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: - fails NFCC and neither this nor File:Eddit Rabbit.jpg is used in articles - Peripitus (Talk) 04:35, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:Rabbitt wanderer.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Lost Fugitive (notify | contribs).

• Adds nothing to the viewer's understanding, as the content of the video isn't discussed at all in the section. NFCC #8. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Many otters • One bat • One hammer)} 01:32, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, there's already a non-free image of him in the article, so this one fails WP:NFCC#3a. Stifle (talk) 08:15, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • The other one's also non-free. But it's still a NFCC#3 vio, in my view. – Quadell ^(talk) 19:30, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • That's what I said, isn't it? Stifle (talk) 19:40, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • I could swear you slipped that non- in while I wasn't looking. I must be going senile. – Quadell ^(talk) 20:20, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Question Why delete this one instead of the other one? The choice seems arbitrary. - Mgm|^(talk) 11:11, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  I guess because he's more identifiable in the other? – Quadell ^(talk) 19:30, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete, NFCC#3. – Quadell ^(talk) 19:30, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Please delete File:Eddie Rabbitt.jpg instead, the above image is better suited for the article, and the other has been orphaned.--Lost Fugitive (talk) 20:14, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • That would be fine too. – Quadell ^(talk) 20:20, 27 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.

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. Apart from procedural arguing about what is or is not a speedy deletion criterion, no tangible argument was presented here as to how the one speedy deletion criterion that was (rightly) cited did not apply: nobody explained what the image does to make the episode better understood. Fut.Perf. ☼ 14:24, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:MASH-episode2.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by MacGyverMagic (notify | contribs).

• As this image was deleted in July 2007, only restored recently (see DRV), and not missed in the meantime, its omission was clearly not detrimental to the article in which it was used. Therefore, it fails WP:NFCC#8. Stifle (talk) 08:08, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep First: I didn't upload the image. I merely restored an already uploaded one. Also, since when is "To minimize legal exposure by limiting the amount of non-free content, using more narrowly defined criteria than apply under United States fair use law." as mentioned in NFCC even a valid reason to restrict content? We don't delete articles based on knee-jerk threats by the subject or spurious lawsuits either. And we don't assume we don't need an article on X because it wasn't created in the past 8 years. Images are no different. If we follow the regular fair use rules, we are following the law so there would be no actual legal issue to address, so there's no legal reason to be more strict than the law requires us to be. Also, saying it wasn't missed during the time it was deleted is based on the lack of action taken at the time makes a lot of baseless assumptions. Actions prove something, a lack of them don't. The fair use rationale is solid. - Mgm|^(talk) 11:09, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. "Hasn't been missed" is not a deletion criterion. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 15:21, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  Actually, for non-free images it is. See WP:NFCC#8. Stifle (talk) 17:41, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep, I believe this passes NFCC#8 in the article it's in. – Quadell ^(talk) 19:33, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment do you have proof that it wasn't missed? Have no people expressed the need for a screenshot anywhere in the world in reference to this article? 70.29.208.129 (talk) 03:23, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  Well, nobody made a complaint until recently. Stifle (talk) 11:30, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment that it 'Hasn't been missed' is NOT what NFCC #8 says. Important details may go omitted for long periods of time, yet that doesn't equate them being unimportant. The real issue here is does it add anything to the article. I'm not convinced it does. Is this an important instant in the episode? Is there characters depicted important for this particular episode? Need something here to justify it being a useful addition to the article. Derekloffin (talk) 20:07, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Does not significantly add to the readers' understanding of the article. The rationale appears to be based on the incorrect assumption of "there needs to be an image". We have a close up of a guy's face, that doesn't help understand the episode. The image should not have been restored in the DRV since it is up to those wishing to use an image to provide a valid rationale, not those wishing to delete to prove none can be written. The rationale was not detailed prior to the restoration, although it still hasn't been properly. A rationale needs to explain why this image is used, not why an image could be used. Jay32183 (talk) 08:48, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Clearly fails NFCC #8; folks wishing to keep to need to explain why it is so important to the article, not simply assert that it is (Quadell) or make tangential points about fair-use vs NFC policy (Mgm). CIreland (talk) 13:04, 1 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: - All deleted - Peripitus (Talk) 05:44, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:Ranma27 35 Soun aura.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by BrokenSphere (notify | contribs).

File:Akane - Battle Aura 17-122.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by David A (notify | contribs).

File:Akane - Danger Sense.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by David A (notify | contribs).

File:Ranma - Double Moko Takabisha.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by David A (notify | contribs).

File:Ranma - Hiryu Shoten Ha.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by David A (notify | contribs).

File:Ranma - Hiryu Korin Dan.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by David A (notify | contribs).

File:Ranma - Hiryu Hyo Toppa.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by David A (notify | contribs).

File:Ranma - White Snake Venom Reliable Fist.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by David A (notify | contribs).

File:Ranma - Neko-ken.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by David A (notify | contribs).

File:Genma - Battle Aura.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by David A (notify | contribs).

File:Happosai - Finger Block.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by David A (notify | contribs).

File:Happosai - Happo-daikarin.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by David A (notify | contribs).

File:Happosai - Battle Aura.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by David A (notify | contribs).

File:Happosai - Chi-Blast.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by David A (notify | contribs).

File:Hinako - Draining.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by David A (notify | contribs).

File:Hinako - Force Blast.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by David A (notify | contribs).

File:Ryu's Lions Open Gate.JPG (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Xer (notify | contribs).

File:Ryu - Demon God Assault Bomb.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by David A (notify | contribs).

File:Natsume & Kurumi - Ring of Dragon Fire.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by David A (notify | contribs).

• 1 of 24 non-free images in a single article! Gross violation of Wikipedia:Non-free content#Non-free image use in list articles and NFCC#8. Ryan4314 (talk) 14:52, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • (I merged all these into a single entry. Ryan4314's comment, above, was the same on each.) – Quadell ^(talk) 19:39, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Thankyou very much, very helpful :) Ryan4314 (talk) 11:42, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete all of these as violations of NFCC#3 and #8. It's conceivable that the Anything Goes Martial Arts article could be illustrated with a non-free image, but I don't see one on the page that conveys information critical to understanding the article, that can't be conveyed (better!) through text. – Quadell ^(talk) 19:36, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well, that's what you get if characters can't have their own article. If we did each would have a single image on their page fulfilling the minimum need criterion. - Mgm|^(talk) 09:55, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete None of the images illustrate the manga or anime as a whole and they're not very good at giving a representative illustration of the characters either. - Mgm|^(talk) 09:55, 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.

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 G6 by MacGyverMagic (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 11:03, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:Buckinghamshire hundreds 6 Stone.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Tmol42 (notify | contribs).

• obsolete Tmol42 (talk) 00:00, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete It took me a while to figure out. Apparently you mistyped Stoke and said Stone instead. That can be handled through a simple speedy deletion. - Mgm|^(talk) 09:59, 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.