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 SchuminWeb (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 07:05, 10 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

File:Pirates of the Caribbean screenshot.jpg (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by PM800 (notify | contribs | uploads).

Non-free movie screenshot. Apparently random scene, added to plot summary section, not embedded in analytical commentary that the image would be needed to understand. FUR claims that it serves to illustrate "the unique dress of the character" (but it doesn't; it only shows his head anyway), and that "it also includes the genuine 1760 pistol made in London that was used in the film and mentioned in the article" (well, yes, the pistol is mentioned, though not in connection with the image, and we don't really need to see the pistol to understand the assertion that it was genuine.) Fails NFCC#8. Fut.Perf. ☼ 00:01, 3 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Isn't really significant to understanding the movie; this is a fairly typical portrayal of pirates on a pirate ship. Swarm ^X 02:26, 4 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per FUR. I honestly did not intend to choose a "random scene". The image illustrates the unique look of Sparrow with his hat and dreadlocks, so it did not seem typical. He is an iconic character in film, and I thought the image would be useful to the article. - PM800 (talk) 01:43, 7 March 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 by User:Future Perfect at Sunrise. Rehman 07:37, 4 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

File:Confi.jpg (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Wikilucio (notify | contribs | uploads).

This is not an album cover (at least for the linked article). It appears to be a scan from somewhere of a proposed building. It might qualify as fair use, but not as written, and without the source it isn't worth the risk. tedder (talk) 05:49, 3 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Looks like someone just used completely incorrect licensing templates (perhaps a non-English speaker). Could be a free image, but there's no source info so there's no way to confirm that. If it is an album cover, it's being used incorrectly and is certainly replaceable for the article it's illustrating now. Swarm ^X 02:18, 4 March 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 SchuminWeb (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 20:14, 10 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

File:BMW Malaysian Open 2011.jpg (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by KnowIG (notify | contribs | uploads).

Non-free advertisement poster for a tennis tournament, used in infobox of the tournament article. Not the object of sourced discussion in its own right. Not needed as primary visual identification of the tournament as claimed in FUR (the tournament is best identified simply by its name, and this particular ad has no obvious universal recognition value); no crucial contribution to the understanding of the article otherwise. Fails NFCC#8. Fut.Perf. ☼ 11:50, 3 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Offical poster to the event. No other poster avaliable, although there is alternatives, each of them only have the tennis ball and logo or name of the tournament. KnowIG (talk) 11:53, 3 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • That doesn't address any of the arguments in the nomination. Fut.Perf. ☼ 12:15, 3 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • How it's a perfectly valid rebuttle. KnowIG (talk) 12:18, 3 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete It's just a generic adverting poster. While an official logo would be suitable for identifying such an event, advertisements don't fulfill the same role. Anyway, "To tell the reader quickly what the article's subject is about" isn't a valid fair use rationale, the image would have to significantly increase a reader's understanding. Swarm ^X 02:12, 4 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • But that's a bit of a false reason as well as the sponsor is BMW. Seen any BMW sponsored sport logos. They all look the same near enough :P KnowIG (talk) 10:49, 4 March 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 SchuminWeb (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 20:14, 10 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

File:Kegshake.jpg (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Lafe Smith (notify | contribs | uploads).

non-free image that shows......something. I cannot see how an image of the two characters shaking hands significantly adds to reader's understanding. Image is simply decorative and fails WP:NFCC#8 Peripitus (Talk) 20:50, 3 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - serves as identification and critical commentary for the episode, illustrating the reconciliation between the two formerly adversarial characters. Lafe Smith (talk) 20:56, 3 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. "They shake hands" could be perfectly understood simply from text, it's not in need of illustration to be understood (if the scene were in fact important enough to be mentioned in the text, which apparently it isn't, because I can't find it anywhere.) And what does "serves as critical commentary for the episode" even mean? Fut.Perf. ☼ 22:08, 3 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• If you don't know what it even means why don't you take it up with the people who wrote the licensing boilerplate for fair use screen shots? Lafe Smith (talk) 04:47, 4 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• So, if you took it over from some boilerplate model, do you know what it's supposed to mean? There shouldn't be any "licensing boilerplate" for such FURs. They are supposed to be individual. You as the uploader are expected to explain in your own words why you think the image is indispensable. I know there are some "boilerplate" models floating around somewhere that people tend to copy from. It's sad that they do so without even thinking what it means. Got a link to where this verbiage came from? Fut.Perf. ☼ 07:38, 4 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per NFCC8. Doesn't even remotely increase readers understanding if it's not even significant to mention in the text. Omission certainly won't be detrimental to the understanding of the article. Swarm ^X 02:04, 4 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. Lionel (talk) 21:04, 7 March 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.