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, 15 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:Ti2.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Atimeimperfect (notify | contribs).

• Unused file, non-encyclopedic use — Σxplicit 01:58, 7 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete – Orphaned file, can't find article which might need it. American Eagle (talk) 03:17, 7 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete A search for the term "A Time Imperfect", which is mentioned in the summary, yields no results. Low quality, unencyclopedic, orphaned, use not stated. -FASTILY ^(TALK) 07:12, 12 June 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.

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, 15 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:Simon Marsden - SVU.png (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Mgfan222 (notify | contribs).

• non-free image to show what a character's brother looks like in an article on the character. Unnecessary image that does not significantly add to reader's understanding of the topic ( the character NOT the subject of this image) - fails WP:NFCC#8 Peripitus (Talk) 06:18, 7 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• This image was created to show who Detective Benson's brother looks like, and/or portrayed by and he is mentioned in about 56.7% of the "Realationship" section of the article "Olivia Benson". I see no reason why that image should be up for deletion. --Mgfan222 (talk) 06:34, 7 June 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.

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, 15 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:Mystery Author 2.png (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by SandBoxer (notify | contribs).

• This file claims to be entirely the work of the uploader, but the uploader doesn't seem to know what the original, non-distorted image was. As it happens, it came from here (so the image has a clearly false status). ╟─TreasuryTag►ballotbox─╢ 07:30, 7 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Low quality, unencyclopedic, orphaned, use not stated, possible copyvio. -FASTILY ^(TALK) 07:14, 12 June 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.

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, 15 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:Mystery Author 1.png (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by SandBoxer (notify | contribs).

• This file claims to be entirely the work of the uploader, but the uploader doesn't seem to know what the original, non-distorted image was (so the image has a clearly false status). ╟─TreasuryTag►hemicycle─╢ 07:30, 7 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Low quality, unencyclopedic, orphaned, use not stated, possible copyvio. -FASTILY ^(TALK) 07:14, 12 June 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.

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, 15 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:Iakovidis-georgios.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Rubysky54 (notify | contribs).

• This image is tagged {{GFDL}}, but it was taken from the Greek Wikipedia, and the image description page there (el:Αρχείο:Iakovidis-georgios-photo.jpeg, English translation) seems to indicate that this image is copyrighted and is being used under a fair-use claim. There is no information about the original source of this image; the copy here on the English Wikipedia credits "Greek Wikipedia" and "Wikipedia User", which of course is wholly inadequate, and the Greek description page seems to say only that it is of insufficient quality for reprinting. Since we cannot satisfy WP:NFCC#10a, we cannot use it under a fair-use claim here. —Bkell (talk) 09:58, 7 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Shouldn't a fair use claim that stands on one Wikipedia stand on another? It seems inconsistent to claim otherwise. Images of insufficient quality for printing are sometimes released by image producers "freely", to promote other higher resolution images that are suitable for commercial use and printing. Frei Hans (talk) 07:38, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Each Wikipedia defines its own criteria for use of non-free content. The criteria used by the English Wikipedia are given at Wikipedia:Non-free content. Some Wikipedias (such as the German and Polish Wikipedias) do not allow non-free content at all. See also the licensing policy of the Wikimedia Foundation. —Bkell (talk) 14:31, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. No source. Rettetast (talk) 23:26, 13 June 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.

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, 15 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:Unwired head.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Frei Hans (notify | contribs).

• Derivative of this image. No evidence of suitable source license provided. Papa November (talk) 12:00, 7 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete The image above costs money to download in full/use so clearly not usable legally here -- plus image isn't encyclopedic to begin with. DreamGuy (talk) 18:45, 7 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Interesting case of OR and CRYSTAL wishful thinking used to back up a jumbled article about a fringe belief in Telepathy and war, which is itself up for AfD. Yes, images can violate OR. -- Brangifer (talk) 04:48, 8 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Hi. I am the author of the image. Many advances in science of the type the article addresses are illustrated with "artist's impressions" in the absence of other images, and so I set out to create one myself. The alternative would have been to use another pre-existing "artistic impression" - which would have posed a copyright question (science and technology magazine Wired has illustrated similar articles with "artistic" digitally generated images). The image is partly generated by myself, and partly composed of modified content created by another image generator that has been questioned by another Wikipedia user. If the part of the image in question, the head, which I attributed to the original creator in uploading the image to Wikipedia, is found to be in breach of copyright (which was far from my mind in attempting to create an illustration for Wikipedia) then I would be happy to re-work the image with a new head. I have contacted the original creator of the modified part of the image in question, and am awaiting reply from them to discuss license or copyright issues. I note that the entire article has become controversial, perhaps because of the nature of the topic. My point of view is that the image illustrates a new science development that poses serious questions, and that should be documented in Wikipedia because of the historical nature of the medical advances involved and because of the dialogue that these controversial types of advances in science and technology tend to generate. Frei Hans (talk) 07:14, 8 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Copyright violation and completely useless. --Hans Adler (talk) 11:15, 8 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete aside from copyright concerns, this image wouldn't be useful in the article even if it survived the current AfD. Verbal chat 11:54, 8 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per above. -FASTILY ^(TALK) 07:15, 12 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Update. The creator of the "head" part of the image was acknowledged when "Unwired head" was originally uploaded to Wikipedia - including a link to their site. If the head creator is unhappy, I will change the image. Personally I like their work and would have preferred they got some good traffic out of the modified image, if it had been attached to the article it was made to illustrate. I am still waiting for a reply from the "head" creator to clarify things. Frei Hans (talk) 21:05, 13 June 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.

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, 15 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

• "Source" URL does not specify original image source and states on its copyright info page that not all images it host are PD. I've had no luck finding the image in the library of congress. It is orphaned and low res, so we don't really need it anymore. Papa November (talk) 12:10, 7 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Why not add content and then move the image to Wikipedia Commons? The image has been tagged as a candidate for Wikipedia Commons. Deleting without making an effort to improve content seems lazy. Frei Hans (talk) 07:29, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  Please read my comment above. I have searched through every image of La Follette in the Library of Congress and this image is not one of them. That's far more effort than most nominators will commit. Can you do better? Papa November (talk) 23:01, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe somebody else might find something. Pardon my caution, but I observed someone using your login delete 17 well sourced and verifiable references from an article and then state that the article was unreferenced. Frei Hans (talk) 21:10, 13 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Misrepresentation of a totally irrelevant incident. Papa November (talk) 21:51, 14 June 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.

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⚡ 02:02, 21 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:MSN-02.PNG (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by User-Name (notify | contribs).

• This character is already depicted in File:Msn-02 Perfect Zeong.jpg, so this image fails WP:NFCC#3a. Stifle (talk) 16:22, 7 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Redundant non-free image. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire - past ops) 20:15, 7 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  Wait a da'gum second. The other image is the redundant one, as it's a minor design only mentioned in secondary licensed works. This is a design that appeared in Mobile Suit Gundam, and it's appropriate as long as we have an article on this subject. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire - past ops) 07:16, 8 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment No, the one appeared in the show is the one with no legs. Sorry, my bad. Yet the other one appeared in MSV and the manga Plamo Kyoshiro, and got its own storyline. MythSearcher^talk 09:11, 8 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  So which do we use? They're both nearly identical, so we can't use both. No legs is the more prominent appearance (Mobile Suit Gundam towers over any licensed work), but the version with legs conveys information that the one without legs cannot (what the legs look like). I'm inclined to say no-legs, because of the importance of MSG and the fact that the appearance of the legs is a rather minor aspect of rather minor works, but I could go either way. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire - past ops) 09:30, 8 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  I'd say make an image with the legs transparent. Use this image as the background and have the one with legs be of 50% opacity over the top of it, line up the upper body, or make an animation transforming both. Use the caption stating why it is that way. MythSearcher^talk 15:30, 8 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  That's the same issue, though. A collage of two non-free images is no better than two non-free images. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire - past ops) 19:39, 8 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per the same argument we've been having for going on a year and a half now. Difference to establish notability of different subject matter, contributes to the quality of the article and the reader's understanding, blah blah blah. I'm getting so very tired of this "one image per article" spiel about NFCC#3a something fierce. That was meant to fix galleries of non-free images with no commentary or contribution to the article whatsoever, not this "pick one and delete the rest" hogwash that's going around now. MalikCarr (talk) 10:20, 8 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

WP:NFCC#3a doesn't say anything about notability. We have two nearly-identical images, so we need to figure out which one is more appropriate. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire - past ops) 10:43, 8 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

False dilemma. NFCC#3a says to use as little non-free content as possible. That does not mean "one image" - both are relevant and contribute to the article and the user's understanding thereof. It qualifies under the very same content criteria you believe it should be deleted under. MalikCarr (talk) 07:35, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I agree, while the proposed for deletion image is more prominent, the one with legs shows different information. The problem is that Do we need both images to show this. While AMIB's argument saying this image should be used since it depicts the more commonly known version of MSN-02 Zeong, which I agree to, Stifle's argument about the charcter is already depicted in the Perfect Zeong picture is also quite convincing.(Most people should be able to imagine how this one looks like if we simply write down without legs under the Perfect Zeong image.) That is why I suggest other alternatives and see if they can compromise. The one I suggested up there actually removes the 2 picture problem quite well, they are depicting the top half as equals, thus that is only 1 image depicting the difference in the legs, which complies with NFCC#3a very well about minimizing the number of images AND depicting everything needed to be depicted in the article. Another alternate proposal I can make is keep the Perfect Zeong image, delete this one and have in place an image showing only the bottom parts(which should not be hard to find in official publications) depicting how it looks like when the legs are removed(or not equiped). A 3rd proposal, I must remind all parties that the licensed original image is the whole picture of different views of the suit from different angles and details, so both of these images are actually part of the license image, thus having the original image is not a collage of 2 nonfree images but 1 nonfree copy of it, yet this proposal would require the uploading of a third, black and white lineart image(possibly not already on the net or at least hidden in blatand copyright infringement materials like the scan files of an official MS encyclopedia) before deleting both of these old coloured images, which would in turn deter readers from understanding the colour of the unit. MythSearcher^talk 07:54, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Basically, I'm willing to discard all of my editorial qualms in service of the NFCC #3a concern. If we could find a single image that showed both and was genuinely a single copyrighted image (and not a collage), that'd be perfect. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire - past ops) 09:03, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Alright, we'll see if Stifle is willing to compromise. The official picture closest to this is page 13 of the MG instruction, yet I foresee a lot of people will not like that picture, since it is perfect zeong front and back shot and a third picture with one leg removed(as a single page). However, dalong.net took a picture of the 1/144 Zeong, 1/100 Zeong and 1/100 Perfect Zeong altogether, this is the second best non-free(unless someone know Korean can contact that web and ask if we can use it) Best image I found is the promotional image for the GFF Zeonography series, it is the best picture that depicts the front and back view of both Zeong and Perfect Zeong. If anything else I can think of, is pulling out my PSP and load Gundam Battle Universe having both units on screen and take the screen shot. Or anyone with both the MG or the Zeonography can take a picture for us, then we have a free image. MythSearcher^talk 14:01, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

← I don't mind which image goes, or even if you scrap both of them and bring in another. WP:NFCC#3a requires that multiple items of non-free content aren't used when one would suffice. It's the same character; you don't need two separate images to identify it. Stifle (talk) 21:28, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

So, we are using the best image I linked up there? I don't want to go through all these deletion process again, at least not with the same people. MythSearcher^talk 14:16, 11 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The image most commonly used in the general media of the item in question is that of the legless one, rather than the legged one, as a cursory search of Google would have revealed; the legless one is also the one that appears in the actual animation. Both are neccesary. Jtrainor (talk) 10:18, 8 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - This image is just "the alternate one with legs absent and a different colour" - that bit of text alone for me adequately conveys the difference in a free way. This image does not add significantly to reader's understanding in a way that free text could not, is excessive use of non-free content as it could be either absent or covered by text alone. For me it fails NFCC#3a, and probably #1 and #8. There is no compelling encyclopedic need to portray this extra image - I have no issue imagining the figure 80% complete without legs without having to actually see the image. Like Stifle though I have no issue which image is deleted - there is just no adequate justification for both - Peripitus (Talk) 04:44, 12 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Uploaded image at w:File:MSN-02 Zeong.jpg and the other two could be deleted. Please, I do not want any more complications. MythSearcher^talk 15:47, 12 June 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.

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, 15 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:Angels Archuleta.JPG (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Alexander.hugh.george (notify | contribs).

• The fair use data says the image is from Apples iTunes but the image used for the single there is the same as the album, which makes this image a fan-made that is not needed for the article. Aspects (talk) 18:40, 7 June 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.

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, 15 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:K (R).PNG (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Altenhofen (notify | contribs).

• Bballlova99 (talk)(My Contributions to wikipedia) 19:50, 7 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Very Low quality, unencyclopedic, orphaned, has nothing to do with the article, John Hugger, which is found in the summary section of the file page. -FASTILY ^(TALK) 07:17, 12 June 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.

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, 15 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

• Currently unused in any articles; was previously used in Theodore Kowal, which was deleted for lack of notability (see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Theodore Kowal). —Bkell (talk) 19:51, 7 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Consider revising decision to delete Theodore Kowal article and relink image to article. Frei Hans (talk) 08:28, 9 June 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.

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, 15 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

• Unused. Tagged {{PD-release}}, but the copyright may belong to the publisher of the disk. —Bkell (talk) 19:58, 7 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Low quality, unencyclopedic, orphaned, use not stated. -FASTILY ^(TALK) 07:18, 12 June 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.

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, 15 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:Stuff happening.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Gamerelease123 (notify | contribs).

• Unused. Tagged with {{GFDL-self}}, but this is a screenshot of a video game. —Bkell (talk) 20:11, 7 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment If this image is actually of a copyrighted video game and tagged with a {{GFDL-self}} license, then this image could be speedy deleted per WP:CSD#F3. -FASTILY ^(TALK) 07:21, 12 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. CSD F3 does not apply however. Rettetast (talk) 23:30, 13 June 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.

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, 15 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

• Unused, no context for encyclopedic use. —Bkell (talk) 20:13, 7 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Low quality, unencyclopedic, orphaned, use not stated. -FASTILY ^(TALK) 07:22, 12 June 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.

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, 15 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:Jbdisco1.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Joebeckerfans (notify | contribs).

• No permissions, Fairuse overuse, too large. MBisanz ^talk 21:06, 7 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. per nom. Unencyclopedic, orphaned, use not stated. -FASTILY ^(TALK) 07:23, 12 June 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.

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. This is a tough close, but I think that consensus is more for keeping the image. Note that it should be used only in the article about the character; it does not meet the non-free content criteria for use in the article about the actor. –Drilnoth (T • C • L) 00:21, 21 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:Coledeschanel21997.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Dmarex (notify | contribs).

• Unjustified FU image. Actor is a living person, and there is no basis for having a fair use image to illustrate this character. A free picture of the actor himself is just as informative. ÷seresin 23:33, 7 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep A distinction should be made between the real world and fiction. Using a random image of the actor not acting as the character would only illustrate what the actor looked like. It wouldn't represent the character. The show has been off the air for ten years now. There is bound to be a difference between the actor now and what he looked like when he portrayed the character. Rocksey (talk) 00:08, 8 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • But how the actor looked is how the character looked. There is no costume, no special make up, nothing to distinguish the appearance of the actor from the character. Fair use images are only permissible when the information they impart cannot be provided by an extant free image. A free image of the actor provides the same amount of information as this one. ÷seresin 22:30, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep ITA on Rocksey's comment. This is how Cole looked in 1997 and shouldn't be removed. ADDED: I didn't know that the picture was also being used on the Eddie Cibrian article. I only put it up on the Cole Deschanel article. Dmarex (talk) 05:48, 8 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - Yes the image is how Eddie Cibrian looked in 1997 and he obviously looks older now but look at a recent (2006) press image here. All that is significantly difference is a better shave, studio lighting, makeup and hairstyle. Not significant enough differences to host a non-free image in my eyes. Can be replaced with a free alternate without significantly reducing reader's understanding of the topic - fails WP:NFCC#1 - Peripitus (Talk) 04:52, 12 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I disagree that the image fails WP:NFCC#1. There is no free-equivalent for an image of a character. Not even an image of one of the actors who portrayed him almost ten years ago. No matter how insignificant Peripitus feels the differences to be, the fact is, the actor is not the character. An image of the actor does not reflect how the character was meant to be presented within the fiction.
  • Also, to decide which characters are different enough from the actor would seem to depend more on opinion than on fact. Has a scale been created to judge just how much of a difference there should be? Rocksey (talk) 18:59, 16 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. The actor is not the same as the character. They do look similar, but it's unwise for us to try to decide which characters are different "enough" from the actors who portray them. In many, many previous cases in the past, we've opted to keep a single non-free photo of a fictional character in an article about that character, regardless of how much costuming or make-up is applied to the actor. – Quadell ^(talk) 17:52, 12 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep the information is how the actor look in performing the role. DGG (talk) 01:59, 14 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• For the consideration of the court: Awadewit's comment here. ÷seresin 03:13, 15 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per Peripitus. Stifle (talk) 11:26, 16 June 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.