person. It's not unique or covered in any critical commentary, so why is it special enough to be visually depicted and be an additional copyrighted image on the article? - The New Age Retro Hippie used Ruler! Now, he can figure out the length of things easily. 12:27, 8 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Parade.bang.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 Peripitus (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 12:08, 9 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Over-use of non-free images in the same article. This one can easily be covered by text alone, no crucial visual contribution to article. Fut.Perf. ☼ 22:08, 1 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Sven Manguard Wha? 04:07, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Jack Michaelson is lynched.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 - there is no consensus that the image passes NFCC#8 (significantly increases reader's understanding of the topic - Peripitus (Talk) 10:30, 9 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Another non-essential screenshot in an article that has far too many non-free images. Can be easily covered by text alone; nothing crucial about the visual details here. Fut.Perf. ☼ 22:10, 1 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep I donno about this one. This scene is discussed substantially in the article, and while there might be a better clip, say of the murder(s) in the act, this isn't a #8 violation for me. Sven Manguard Wha? 04:08, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Well, the event in the storyline from which this scene is taken is an object of commentary, yes, but the scene itself isn't. And, more crucially, there is nothing in the description of the event that is in need of visual support to be understood. We don't need to know what part of the facade of the house he is hung from, or what clothes he is wearing. What else does this image tell us that the text can't? Fut.Perf. ☼ 06:48, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: The use does not significantly increase reader understanding as required by WP:NFCC#8. The substantial discussion of the scene is perfectly understandable without being illustrated by the image. —teb728 t c 07:09, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
keep There is no alternative iluustrating the murder as the exact culprits were never succinctly revealed. This image certainly helps assist reader understanding by illustrating the graphic nature of the soap (particularly in its later years), something that was rare in UK soaps and is no longer prevelent. Certainly I would say that anyone unfamiliar with uncontemporary soaps would probably not appreciate the format of Brookside, which this image provides. Please stop it with these counter-productive malicious deletion requests. They only serve to undermine work done by editors and detract from pages. Mtaylor848 (talk) 19:31, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete far too many pictures from that series itself. Looksl highly unnessary. --Tyw7 (☎ Contact me! • Contributions) Changing the world one edit at a time! 19:37, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Pamela Henley and Ron Ely.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 Peripitus (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 12:08, 9 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The use does not significantly increase reader understanding as required by WP:NFCC#8 The text about Henley’s appearance in the film is perfectly understandable without being illustrated by a screenshot. —teb728 t c 22:18, 1 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Non free image of a living person. Sven Manguard Wha? 04:13, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Doc0093.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 Peripitus (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 12:08, 9 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The use does not significantly increase reader understanding as required by WP:NFCC#8 The text in both articles about the use of the car in the film is perfectly understandable without being illustrated by a screenshot. —teb728 t c 22:37, 1 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Not needed (and there are plenty of free images) in the car article, not needed in the movie article. Sven Manguard Wha? 04:22, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Moviegroup.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 Peripitus (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 12:08, 9 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The use does not significantly increase reader understanding as required by WP:NFCC#8 The text about the film is perfectly understandable without being illustrated by a screenshot. —teb728 t c 23:18, 1 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Another less than useful image at that article. Sven Manguard Wha? 04:24, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep' - This is a publicity shot of the cast from the film cited in the article, not a screenshot, and as such, can be used. Marcd30319 (talk) 17:48, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: This is certainly not a publicity headshot, if it is not a screenshot, it is a production still, which according to your source’s advice “must be cleared with the studio.” —teb728 t c 22:32, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete to avoid Wikipedia having to pay $150-500 --Tyw7 (☎ Contact me! • Contributions) → Gotta catch 'em all! 18:41, 8 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Wikipedia:Files for deletion/2011 May 1

May 1

Navigation menu

Search