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.
copyright image failing WP:NFC fails 3(a), less than 3% of the image covers the subject, and possibly #8, little contribution to the body of knowledge, also poor image quality Fasach Nua (talk) 23:09, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Image quality is not a criteria for deletion. That only 3% of the image covers the subject is called putting that subject in context. Otherwise, it would only show a green blob without any perspective or reference. — Edokter • Talk • 00:08, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The context only shows size, and if the character is just a blob, could text {nfc#1) be used to describe the size, and do we really need an image to illustrate a green blob? Fasach Nua (talk) 14:36, 27 January 2008 (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.
Keep #8 is very subjective. The article it is used on is currently up for Good Article reassesment because it failed due to "not enough images". This nomination however is not very helpfull and interferes with that assesment. — Edokter • Talk • 22:29, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
comment - I am trying to get rid of all Doctor Who images which are not eligiable for use in Wikipedia, of which I feel this image is one. I note that of the three keeps, no-one has given an argument other than WP:ILIKEIT, and this images failure to meet WP:NFC has not even been contested. I will put a note on the GA article discussion regarding this article's use of images Fasach Nua (talk) 12:10, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I have yet to see you giving a valid argument as to why an image failt NFC, as all you do is cite a seemingly random criterium from NFC without actually expanding on it. Like I said, #8 is subjective and you have to explain why such image fails to increase the readers' understanding of the subject. Without it, discussion indeed revert to WP:ILIKEIT/WP:IDONTLIKEIT discussions, but not on account of what you think are invalid 'keep' arguments. — Edokter • Talk • 14:07, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I think you are confused the onus is to demonstrate compliance, not the other way round, that is the reason rationales are required. The comment below from Wolf of Fenric is what is needed in these discussions, "illustrates the close bond struck between", is valid, and much more well thought out than the boiler plating of "provides critical commentary in describing a (n undisclosed) key moment in the said episode", which is added to virtually every DW image Fasach Nua (talk) 12:46, 23 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per above; there are only two major things that could be illustrated; the romance for the Doctor, which is touched upon in the text, or the clockwork creatures, also discussed. Sometimes you have to use nonfree images, bud. Removing every single one only results in a pisspoor encyclopedia. David Fuchs (talk)13:49, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. A picture paints a thousand words, and this well-chosen image (from a key scene) immediately conveys to the reader the atmosphere of the episode. It clearly adds significantly to the reader's understanding, and the atmosphere and scene are specifically discussed. NFC #8 comfortably met, and the other criteria are fine too. Geometry guy13:13, 3 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Image kept. Image seems to illustrate a significant plot point and has supporting commentary. Moved image from infobox to the section of the article with the commentary. -Nv8200ptalk02:09, 6 February 2008 (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.
Imagine that you are in a third world country with only a copy of Wikipedia and a person asks "What is The New York Times like?" No amount of verbal diarrhea would be able to surpass the simplicity of showing that person a few images of the newspaper reporting significant events at various times in the lifetime of the newspaper. Images help people who are completely unfamiliar with a topic gain a quicker understanding of what the words are trying to convey; they also enhance the mental image due to finer details that cant be expressed without excessively long and boring paragraphs about every single detail. John Vandenberg (talk) 08:33, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
We already have an example cover in the infobox. One example is fine, and we have no sourced commentary on changes in the paper's visual style. If you would like to add this and use this as an example of the changes in the paper, I might back down. As it is, one nonfree cover is enough. Calliopejen1 (talk) 15:28, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Image deleted. Fails WP:NFCC #8. This image is not significant to the article. There was nothing notable about that particular day's cover of the NY Times. The event covered was big news, the cover of the Times wasn't. The image in the info box shows the current style of the Times and what it looks like. If historical examples are desired, choose pre-1923 editions. -Nv8200ptalk13:54, 27 January 2008 (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.
Keep, does contribute to readers understanding in both articles. See above and when the Sputnik 1 is concerned, it shows the importance of the event. Frankly, a lot of your nominations are extremely subjective and overreaching. The use of this image is well within the parameters of licensing. - Mafia Expert (talk) 20:04, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Image deleted. Fails WP:NFCC #8. The front page of the New York Times shows important events every day but use of the image of a front page in articles concerning the event is not significant unless the front page is the story, such as when the Chicago Tribune infamously ran the incorrect headline of Harry Truman's defeat for President on November 3, 1948 (Image:Deweydefeattruman.jpg). -Nv8200ptalk13:40, 27 January 2008 (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.
Orphaned. Furthermore, this is a screenshot of a computer program saved in JPEG format which should ideally be a PNG, so if a need arises for an image such as this, we should get a clean PNG version instead. —Bkell (talk) 06:08, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Orphaned. I think there's also been discussion in the past about whether these playing cards can actually be claimed to be in the public domain by virtue of having been created by the U.S. federal government, since it's not clear whether the photos on the cards (the only part of the card that would be eligible for copyright anyway) were taken by the U.S. federal government or not. —Bkell (talk) 16:56, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Book cover used only in the article Lust (about the emotion, not the book). This image is of such low resolution that the only meaningful thing that can be taken from it is that the book cover is blue. This is also all it is being used to illustrate. But this fact can easily be said in words, and it is: "A frequent visual symbol for the sin of lust is the color blue, as with the cover of the book Lust in The Seven Deadly Sins series published by the Oxford University Press." There is no need for this non-free image—it does not enhance the reader's understanding of the subject, nor would its omission be detrimental to that understanding—and thus it fails the eighth point of the non-free content criteria. —Bkell (talk) 17:19, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. See non-free/fair use media rationale, which I just added today. I should also point out that, because the subject is deceased, we have no other private photographs that are suitable. Boab (talk) 00:54, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
That website says it was submitted by carboengine. All you need to do is contact that user and ask them to release the image under a free license (with no non commercial clause). Until anyone can be bothered to do that for that or other images we will be stuck with inferior images. Gustav von Humpelschmumpel (talk) 01:33, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Unfortunately, it is not possible to contact user "Carboengine." I tried this, and it did not link to anything. I further have to strongly disagree with you that an inferior image must be used here. After all, there is nothing wrong with this one in the first place! See my non-free/fair use media rationale again for why there is no problem here. By the way, I suggest that people look at how bad the current Freddie Mercury image is! There is no doubt that it should be replaced with this one.Boab (talk) 02:05, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia is the free encyclopedia. If you really want a better image that much you should go and track down a Freddie Mercury forum and ask people there whether there is anyone that is the legitimate owner of a Freddue Mercury image and would they be willing to release that image under a free license. Gustav von Humpelschmumpel (talk) 20:15, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Visual representation of the episode, essential for an illustrated encyclopedia and not replaceable. Does not harm commercial rights of copyright owner in any way whatsoever. Why are you even nominating this? If it doesn't get a rationale it will be deleted anyway. --kingboyk (talk) 23:13, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
