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⚡ 18:08, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

File:OKCBarons.PNG (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Russ Jericho (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log).

OB File:Logo_Oklahoma_City_Barons.svg Russ Jericho (talk) 20:59, 24 April 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.

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⚡ 18:08, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

File:Columnist Matt Weinstock of Los Angeles Times July 1963.tiff (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by GeorgeLouis (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log).

non-free replaceable drawing of a men copied from a newspaper. Damiens.rf 02:45, 25 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

No objection to the deletion because another image of this gentleman has already been obtained and is just waiting to be placed here. Sincerely, GeorgeLouis (talk) 04:45, 25 April 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.

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 for the reasons advanced by Peripitus and FPaS (or, put another way, there would need to be very sound arguments produced for WP:NFC#UULP to be ignored here and there weren't). Angus McLellan (Talk) 13:01, 31 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

File:Avey cover photo.jpg (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Wikiwatcher1 (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log).

Non-free image of a living guy from the army. Damiens.rf 12:34, 25 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep, as uploader: His notability is based on his military years, making this image relevant to the biography. This obvious fact is proven by his publisher's use of the same photo on the cover of his book, clearly a relevant use. It would be helpful for an image tagger to at least read the article where an image is used, since a rationale like "image of a living guy from the army," indicates an active unconcern with relevance or details. --Wikiwatcher1 (talk) 19:35, 25 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Which details, relevant to a policy judgement, have not been dealt with? Please, bring them to this discussion. --Damiens.rf 20:31, 25 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The "details" surrounding his notability, as described in the article.--Wikiwatcher1 (talk) 20:42, 25 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep He indeed is alive, but how he looked during the actions for which he is famous for is the key component here. A picture of him now is well out of context; A picture of him 65+ years ago cannot be replaced with an image taken today. Should a free alternative be found, it should be tagged ASAP. — BQZip01 — ^talk 21:27, 25 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  He was not famous for his looks. He was not a tv model or something. His look as an old man is no less factual than his look on his youth. --Damiens.rf 18:45, 27 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  He was famous for his actions as a youth and how he looked is one of the reasons he got away with what he did (being small/skinny helped him blend in with other detainees in Aushwitz). I think it seeing him and how he actually managed to pull it off is valuable context. So, I guess we will agree to disagree. — BQZip01 — ^talk 21:44, 27 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  Do the article discuss the fact that he was small/skinny?

  Do we need an image to convey the information he was small/skinny?

  Does this headshot photo shows he is small/skinny?

  --Damiens.rf 22:18, 27 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  I guess my answer is "yes" because of what he did. Seeing how he accomplished what he did I believe is worth keeping. If we can find a better head-to-toe shot, that would be ideal, but I'll settle for this one. — BQZip01 — ^talk 01:43, 29 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  I guess your just pushing it a little too much. --Damiens.rf 09:24, 29 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  You couldn't have just acknowledged that we just agree to disagree? — BQZip01 — ^talk 21:24, 29 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - look through news sites and TV programs. He is most commonly imaged as an elderly author rather than a young soldier. He was largely unknown and unremarked upon until the past few years, and it his actions in raising issues and publishing this novel that have made him widely known. Image is adequately replaceable with an image of him NOW and we would be conveying the most common image of him - Peripitus (Talk) 21:59, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

In fact there was a photo of him with Gordon Brown during a public event, but that image was also deleted. In any case, the rationale that he is notable as a writer today is misguided since his book is a biography focused on his early years as a soldier. That's also why, coincidentally, all the publishers of the book have this same photo. --Wikiwatcher1 (talk) 00:39, 4 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete, per Peripitus. Living person and still in the public eye; old portrait not essential for understanding the article. Fut.Perf. ☼ 07:35, 27 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.

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 G7 by VernoWhitney (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 20:09, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

File:Historical MC14.png (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by [[User talk:#File:Historical MC14.png listed for deletion|]] ([ notify] | contribs | uploads | upload log).

wrong image used erroneously Abelniak (talk) 16:59, 25 April 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.

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: Kept - Peripitus (Talk) 21:54, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

File:The Silent.tif (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by HalfShadow (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log).

The FUR doesn't appear to fully account for how the image is not replaceable by any free content and for in what way it would be detrimental to readers' understanding of the topic if they did not see it. ╟─TreasuryTag►Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster─╢ 17:21, 25 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• What exactly is your problem, TreasuryTag? Someone kill a puppy in front of you or something? HalfShadow 17:33, 25 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  WP:ADHOM. ╟─TreasuryTag►directorate─╢ 17:37, 25 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep the subject is Silence (Doctor Who), remove it from the episode only. Tbhotch* ^{۩ ۞} 19:22, 25 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  WP:NOREASON provided for keeping the image. ╟─TreasuryTag►Africa, Asia and the UN─╢ 19:24, 25 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  WP:NFCC#1 Unless we have free images of a copyrighted subject, there's no reason for delete it. Tbhotch* ^{۩ ۞} 19:26, 25 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  Wrong, wrong and wrong. Unless we have free content then the image can be used. For instance, if the Silent can be adequately described in words, then there is no need for the image. Which brings me onto WP:NFCC#8 – you are required to demonstrate that if the image were deleted, this would harm readers' understanding of the article in which it is used. ╟─TreasuryTag►First Secretary of State─╢ 19:31, 25 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  Illogical, should we remove Miley Stewart and many other non-free images of non-free characters as well? I as a reader find value of that image of that alien. It helps me to understand what is a "Silence", and by words itself, it won't help me to understand it. "A Silence is a kind of alien. They have brown skin and long faces", this is the most probable description you would give, and it is not helpful. Also, do not notify me about your replies, I'm watching the page. Tbhotch* ^{۩ ۞} 19:38, 25 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  Your WP:OSE comparisons are unhelpful. You need to answer these three questions more conclusively than you have done. One—is it impossible to adequately describe the subject of the image in words? Two—if the article did not have an image, would readers' understanding of the overall topic be severely diminished? Three—is the actual content of the image, as in the appearance of the Silent, subject to significant critical commentary in the article? Unless all the answers are 'yes' then this file must be deleted. ╟─TreasuryTag►most serene─╢ 20:47, 25 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  Well, your misuse of essays is unhelpul as well. Thiz iz a seriouz bisness, try to use polices and guidelines, not the voice of the people. Tbhotch* ^{۩ ۞} 20:52, 25 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  (edit conflict) Now answering your questions: 1.- Yes, I've already did it; 2.- Hell yes, how readers will know what is a "Silence"? Silent?, Silent?, two Silents?; 3.- Yes, the problem here is not the image, is the deletionist. Tbhotch* ^{۩ ۞} 21:00, 25 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  The problem here is not the image, is the deletionist. So now you've started on the personal attacks in lieu of proper arguments I won't be responding to you again. But I will just say that your answers are, all three of them, incorrect. In particular, your answer to Number 2 seems to believe that people will only look at the image and not read the article. If the article is decently-written (and I'll agree that it's crap at the moment, but as long as it has the potential to be decently-written) then people should not be left thinking, "What is a Silent?" ╟─TreasuryTag►belonger─╢ 21:02, 25 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  Do not confunse personal attacks with other stuff. If I'd said hidden note that is a personal attack, and you immediately open something at ANI, and again I ask you to left essays, that are not rules and they must be deleted. This is absurd, such as your FFD. Nonsense to talk to you, since you are not successfully cooperating, and in fact, you are taking this personal, when it is not. Tbhotch* ^{۩ ۞} 21:07, 25 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  Well done for accidentally on purpose ignoring my questions which were all drawn from a very important policy. Nice one. ╟─TreasuryTag►most serene─╢ 20:54, 25 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep for the single article. If an article is warranted, then a single visual depiction of the non-standard costuming (how do you describe THAT look in words?) is apropos. — BQZip01 — ^talk 21:30, 25 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  Please point me towards whichever section of the non-free content criteria says, "Each article is automatically entitled to one non-free image." Or, alternatively, strike your comment above, apologise for making a mistake and make a new comment below explaining how the file in question meets the NFCC. ╟─TreasuryTag►presiding officer─╢ 21:48, 25 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  1. Excuse me? Perhaps you should point out where I said "Each article is automatically entitled to one non-free image." I didn't and you've created a straw man argument.
  2. Your demands for an apology are WAY out of line here. I recommend you dial it back. I'm also not going to apologize for expressing an opinion.
  3. I believe this image meets our NFCC (both #1 and #8) with the current description on the image page. — BQZip01 — ^talk 22:08, 25 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  You said, and I quote, "If an article is warranted, then a single visual depiction of the non-standard costuming is apropos." That is a general statement simply not consistent with Wikipedia's non-free content policy, and – delightful as the phrase, "dial it back," is – I will not be retracting nuffink. ╟─TreasuryTag►stannary parliament─╢ 22:18, 25 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  I stand by that comment and it is completely in line with WP policies (there are hundreds of articles with no non-free images). The key phrase here is "non-standard". Contrary to your opinion above, "A Silence is a kind of alien. They have brown skin and long faces" does not substitute for an image. Since an alien from outer space is, by definition, a fictional being, that description holds no water. Superman was an alien, but he looked just like a human. E.T. was an alien too, but looked nothing like this alien. If all aliens looked as you described, they this would be an appropriate picture to replace all of them since it meets all your criteria. In short, it is, by definition, a copyrightable expression which cannot have a non-free replacement and a textual description alone would significantly decrease readers' understanding of the topic. The omission of the image is detrimental to understanding the topic. — BQZip01 — ^talk 22:31, 25 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  I did not say that, "A Silence is a kind of alien. They have brown skin and long faces," was an adequate substitute. I don't know why you said that I did. ╟─TreasuryTag►duumvirate─╢ 10:19, 26 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  I stand corrected. However, it does seem to be what you are implying. Other articles such as Chewbacca, Klingon, Romulan, Ferengi, etc have already had this debate many times and consensus at this time is to keep a single image as they are the subject of critical commentary. If you believe consensus runs contrary, I recommend taking it to another board as this one is for individual images. — BQZip01 — ^talk 13:14, 26 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  Aaww, BQZip01 you gotta mention some more different aliens than that...ET...and Ewoks, how could you forget Ewoks....Sontarans etc.Casliber (talk · contribs) 14:56, 26 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  I personally like the Chewbacca defense for arguing deletion/inclusion of images... — BQZip01 — ^talk 23:18, 26 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep a picture says a thousand words (how I've wanted to say that for ages) - but seriously - limited written material which cannot do the critter justice - ergo a low res image is appropriate. Casliber (talk · contribs) 12:46, 26 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  And in what way would a reader fail to understand the article's subject completely merely by having a not-quite-perfect mental image of the monsters? They can still read about the development. They can still verify the information. ╟─TreasuryTag►cabinet─╢ 12:52, 26 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  Quite simple. Nothing in text will replace this image. Screenshots are permitted for critical commentary. — BQZip01 — ^talk 13:17, 26 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  They couldn't see for themselves how icky and scarey they really are....and to see for themselves the similarity with Munch's Scream. Treasury Tag, if you want a spartan minimalist approach to this, then so be it - we are talking about two different understandings of an article subject, I just think my ideal is richer and more embellished than the one you are proposing. We'll see what the consensus is -  :) Casliber (talk · contribs) 14:54, 26 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep, FUR meets NFCC just fine. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 15:03, 26 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  And this is exactly why I generally don't bother to contribute anything to this site: the moment I do, someone comes out of the woodwork and either removes it or tries to get it deleted. Often both. HalfShadow 23:29, 26 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  Well I've uploaded tens of images, created several articles and been majorly involved in many more. People generally don't try to remove my contributions. Perhaps it's because I adhere to Wikipedia policy...? ╟─TreasuryTag►sundries─╢ 08:22, 27 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  Looks like everyone else here thinks this image adheres to policy apart from you though. Casliber (talk · contribs) 09:01, 27 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  I'm not sure how that comment was supposed to anything other than piss me off, but since it failed on that ground anyway I'll let it pass. However, if your "though" is intended to label the sentence as a contradiction to my comment immediately above, then you are mistaken; I said that when I contribute content (rather than intiate deletion discussions), I am rarely challenged. ╟─TreasuryTag►UK EYES ONLY─╢ 09:03, 27 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  Yep, you were right, it was a contrastive "though", your content might not be challenged, but this AfD...erm...is. So why not focus on content more? More rewarding in the long term. And certainly less arguing, which can only be a good thing. Casliber (talk · contribs) 11:31, 27 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  I am perfectly happy with the balance of my activities here. If you are not happy with the balance of my activities here then may I suggest that it is you who are intolerant? And may I suggest (indeed, insist) that you don't continue this discussion here because it's completely irrelevant. ╟─TreasuryTag►Speaker─╢ 11:35, 27 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  Whether or not YOUR images are challenged has nothing to do with the merits of this image. Accusing others of intolerance just because they disagree with you is another logical fallacy. You posts are coming across as being a know-it-all that with whom everyone disagrees. When 100% of the people disagree with you, it is usually time to re-examine your position. Please confine your comments to the subject at hand or we will have to go elsewhere (I don't want to get involved in that, but these posts are quite hostile, insulting, and badgering). — BQZip01 — ^talk 22:00, 27 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  Whether or not YOUR images are challenged has nothing to do with the merits of this image. That's true. Just above, HalfShadow said, "Someone always comes out of the woodwork and either removes my contributions or tries to get them deleted." Since that is also nothing to do with the merits of this image, can I assume that you will be issuing a similar warning to him? ╟─TreasuryTag►voice vote─╢ 22:22, 27 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  While it has nothing to do with the merits of the image, it certainly is tangentially related to the deletion process of this image and is an expression of frustration. I don't see anything wrong on that level. The comments I made above are pointing out that your logic is faulty and serve only to confound the actual issues here. I don't oppose your actions just because you support deletion (far from it); as a matter of course, I will fight for your right to support/oppose any image you wish. Just because you use a logical fallacy, it doesn't mean your basic argument is wrong, only that you used faulty logic to justify that opinion. Those posts aren't disruptive (just irrelevant). The posts that are disruptive are those where you are being hostile, badgering, and insulting. Those need to stop. — BQZip01 — ^talk 03:25, 28 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep – weird looking alien, the look of which, in my opinion, can't be substituted by text alone as it would not properly convey its visuals. _Xeworlebi ^(talk) 11:11, 27 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - With respect to all, I don't understand the arguement against this image. It's taken from the episode itself, therefore it illustrates the episode, as would any other still taken from the episode. ~~ Peteb16 (talk) 16:55, 27 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  If it weren't taken from the episode, which is the only way it could possibly be copyright free, it wouldn't illustrate the episode anymore. I can't see how this could work both ways. ~~ Peteb16 (talk) 16:59, 27 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  If you think that "any still" taken from the episode would be permissible then you are simply mistaken and that's all there is to it. It is clear to me that you have not read and understood Wikipedia's policy on the use of non-free content. ╟─TreasuryTag►draftsman─╢ 17:01, 27 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  I meant that any still would illustrate the episode. Please don't attack me because I wanted to state an opinion. I have read the rules, but I already admitted I do not understand the above arguement and why the picture is against the rules. I meant no disrespect to you or anyone else. ~~ Peteb16 (talk) 17:08, 27 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  You seem to have implied that "any still taken from the episode" would be appropriate to put on the page. If that is what you think, then you are wrong, and have not understood the relevant policy.
  I don't think I attacked you, and I know you don't mean any disrespect. But you're still incorrect! ╟─TreasuryTag►Captain-Regent─╢ 17:22, 27 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  No it wasn't what I meant, sorry for the confusion. ~~ Peteb16 (talk) 17:35, 27 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  Pete, you have nothing to apologize for. TT, effectively calling him a liar ("It is clear to me that you have not read..[WP:NFC]" and insulting his intelligence ("It is clear to me that you have not...understood [WP:NFC]"). Is WAY overboard. You do not need to comment on his skills or doubt him. Reasonable people can disagree about WP:NFC usage without one being villainized . — BQZip01 — ^talk 21:52, 27 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  In your first quote, your ... cleverly concealed something which changes the whole tone of what I said, so well done on that one. ╟─TreasuryTag►Captain-Regent─╢ 21:56, 27 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  It wasn't clever, near as I can tell (I ain't that smart). It's a standard way to quote people. I don't think I removed anything pertinent and people cna judge for themselves. — BQZip01 — ^talk 03:25, 28 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep The image is uniquely illustrative, it in no way damages the copyright held in the work, and the death of a puppy is not a justification for all this endless drama from one editor. μηδείς (talk) 17:26, 27 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment - Am I missing something here? rational for deleting is that FUR doesn't fully explain something. Well - erm... change it so it does? - I mean there is no free alternative, and the image does convey the image of the villain in a way that helps readers. So put that in the description, and then Keep the image. 188.221.79.22 (talk) 15:13, 29 April 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.

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⚡ 22:54, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

File:Primer abeandaaron.jpg (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by JMalky (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log).

Decorative non-free screenshot. Damiens.rf 21:26, 25 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• keep the device is pivotal crucial plot element to the film. It's the only screenshot used. Pretty sterile article otherwise. Casliber (talk · contribs) 12:48, 26 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete—a couple of men messing about with a blurry but generic-looking scientific thing. Fails NFCC1 and NFCC8. ╟─TreasuryTag►belonger─╢ 09:04, 27 April 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.

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⚡ 05:03, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

File:Following1.jpg (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by JMalky (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log).

Decorative non-free movie screenshot. Damiens.rf 21:28, 25 April 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.