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 - the case seems to have been made by those opining keep that this particular use of a ribbon is significant to the topic and that the reader's understanding is enhanced by seeing an example of a prior art. I have read the passage in question and the claim seems more than reasonable. There is a significant consensus to keep and no policy reason to override that decision. --B (talk) 11:51, 25 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:Homesite-2.5.gif (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Scientus (notify | contribs).

• Although the free content image Image:Bluefish_1_0_7_ribbon.png may suit the need of its usage in the article, I would like to bring this up for discussion of whether the Ribbon article should use this image or the aforementioned Bluefish toolbar. ViperSnake151  Talk  01:07, 30 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, although I do believe free content should always be preferred, in this case the non-free content is not replaceable. This is because prior art must be prior, of which Alliare HomeSite is. However I have no idea if Bluefish was before or after, and could therefore quality as prior art. The prior art discussed by the source, KDE developer Jarosław Staniek, includes prominently HomeSite. For this purpose, which most certainly falls under fair use, this picture is non-replaceable.Scientus (talk) 01:17, 30 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per Wikipedia:Non-free content criteria. The image is obsolete. The article Ribbon (computing) already has a free equivalent to illustrate this GUI element and this non-free image does not significantly increase readers' understanding of the topic. Ghettoblaster (talk) 23:31, 31 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • oppose as this opinion completely misses the point. For the coverage and discussion of the topic at Ribbon (computing)#Controversy the image is unique and irreplaceable by any free image.Scientus (talk) 23:19, 1 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as replaceable by a free image that exists or could be created. Stifle (talk) 17:37, 1 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • This image is not just to highlight what a Tabbed interface can look like, but to highlight that such an interface has existed for a long time. Read the relevent discussion at Ribbon (computing)#Controversy +[1] to which this image is irreplaceable.Scientus (talk) 23:19, 1 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • I fail to see how that can't be presented in text. Stifle (talk) 15:02, 2 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • A picture is worth a thousand wordsScientus (talk) 05:20, 5 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. The point of the image is to show the state of the art before Microsoft introduced its new 2006 UI specification, so that the reader can judge the degree to which this represents a new step forward, and whether this deserves patent protection. The Bluefish image, from May 2009, does not achieve this. Showing the 1997 Homesite image allows the reader to assess both the similarities and the dissimilarities between what has gone before and what Microsoft is now "introducing". Jheald (talk) 07:29, 6 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. The image is an evidence of prior art. Tarmo Tanilsoo (talk) 08:19, 10 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• The problem is that this piece of evidence is non-free content. According to the Wikipedia:Non-free content criteria, non-free images must not be used whenever free alternatives are available. An alternative example of prior art for this specific user interface element can be found in free software such as the Lazarus IDE (which itself is a clone of the Borland Delphi user interface mentioned in the article). Ghettoblaster (talk) 19:39, 13 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• The Homesite image is better because it is so much earlier; and because it was Adobe who originally developed tabbed user-interface elements. Jheald (talk) 10:43, 14 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Unfortunately, we can't always use the better images if we are to follow the Wikipedia guidelines. If we need to prove that tabbed toolbars were widespread before the introduction of the Ribbon, then every free image of such software should do. Lazarus was started in 1999 and there are dozens of similar applications. However, if you think that it is important to show that it was Adobe who originally developed tabbed user-interface elements, then you might want to add this picture to the article Tab (GUI). Ghettoblaster (talk) 20:35, 14 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Forgive me if I'm less impressed by a fringe piece of free software of unreliable dating. This image shows how tabbed controls were used in a major mainstream mass-market piece of software a decade before MS's new UI. Both the date, the mainstream nature, and the mass-market release add to the understanding the reader gets of the nature and much earlier wide availability of the alleged prior art. Jheald (talk) 09:05, 19 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Even if the date, the mainstream nature, and the mass-market release add to the understanding of the reader, the image does not. As User:Stifle put it: I fail to see how that can't be presented in text. If we need to show the reader how tabbed controls looked before the introduction of the ribbon, any free image such as the one in the article mentioned above should do. Ghettoblaster (talk) 20:18, 20 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Okay, the argument runs like this. The date, the mainstream nature, and the mass-market release all make Homesite more powerful as prior art, both to a jury and in the mind of a reader. Furthermore (probably for those very same reasons), this i the software that is cited by Staniek in the article. But having set up software with the age, the mass-market release and the mainstream nature as the most relevant prior art, it makes it most relevant for the reader to see what that software looks like, rather than any other, to see whether it really does what is claimed for it or not. If we run bait and switch on the reader, by showing them a different image, then they are no longer in a position to judge how far Staniek's claims for the ten year old software are appropriate. Jheald (talk) 22:11, 20 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep, passes Non-free content criteria and is very relevant to the article. A "free" image would not do the job, and text-only will also not show the interface. SF007 (talk) 05:26, 21 August 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 Steve Smith (talk) (formerly Sarcasticidealist) 19:52, 7 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:567px-Mgrinsblau.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Nup (notify | contribs).

• Unencyclopedic image, no source, and bad quality. ZooFari 01:38, 30 July 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 Steve Smith (talk) (formerly Sarcasticidealist) 19:52, 7 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:04MA-Joey.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Nightscream (notify | contribs).

• Unencyclopedic image, portrait unknown ZooFari 02:02, 30 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• I uploaded it to decorate my User Page, before I learned that this was not considered an appropriate use of one's User Page or image uploads. Feel free to delete it. Nightscream (talk) 02:52, 30 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • You can use it for your user page but the file links were empty at the time I tagged it. Are you sure you want it deleted?
• delete "If you want to use this or any other one of my images outside of Wikipedia," seems to misunderstand the CC-BY-SA-2.5 license it is put under. If the author understand the license, and includes description text that reflects this, it may be appropriate for commons.(commons:Commons:Project_scope#Must_be_realistically_useful_for_an_educational_purpose) Scientus (talk) 03:07, 30 July 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 J Milburn (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 20:20, 30 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:04MA-Angela.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Nightscream (notify | contribs).

• Unencyclopedic image; portrait unknown ZooFari 02:03, 30 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• I uploaded it to decorate my User Page, before I learned that this was not considered an appropriate use of one's User Page or image uploads. Feel free to delete it. Nightscream (talk) 02:52, 30 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• delete "If you want to use this or any other one of my images outside of Wikipedia," seems to misunderstand the CC-BY-SA-2.5 license it is put under. If the author understand the license, and includes description text that reflects this, then it may be appropriate for commons. (commons:Commons:Project_scope#Must_be_realistically_useful_for_an_educational_purpose) Scientus (talk) 03:07, 30 July 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 Steve Smith (talk) (formerly Sarcasticidealist) 19:52, 7 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:1 Picture Chuck Marean .jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Chuck Marean (notify | contribs).

• Possibly unencyclopedic, orphaned, "Chuck Marean" article does not exist and possibly NN BLP ZooFari 02:06, 30 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, particularly since the uploader and subject has been indefinitely blocked and won't have any use for the thing. --Calton | Talk 01:10, 6 August 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 Steve Smith (talk) (formerly Sarcasticidealist) 19:52, 7 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:15713347 0f0c62d949 o.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Amilianna (notify | contribs).

• Orphaned, unencyclopedic ZooFari 03:02, 30 July 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 Steve Smith (talk) (formerly Sarcasticidealist) 19:52, 7 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:100 2842.JPG (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Bankernails (notify | contribs).

• Orphaned, possibly unencyclopedic, BLP article doesn't xist ZooFari 03:04, 30 July 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 Steve Smith (talk) (formerly Sarcasticidealist) 19:52, 7 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:Wivehaven.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Qrc2006 (notify | contribs).

• LQ (small), AB, replaced by better-quality images, and no guarantee that it was created/published before 1923 (source site doesn't give a date). howcheng {chat} 03:44, 30 July 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 Steve Smith (talk) (formerly Sarcasticidealist) 19:52, 7 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:Keith.jpg.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Dpfaff7933 (notify | contribs).

• Image of a random individual; no reason to expect that this would be used, and no point in sending to Commons, as it's entirely out of scope there. Uploader has never made any edits, other than adding this photo and using it to vandalise Keith in early 2007. Nyttend (talk) 04:03, 30 July 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 Steve Smith (talk) (formerly Sarcasticidealist) 19:52, 7 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:Julia child kitchen.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Alkivar (notify | contribs).

• There's no evidence this image was released under the GFDL as stated by the uploader. Damiens.rf 11:39, 30 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  Have you tried contacting Sergio Caltagirone (the apparent author) to ask him? Lara 18:38, 30 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  I've sent an email. Lara 06:30, 31 July 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 Steve Smith (talk) (formerly Sarcasticidealist) 19:52, 7 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:Julia Child,1961.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Tillman (notify | contribs).

• The source actually says this image is licensed under "Creative Commons Attribution-Noncommercial-Share Alike 3.0". There's no evidence for the lack-of-copyright-renew claim. Damiens.rf 11:41, 30 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Please look at http://onlinebooks.library.upenn.edu/cce/firstperiod.html , as listed below the license. File is, indeed, PD-expired -- staff photograph, not renewed per Copyright Office. --Pete Tillman (talk) 17:03, 30 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Where does http://onlinebooks.library.upenn.edu/cce/firstperiod.html state that the copyright of this photograph was not renewed? In fact, the site itself states, "Artwork, photographs, dramas, music, and other types of works appearing in periodicals, as well as material that originally appeared elsewhere, may also have been registered separately, and are not represented here. Check these categories where appropriate." Furthermore, if this photograph was not published at that time, then the "no copyright renewal" angle is wrongly applied. Jappalang (talk) 07:36, 3 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete: per the information at the Online Archive of California, the researcher (uploader) should have contacted the possible author (or heirs) to establish the copyrights behind this photo. Without the results of such research, this image cannot be claimed to be in public domain (especially since "no copyright renewal" is not proven). Jappalang (talk) 07:42, 3 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Was this picture copyrighted before it was published? If so this image should be deleted. If this picture was copyrighted when it was put into a periodical and that periodical did not renew its copyright after 28 years (it was published in dec 1961 therefore it had to be renewed by 1 December 1989) Then this is most likely in the public domain. If this picture was coprighted after 1 December 1961, (which is unlikely) and this picture was taken from the periodical or from the original photograph then this picture, I presume, is in the public domain. I need to know which one of these scenarios is true. --RayqayzaDialgaWeird2210    14:29, 4 August 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 Skier Dude (talk) 03:35, 8 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:Sybil the cat.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Melesse (notify | contribs).

• Image was tagged as replaceable, however I've declined the speedy and brought it here for discussion. PhilKnight (talk) 14:10, 30 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: image is now non-replaceable as Sybil is now deceased. Thus the use of the image is in accordance with NFU. Mjroots (talk) 19:19, 31 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep, but remove from Chief Mouser to the Cabinet Office as failing WP:NFCC#8. Stifle (talk) 17:38, 1 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep The image cannot be replaced. Gavin (talk) 00:34, 3 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - Unfortunately the image of Sybil can no longer be created or reproduced. Scanlan (talk) 00:37, 4 August 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: Deleted --B (talk) 22:16, 14 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:North-florida-counties-highlighted.png (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Nuberger13 (notify | contribs).

• This appears to be original research, since there's no explanation of how the "various levels of shading" were obtained - and even if a formula were given, it would be original research to accept that as a useful formula. NE2 15:59, 30 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Per the nominator, this seems to be the creator's own original research. It is at least unverified, but even if the individual figures were verified, pulling them together like this violates SYNTH.--Cúchullain ^t/c 18:47, 30 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom, plus no source given for "North Florida" being bounded by these counties. How do we know that it doesn't include another county immediately south of the ones highlighted? Nyttend (talk) 04:08, 12 August 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. As J Milburn states, "The guidelines are here to help us interpret the NFCC, not to override them." However, because NFCC #8 is ambiguous, an interpretation of "significantly increase readers' understanding of the topic" given in NFC is appropriate. Consensus is that the image "provides a representative visual reference for other elements in the article" per NFLISTS. If NFLISTS really were to override NFCC, then why does it exist in the first place? King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 05:58, 25 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:Etemon.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Diabound00 (notify | contribs).

• It is not clear why the appearance of Etemon is important. Short of an (unsourced) mention that he impersonates Elvis, there appears to be no commentary of his appearance. J Milburn (talk) 16:01, 30 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep His unique appearance and somewhat major role in the series he was in makes this image a good example of the character artwork and designs used. Because of the nature of the show more than one example is necessary to show the range of styles design choices. This nomination stems from a dispute on List of characters in Digimon Adventure, where currently a total of five images are being used with a similar rational to cover a two series/season show. The page itself represents no less than thirty different characters. We are not giving an image to each one, and I would be opposed to doing so. This is far more than reasonable, and completely in-line with our fair use/non-free policies and guidelines. -- Ned Scott 05:58, 31 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Why do you feel Etemon's appearance is of such importance? J Milburn (talk) 10:49, 31 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Major character in the series. Topic is primarily for children and it is unlikely words could replace the picture for them (or for me either frankly). Hobit (talk) 02:47, 18 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • That's not the point. Why is an image needed of this character? J Milburn (talk) 12:07, 18 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Because A) a child might otherwise have issues understanding what character is being referred to (in the context the name plays a small role and the image a large one) and B) the character's look is very distinctive and difficult if not nearly impossible to convey otherwise. In general I believe we should have images of major characters whose appearance is distinctive otherwise the article is significantly less that it otherwise would be. This is especially the case (IMO) for children's articles. The lack of description of the character is because there is a picture there. Without it we'd need a (rather long) description (which would still lose most everything IMO). Hobit (talk) 16:30, 18 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • That's not really the point. Unless the character's appearance is in some way significant, we have no great urgency to show everyone what they look like. Why not also include a voice sample for every character? The reason is that the voice of the character is not significant- if it was, a voice sample would be useful. Here, we have a character whose appearance is not particularly significant- for that reason, there's no great urgency to provide an image. J Milburn (talk) 19:12, 18 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Per WP:NFC#Non-free image use in list articles, to show a representative sample of the animated characters in the series, because this improves understanding of the characters and the series. The "images in lists" guidance represents consensus on a policy page thrashed out after long discussion. If J. Milburn wants to change it, he needs to develop consensus for that change at WT:NFC. In the meantime, this article shows a limited number of images, exactly as envisioned by the policy. Being in line with the policy they should therefore be kept. See also Ned Scott (talk · contribs)'s comments on the article talk page. Jheald (talk) 19:21, 18 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • The guidelines about the lists are useful, yes, but the discussion above relates to the wording of our policy. Regardless of our guidelines on the use of images in specific circumstances, if an image does not meet our non-free content criteria (which is what I am arguing) it cannot be used. If you disagree with me, you're welcome to discuss the matter here, but dismissing our NFCC because of what the NFC guidelines say is going to get you no where. The guidelines are here to help us interpret the NFCC, not to override them. J Milburn (talk) 20:45, 18 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • This was thrashed out at length when WP:NFLISTS was adopted. Per-character images are out, but a limited number of images to give a representative idea of what the characters look like are considered to add significantly to the understanding conveyed by the article. You may think that your personal views outweigh a hard-argued agreed project-wide consensus. But don't be surprised if you find yourself in a minority of one. Jheald (talk) 08:57, 19 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • You're still ignoring my question. Why does Etamon need to be illustrated? If Etamon's appearance is not of significance, there should not be an image of him. J Milburn (talk) 10:51, 19 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        • The significance is that, with the other images, it gives a representative idea of what the characters look like. Per WP:NFLISTS. Jheald (talk) 11:12, 19 August 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. See above. J Milburn: If you disagree with NFLISTS, then make a proposal to modify it. In the meantime, this is a textbook case of NFLISTS. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 06:07, 25 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:DemiDevimon.gif (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Diabound00 (notify | contribs).

• Short of a few, unsourced, in-universe mentions of how he looks like a bat, it's not clear why the appearance of this Digimon is of any great importance. J Milburn (talk) 16:03, 30 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep (forgive the copypasta, but it's pretty much the same statement for each of these FfDs) His unique appearance and somewhat major role in the series he was in makes this image a good example of the character artwork and designs used. Because of the nature of the show more than one example is necessary to show the range of styles design choices. This nomination stems from a dispute on List of characters in Digimon Adventure, where currently a total of five images are being used with a similar rational to cover a two series/season show. The page itself represents no less than thirty different characters. We are not giving an image to each one, and I would be opposed to doing so. This is far more than reasonable, and completely in-line with our fair use/non-free policies and guidelines. -- Ned Scott 05:59, 31 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Why do you feel DemuDevimon's appearance is of such importance? J Milburn (talk) 10:49, 31 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Per WP:NFC#Non-free image use in list articles, to show a representative sample of the animated characters in the series, because this improves understanding of the characters and the series. The "images in lists" guidance represents consensus on a policy page thrashed out after long discussion. If J. Milburn wants to change it, he needs to develop consensus for that change at WT:NFC. In the meantime, this article shows a limited number of images, exactly as envisioned by the policy. Being in line with the policy they should therefore be kept. See also Ned Scott (talk · contribs)'s comments on the article talk page. Jheald (talk) 19:22, 18 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • The guidelines about the lists are useful, yes, but the discussion above relates to the wording of our policy. Regardless of our guidelines on the use of images in specific circumstances, if an image does not meet our non-free content criteria (which is what I am arguing) it cannot be used. If you disagree with me, you're welcome to discuss the matter here, but dismissing our NFCC because of what the NFC guidelines say is going to get you no where. The guidelines are here to help us interpret the NFCC, not to override them. J Milburn (talk) 20:46, 18 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • See response above. Jheald (talk) 08:58, 19 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • This is exactly the point. I don't care about the response above. I don't want a "images are good, anyone who tries to delete an image is a VANDALOID" comment, I want an explanation of why this image is required. Why does this image add significantly to the article? J Milburn (talk) 10:53, 19 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        • The significance is that, with the other images, it gives a representative idea of what the characters as a whole look like. Per WP:NFLISTS. Jheald (talk) 11:14, 19 August 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. See above. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 06:08, 25 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:Ogremon.gif (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Diabound00 (notify | contribs).

• I can see no reason why the appearance of Orgemon is of any importance. J Milburn (talk) 16:07, 30 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep (forgive the copypasta, but it's pretty much the same statement for each of these FfDs) His unique appearance and somewhat major role in the series he was in makes this image a good example of the character artwork and designs used. Because of the nature of the show more than one example is necessary to show the range of styles design choices. This nomination stems from a dispute on List of characters in Digimon Adventure, where currently a total of five images are being used with a similar rational to cover a two series/season show. The page itself represents no less than thirty different characters. We are not giving an image to each one, and I would be opposed to doing so. This is far more than reasonable, and completely in-line with our fair use/non-free policies and guidelines. -- Ned Scott 06:00, 31 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Why do you feel Ogremon's appearance is of such importance? J Milburn (talk) 10:50, 31 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Per WP:NFC#Non-free image use in list articles, to show a representative sample of the animated characters in the series, because this improves understanding of the characters and the series. The "images in lists" guidance represents consensus on a policy page thrashed out after long discussion. If J. Milburn wants to change it, he needs to develop consensus for that change at WT:NFC. In the meantime, this article shows a limited number of images, exactly as envisioned by the policy. Being in line with the policy they should therefore be kept. See also Ned Scott (talk · contribs)'s comments on the article talk page. Jheald (talk) 19:22, 18 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • The guidelines about the lists are useful, yes, but the discussion above relates to the wording of our policy. Regardless of our guidelines on the use of images in specific circumstances, if an image does not meet our non-free content criteria (which is what I am arguing) it cannot be used. If you disagree with me, you're welcome to discuss the matter here, but dismissing our NFCC because of what the NFC guidelines say is going to get you no where. The guidelines are here to help us interpret the NFCC, not to override them. J Milburn (talk) 20:46, 18 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • See response above. Jheald (talk) 08:58, 19 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • This is exactly the point. I don't care about the response above. I don't want a "images are good, anyone who tries to delete an image is a VANDALOID" comment, I want an explanation of why this image is required. Why does this image add significantly to the article? J Milburn (talk) 10:53, 19 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        • The significance is that, with the other images, it gives a representative idea of what the characters look like. Per WP:NFLISTS. Jheald (talk) 11:14, 19 August 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. See above. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 06:08, 25 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:Sukamon.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Diabound00 (notify | contribs).

• The only commentary of Sukamon's appearance is the unsourced assertion that it "is designed to be a pile of feces". It is unclear why the use of a non-free image is justified. J Milburn (talk) 16:10, 30 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep (this one is actually different) His unique appearance makes this image a good example of the character artwork and designs used. Because of the nature of the show more than one example is necessary to show the range of styles design choices. This nomination stems from a dispute on List of characters in Digimon Adventure, where currently a total of five images are being used with a similar rational to cover a two series/season show. The page itself represents no less than thirty different characters. We are not giving an image to each one, and I would be opposed to doing so. This is far more than reasonable, and completely in-line with our fair use/non-free policies and guidelines.
  
  The character itself is a lot more minor than the other FfDs listed here relating to The Digimon Article. However his design choice, while a bit immature (a pile of crap!) is a great contrast to the other characters, and helps show the range of designs used. -- Ned Scott 06:03, 31 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ok, that sounds like it may be a reasonable rationale- a contrast between the childishness of this image, and the much more mature nature of others (say, Leomon). However, the details about his design are completely unsourced. Such an argument would potentially be valid if we had reliable sources (especially if we had reliable sources contrasting him with the other characters). J Milburn (talk) 10:53, 31 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment: I ntoe there are still no reliable sources, meaning that the potentially valid argument above is completely based upon original research, meaning that this image should be deleted. J Milburn (talk) 12:09, 18 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Question: where does it say that we can't use original research (i.e. a personal opinion) in a discussion about how to present material? We do all the time in text (what's important, how to order the topic, what goes in the lede, etc.) and I didn't think there was anything different about images in that context. Hobit (talk) 16:34, 18 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • We judge whether something is significant based on what reliable sources say. If no reliable sources have anything to say about the appearance of the character, I don't see how we can argue it's significant. J Milburn (talk) 19:14, 18 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • Using our own judgment or primary sources would seem reasonable. Hobit (talk) 20:31, 18 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • WP:NOR applies to article text. It does not apply to talk pages, policy discussions, FFD discussions etc. Hobit is right: what matters here are the views of the editors taking part in the discussion. Jheald (talk) 19:26, 18 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Rubbish. It is not up to editors to say "it's important! Really!"- it's up to editors to demonstrate the importance. We demonstrate the importance of something through reference to reliable sources. Using that logic, if enough editors enter a discussion supporting an image, it should be kept, no matter what the image or the article. That's not the way we work here- nobody's opinion overrides anyone elses. Instead, we review what the sources think about the subject. J Milburn (talk) 20:48, 18 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • No, we review the arguments made about the subject. That's the way XfD works. Jheald (talk) 08:52, 19 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        • Yes, but if you want anyone to take your arguments about significance seriously, you're going to need to provide sources. That's the reason we don't listen to SPAs saying "he's notable! Really!" on AfDs about Internet celebrities. J Milburn (talk) 10:54, 19 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Per WP:NFC#Non-free image use in list articles, to show a representative sample of the animated characters in the series, because this improves understanding of the characters and the series. The "images in lists" guidance represents consensus on a policy page thrashed out after long discussion. If J. Milburn wants to change it, he needs to develop consensus for that change at WT:NFC. In the meantime, this article shows a limited number of images, exactly as envisioned by the policy. Being in line with the policy they should therefore be kept. See also Ned Scott (talk · contribs)'s comments on the article talk page. Jheald (talk) 19:23, 18 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • The guidelines about the lists are useful, yes, but the discussion above relates to the wording of our policy. Regardless of our guidelines on the use of images in specific circumstances, if an image does not meet our non-free content criteria (which is what I am arguing) it cannot be used. If you disagree with me, you're welcome to discuss the matter here, but dismissing our NFCC because of what the NFC guidelines say is going to get you no where. The guidelines are here to help us interpret the NFCC, not to override them. J Milburn (talk) 20:48, 18 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • See response above. Jheald (talk) 08:59, 19 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • This is exactly the point. I don't care about the response above. I don't want a "images are good, anyone who tries to delete an image is a VANDALOID" comment, I want an explanation of why this image is required. Why does this image add significantly to the article? J Milburn (talk) 10:54, 19 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        • The significance is that, with the other images, it gives a representative idea of what the characters look like. Per WP:NFLISTS. Jheald (talk) 11:15, 19 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per Jheald. Hobit (talk) 15:06, 21 August 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 B (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 04:03, 17 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:Kirk Gaitskell-Kendrick.jpeg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Cbsite (notify | contribs).

• Doesn't significantly add to the reader's understanding. PhilKnight (talk) 16:52, 30 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, appearance of character is not massively significant, use of character portraits on character list articles now highly frowned upon. Issues regarding non-free content criteria 3, 8 and potentially even 1- we have free images of some of the characters in role. J Milburn (talk) 17:05, 30 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy Keep - failure to demonstrate how image fails NFCC 3 or 8. Deletion already declined once (see Wikipedia:Files_for_deletion/2008_July_15#Image:Kirk_Gaitskell-Kendrick.jpeg)

  Please note that this file was CSDd and declined also. The nominator, who is an administrator, removed the image from the article List of recurring characters from The Mighty Boosh, them CSD'd it claiming it was an "orphan", and then threatened to block anyone who restored the image to the article. Radiopathy •talk• 17:18, 30 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  The burden of proof lies with those wishing to include the material, so that's a completely invalid argument. It's not even a reason to keep, let alone a reason to speedy keep. J Milburn (talk) 18:43, 30 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• KeepDelete – Non-standard CSD attempt. Discussion over use ongoing at Talk:List of recurring characters from The Mighty Boosh#Images 2, where rational for their inclusion is given. OrangeDog (talk • edits) 18:27, 30 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  After further consideration, this particular image isn't required. OrangeDog (talk • edits) 00:45, 1 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete The only rationale given on the image description page for purpose of use is "to help illustrate a large article". The implication being of course that we need pretty pictures, especially when the text gets long, in order to be encyclopedic. Wikipedia:NFC#Images notes that screenshots are "for critical commentary and discussion of the cinema and television". For the section pertaining to this fictional character (here), there are seven sentences, none of which discuss the character's appearance at all. There's no critical commentary relevant to the image. It's used, as the rationale on the image description page notes, for illustration only. That's not sufficient to justify the use of fair use image here. Therefore, there is nothing about the physical appearance of this character in this image that in any way enhances the reader's understanding of the seven sentences of text. Thus, it clearly fails WP:NFCC #8. Contrast with List_of_James_Bond_henchmen_in_Die_Another_Day#Zao and the accompanying image there. That is justified. The use discussed here is not. --Hammersoft (talk) 19:40, 30 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, fails WP:NFCC#7. Stifle (talk) 17:39, 1 August 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: no consensus (defaults to delete) --B (talk) 02:35, 17 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:MightBooshTonyHarrison&Saboo.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by LemonLemonLemons (notify | contribs).

• Doesn't significantly add to the reader's understanding. PhilKnight (talk) 16:53, 30 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, appearance of character is not massively significant, use of character portraits on character list articles now highly frowned upon. Issues regarding non-free content criteria 3, 8 and potentially even 1- we have free images of some of the characters in role. J Milburn (talk) 17:05, 30 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy Keep - failure to demonstrate how image fails NFCC 3 or 8. If free images of all of the characters were available, they'd be used in the article, as per the Fair Use rationale.

  Please note that this file was CSDd and declined also. The nominator, who is an administrator, removed the image from the article List of recurring characters from The Mighty Boosh, them CSD'd it claiming it was an "orphan", and then threatened to block anyone who restored the image to the article. Radiopathy •talk• 17:23, 30 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  The burden of proof lies with those wishing to include the material, so that's a completely invalid argument. It's not even a reason to keep, let alone a reason to speedy keep. J Milburn (talk) 18:44, 30 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep – Non-standard CSD attempt. Discussion over use ongoing at Talk:List of recurring characters from The Mighty Boosh#Images 2, where rational for their inclusion is given. OrangeDog (talk • edits) 18:27, 30 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. WP:NFC#Non-free image use in list articles says "Consider restricting such uses to major characters and elements or those that cannot be described easily in text". Having cut the number of images to only four on a list of nineteen, all of which display outlandish makeup, suggests that the editors have complied with the directive to the letter.
  • And why's it so important that this character is illustrated? "There are fewer images than there used to be" is not a valid argument for the retention of the current images. J Milburn (talk) 18:47, 30 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Because I now understand more about the show, having seen what the character looked like, than I did before I'd seen the image. That's the basic rationale behind WP:NFC#Non-free image use in list articles: knowing what the leading characters in a series look like improves your understanding of the series. Doubly so, when the appearance of the characters is so bizarre. Jheald (talk) 19:16, 30 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • So we should therefore include an image of every character? Where would you like to draw the line? --Hammersoft (talk) 19:41, 30 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        • No, Hammersoft. We're told how to draw the line, in WP:NFC#Non-free image use in list articles: major characters or those that cannot be described easily in text, and cannot be presented together in a group shot. As far as I can see, isn't that exactly the advice the editors of this page have taken? Jheald (talk) 20:07, 30 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
          • Ok, so why's this image so important? What's this image showing? Instead of talking in abstract terms, let's get back to the point. Should this image be deleted? J Milburn (talk) 20:17, 30 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I have now restructured the page List of recurring characters from The Mighty Boosh a little now, to separate the regular characters appearing every week, from the recurring characters.

  Having done that, I think it makes it a lot plainer why it was these that were the four images selected to exemplify recurring characters. Of the 15 or so recurring characters in the list,

  • it is these four that push the "bizarre and surreal" that the article mentions to the extreme. They are the ones that are the most of the wall, thus best highlighting the full scope of the programme's strangeness. Being so strange they are the ones a bare text description least completely conveys.
  • They are the ones which seem to have made the most impact with viewers.
  • Perhaps as a result of all of the above, they are also the recurring characters that the article spends the most text discussing.
  • And interestingly they are all played by Noel Fielding, so giving readers an idea of how far the characters doubled by actors do differ, and how far the production does or doesn't go and to be 'realistic' or to be 'pantomime' in its execution.

  For all of these reasons, it seems to me that showing these four specific images does improve significantly the understanding the reader gets: of the show, of the range of characters in general, and of the specific character depicted in particular.

  Tony Harrison is, according to the article, "a disembodied pink head topped with a bulbous shape vaguely resembling a phallus, and eight or so tentacle-like appendages sprouting from his neck" - something you don't see every day (unless perhaps you own the box set). So I suggest that showing what such a description actually refers to does indeed specifically build on the understanding conveyed by the words alone. He's made sufficient impact that he's now been brought back for a fourth time. The image also shows Saboo, so it's a two-for-one, and so also usefully conveys that some of the bizarre and surreal entities the main characters meet are more conventionally human, even if rather flamboyant. So I think this image does on both counts specifically improve understanding, in addition to the reasons given above. Jheald (talk) 17:55, 31 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete, non-free images in list articles aren't generally usable. If the character was notable enough to justify using a non-free image to aid understanding, he would have his own article. Stifle (talk) 17:42, 1 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Then why on the policy page WP:NFC#Non-free image use in list articles does it give exact instructions as to how non-free images should be used on such articles? Jheald (talk) 08:47, 2 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • More precisely, it says they should be used judiciously. These images are used excessively. Stifle (talk) 15:03, 2 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • Excessively? One use of each only, with 4/19 characters illustrated using NFC. They have been used judiciously -- careful choice of which characters have images has been made and explained. — Preceding unsigned comment added by OrangeDog (talk • contribs) 17:55, 2 August 2009
• WT:BBC and WT:COMEDY notified of this discussion, and the three immediately following. Jheald (talk) 09:27, 2 August 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 without prejudice - based on the precedent of the DRV of the above, closing as keep without prejudice --B (talk) 11:39, 25 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:Old Gregg.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Thom (notify | contribs).

Keep- This picture is funny as hell —Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.244.217.160 (talk) 18:28, 2 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Doesn't significantly add to the reader's understanding. PhilKnight (talk) 16:54, 30 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, appearance of character is not massively significant, use of character portraits on character list articles now highly frowned upon. Issues regarding non-free content criteria 3, 8 and potentially even 1- we have free images of some of the characters in role. J Milburn (talk) 17:06, 30 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy Keep - failure to demonstrate how image fails NFCC 3 or 8. If free images of all of the characters were available, they'd be used in the article, as per the Fair Use rationale.

  Please note that this file was CSDd and declined also. The nominator, who is an administrator, removed the image from the article List of recurring characters from The Mighty Boosh, them CSD'd it claiming it was an "orphan", and then threatened to block anyone who restored the image to the article. Radiopathy •talk• 17:24, 30 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• The burden of proof lies with those wishing to include the material, so that's a completely invalid argument. It's not even a reason to keep, let alone a reason to speedy keep. J Milburn (talk) 18:44, 30 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep – Non-standard CSD attempt. Discussion over use ongoing at Talk:List of recurring characters from The Mighty Boosh#Images 2, where rational for their inclusion is given. OrangeDog (talk • edits) 18:27, 30 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. WP:NFC#Non-free image use in list articles says "Consider restricting such uses to major characters and elements or those that cannot be described easily in text". Having cut the number of images to only four on a list of nineteen, all of which display outlandish makeup, suggests that the editors have complied with the directive to the letter.
  • And why's it so important that this character is illustrated? "There are fewer images than there used to be" is not a valid argument for the retention of the current images. J Milburn (talk) 18:46, 30 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • As above, at #File:MightBooshTonyHarrison&Saboo.jpg Jheald (talk) 19:17, 30 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • I was talking about this image? Not some general "images are good" statement. What is this image showing that needs to be shown? J Milburn (talk) 20:10, 30 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • See above, added at #File:MightBooshTonyHarrison&Saboo.jpg for the general ways in which these four images together help improve the reader's understanding of the Mighty Boosh as a show; and of the range of characters in general, their bizarreness and surrealness, and how this is executed in practice.

  Specifically, Old Gregg is a "hermaphroditic merman", the centre of one episode of the show, who has since recurred in both the TV series and the stage show, apparently has a particular following in Australia, and has even become an internet meme. Given such a record, I think it does significantly add understanding to show what such an entity looks like -- in addition to the points made above about the understanding gained by the contrast with the other characters depicted. Jheald (talk) 18:27, 31 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  You got any sources for any of that? J Milburn (talk) 12:10, 18 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  Yes, they're in the article. Which of course you have already read in order to properly judge the use of these images in context. OrangeDog (talk • edits) 12:13, 18 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  Yes, sorry, I see they are. It's a shame few if any of them are reliable. If we had a reliable source attributing the character's appearance to it's sucess/popularity, then it would be a different matter- at the moment, we don't. J Milburn (talk) 14:20, 18 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep per Jheald and OrangeDog. Hobit (talk) 00:49, 19 August 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 without prejudice - based on the precedent of the DRV of the above, closing as keep without prejudice --B (talk) 11:42, 25 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:The-Spirit-Of-Jaz.jpeg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by JordanAshley (notify | contribs).

• Doesn't significantly add to the reader's understanding. PhilKnight (talk) 16:54, 30 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, appearance of character is not massively significant, use of character portraits on character list articles now highly frowned upon. Issues regarding non-free content criteria 3, 8 and potentially even 1- we have free images of some of the characters in role. J Milburn (talk) 17:06, 30 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy Keep - failure to demonstrate how image fails NFCC 3 or 8. If free images of all of the characters were available, they'd be used in the article, as per the Fair Use rationale.

  CSD previously declined, also: [2]

  Please note that this file was CSDd and declined also. The nominator, who is an administrator, removed the image from the article List of recurring characters from The Mighty Boosh, them CSD'd it claiming it was an "orphan", and then threatened to block anyone who restored the image to the article. Radiopathy •talk• 17:41, 30 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  The burden of proof lies with those wishing to include the material, so that's a completely invalid argument. It's not even a reason to keep, let alone a reason to speedy keep. J Milburn (talk) 18:44, 30 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep – Non-standard CSD attempt. Discussion over use ongoing at Talk:List of recurring characters from The Mighty Boosh#Images 2, where rational for their inclusion is given. OrangeDog (talk • edits) 18:27, 30 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. WP:NFC#Non-free image use in list articles says "Consider restricting such uses to major characters and elements or those that cannot be described easily in text". Having cut the number of images to only four on a list of nineteen, all of which display outlandish makeup, suggests that the editors have complied with the directive to the letter.
  • And why's it so important that this character is illustrated? "There are fewer images than there used to be" is not a valid argument for the retention of the current images. J Milburn (talk) 18:46, 30 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • As above, at #File:MightBooshTonyHarrison&Saboo.jpg Jheald (talk) 19:19, 30 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • I was talking about this image? Not some general "images are good" statement. What is this image showing that needs to be shown? J Milburn (talk) 20:10, 30 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • See above, added at #File:MightBooshTonyHarrison&Saboo.jpg for the general ways in which these four images together help improve the reader's understanding of the Mighty Boosh as a show; and of the range of characters in general, their bizarreness and surrealness, and how this is executed in practice.

  Additionally, here, merely saying he had "black and white skin, red eyes and wore a white suit and top hat", although a good try, doesn't nearly convey the full look of the character. Again, it fits the criteria of WP:NFC#Non-free image use in list articles: cannot be described easily in text, and cannot be presented together in a group shot. Jheald (talk) 18:36, 31 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  That's not actually what I'm arguing. Yes, it couldn't easily be described, and yes, it couldn't be presented in another way, but why does this particular image need to be shown? Why does a reader so urgently need to see this character. J Milburn (talk) 12:11, 18 August 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 without prejudice - based on the precedent of the DRV of the above, closing as keep without prejudice --B (talk) 11:42, 25 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:Thehitcher2.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by AtomicDecay (notify | contribs).

• Doesn't significantly add to the reader's understanding. PhilKnight (talk) 16:55, 30 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, appearance of character is not massively significant, use of character portraits on character list articles now highly frowned upon. Issues regarding non-free content criteria 3, 8 and potentially even 1- we have free images of some of the characters in role. J Milburn (talk) 17:06, 30 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy Keep- failure to demonstrate how image fails NFCC 3 or 8. If free images of all of the characters were available, they'd be used in the article, as per the Fair Use rationale.

  Please note that this file was CSDd and declined also. The nominator, who is an administrator, removed the image from the article List of recurring characters from The Mighty Boosh, them CSD'd it claiming it was an "orphan", and then threatened to block anyone who restored the image to the article. Radiopathy •talk• 17:41, 30 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  The burden of proof lies with those wishing to include the material, so that's a completely invalid argument. It's not even a reason to keep, let alone a reason to speedy keep. J Milburn (talk) 18:45, 30 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep – Non-standard CSD attempt. Discussion over use ongoing at Talk:List of recurring characters from The Mighty Boosh#Images 2, where rational for their inclusion is given. OrangeDog (talk • edits) 18:27, 30 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. WP:NFC#Non-free image use in list articles says "Consider restricting such uses to major characters and elements or those that cannot be described easily in text". Having cut the number of images to only four on a list of nineteen, all of which display outlandish makeup, suggests that the editors have complied with the directive to the letter.
  • And why's it so important that this character is illustrated? "There are fewer images than there used to be" is not a valid argument for the retention of the current images. J Milburn (talk) 18:46, 30 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • As above, at #File:MightBooshTonyHarrison&Saboo.jpg Jheald (talk) 19:19, 30 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • I was talking about this image? Not some general "images are good" statement. What is this image showing that needs to be shown? J Milburn (talk) 20:10, 30 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • See above, added at #File:MightBooshTonyHarrison&Saboo.jpg for the general ways in which these four images together help improve the reader's understanding of the Mighty Boosh as a show; and of the range of characters in general, their bizarreness and surrealness, and how this is executed in practice.

  "The Hitcher", the article tells us, is "an old cockney man with long grey hair, green skin, a large polo mint over his left eye, a top hat and black and red clothing". Yet that hardly tells us what to expect, once you've seen the image. He goes back to the 1999 stage show, the 2001 radio series, three episodes of the TV series, was the main antagonist in the 2006 stage show, and has even appeared on the Jonathan Ross show. So in addition to the points made above about the contribution to the general understanding of the show, he satisfies both the "major character" and the "cannot be described easily in text" elements of WP:NFC#Non-free image use in list articles, either one of which is supposed to weigh in favour of inclusion in an article such as this. Jheald (talk) 18:49, 31 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  If the character appears in the stage shows, the image is potentially replaceable. Furthermore, your arguments do not make it particularly clear why the appearance of the character is important. Yes, it's unusual, and yes, it's not easily describable, but that doesn't suddenly mean we need an image. The appearance of my desk is unusual and not easily descriable, I'm not demanding non-free images of it everywhere. J Milburn (talk) 12:14, 18 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  As far as I am aware, your desk is not a major recurring character, has not been on chat-shows and has not been discussed by the mainstream press. An image is being used according to policy guidelines, no-one is demanding it be placed everywhere. OrangeDog (talk • edits) 14:04, 18 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  Now we're getting somewhere. The appearance of my desk is not important. So, why is the appearance of this character important? Has it been discussed in reliable sources? Is it due to the appearance that it is so well known? J Milburn (talk) 20:51, 18 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  In case you missed it, the comment above is highlighting the differences between this character and your desk. Such features are discussed in the article. OrangeDog (talk • edits) 12:38, 19 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  It's different from my desk, yes, but why is the appearance of the character significant? The only reason I can see why this would be a difficult question is that the answer implies the image should be deleted... J Milburn (talk) 12:44, 19 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  Various answers have been given above about the significance of the character in the internal context of the show, inlcuding that it was selected to appear on the Jonathan Ross show. But with respect, that is only one question here. More relevantly, WP:NFLISTS provides that it is appropriate to show a limited number of representative images to show the visual style of the show -- in this case epitomising the cast doubling-up, the bizarre character concepts and the bizarre make-up. That is IMO the most important purpose of the image here: the reader's understanding of all of that is improved by seeing it. WP:NFLISTS provides that it is appropriate to show a limited number of representative images for this purpose, the most effective/appropriate/significant/enlightening being chosen by editor consensus. That is what has been done. Jheald (talk) 13:29, 19 August 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 Skier Dude (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 02:01, 8 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:0 zahrat alkhaleej cover.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Miss-simworld (notify | contribs).

• The two may have become friends, but that doesn't mean we need a non-free image showing them hugging. J Milburn (talk) 18:55, 30 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Why do I bother even putting images that even comply wiht wikipedia restrictions when administrators such yourself feel it necessary to delete images willy nilly. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Miss-simworld (talk • contribs) 19:59, 30 July 2009 (UTC) If the image is non-free that why are basing your personal opnion on it? Why does the file need to be deleted? Yes but the image is directly related the article in question that it has been put in. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Miss-simworld (talk • contribs) 19:56, 30 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Please read the non-free content criteria. Non-free images may only be used in very specific circumstances. In this case, I am concerned that non-free content criterion 8 is not being met. J Milburn (talk) 20:11, 30 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Also, non-free content criterion 1- what's to stop someone else creating a free image of them both together? Have you tried requesting that an image of them together be released under a free license? Non-free content is a last resort, not just another thing to slam into an article to make it pretty. J Milburn (talk) 20:14, 30 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yes i think i did, but considering this a magazine pic were talking about its not that easy. "not just another thing to slam into an article to make it pretty" Yes I wasted my time, finding the image which was directly RELATEd to article in question for you to tell me that i did for aesthetic purpose.adding research that really is a lot of hard work, but now your slamming me for making the article "too pretty".

You know what milburn I will save myself this time for my time being wasted and delete the image myself since i know this is what you want to do anyway. I wont bother arguing when your mind is made up. Just delete the file myself. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Miss-simworld (talk • contribs) 20:39, 30 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You can't; you aren't an admin. Again, please note our non-free content criteria. If you're able to demonstrate that the image meets those criteria, it will be kept. J Milburn (talk) 20:42, 30 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

nearly never are images admins feel want to be deleted are kept, anyway Too late i already got rid of it. I wont bother my time arguing like i did fixing the article which are you are now criticizing and excusing me of accesorizing it. this is beyond OFFENSIVE and rude. do what you like with it i dont care. i have removed the image myself from the article so arguing is just futile. case closed —Preceding unsigned comment added by Miss-simworld (talk • contribs) 21:00, 30 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

here are the following aspects why my DID MET non free content critrea 1.Previous publication 2.One-article minimum 3.No free equivalen 4.Significance 5. Minimal usage.

but anyway it doesnt matter now since i got rid of the file and it was going to be deleted any so why bother uploading in the first if the picture is to "pretty" to be added. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Miss-simworld (talk • contribs) 21:05, 30 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete, fails WP:NFCC#7. Stifle (talk) 17:43, 1 August 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 B (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 22:12, 16 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:Ukraineworkersb041126.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by 172 (notify | contribs).

• I fail to see what this particular image is adding to the article that so desperately needs to be added when we already have free images of the protests. J Milburn (talk) 20:00, 30 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete image replaced by free content images in purpose. No point to this image. --Hammersoft (talk) 20:19, 30 July 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: Erroneous Nomination. When following the listing instructions (step 2), you need to replace "File_name.ext" with the actual name of the file. You'll also want to put the name of the uploader just after "Uploader=", and your reason for deletion just after "Reason=". Feel free to just replace this entire section with the corrected template. If you are still having trouble, ask for help at WT:FFD or at my talk page. AnomieBOT⚡ 21:20, 30 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:File name.ext (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by [[User talk:#File:File name.ext listed for deletion|]] ([ notify] | contribs).

• Mr. Unknown (talk) 20:53, 30 July 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.