Wikipedia:Files for deletion/2008 August 19

< August 18	August 20 >

August 19[edit]

Image:Kit bodyShirtCA.png[edit]

Image:Kit bodyShirtCA.png (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Kaka12o (notify | contribs).

orphan and low res. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 01:49, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. — BQZip01 — ^talk 04:38, 21 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Image:D-fructose-2,6-bisphosphate wpmp.png[edit]

Image:D-fructose-2,6-bisphosphate wpmp.png (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Zephyris (notify | contribs).

Orphaned. Though not technically inaccurate, it displays a form of the chemical that is not found in nature and of little interest. Image:Fructose 2,6-bisphosphate.svg replaces this image with the "popular" form of the chemical. JaGa^talk 04:36, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete orphaned, image is superceded. — BQZip01 — ^talk 04:40, 21 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Gian Maria Volontè.jpg (now Image:Gian Maria Volonte1965.jpg)[edit]

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 debate was:

solved by consensus, image speedied by Athaenara at uploader's request. Fut.Perf. ☼ 17:42, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Gian Maria Volontè.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Blofeld of SPECTRE (notify | contribs).

Non-free image (movie screenshot) shadowing free image of the actor, which has the same name on commons. Redundant as a movie illustration because there's already a better screenshot of the same character in the same movie (Image:Fistfuldollarsvolante.jpg). Also lacks meaningful FUR and was falsely used in two articles instead of the one it was declared for. Fut.Perf. ☼ 08:44, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You do realise that Mr. Volonte died back in 1994 don't you. If the commons image was taken in January 2008 do you think it is reasonable to say that there may be something wrong with the details? The Bald One ^{White cat} 13:27, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Are you saying it's not really him? The flickr image is from this set: [1]; those may well be old pre-digital photographs from the early 90s; the date displayed in the metadata would just be the date of scanning. In any case, if you really doubt the legitimacy of the image, that's a case to be solved at commons; the item here on en-wiki will have to be deleted independently anyway, because it duplicates another screenshot that fulfills the same purpose (WP:NFCC#3). Fut.Perf. ☼ 13:42, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, so you moved it to Image:Gian Maria Volonte1965.jpg, that solves one part of it (I've deleted the earlier copy, so Image:Gian Maria Volontè.jpg is now commons shining through). But even with your improved rationale, we still have the duplicate function with Image:Fistfuldollarsvolante.jpg. We still need only one screenshot of him in that role, even if it's to be used in two articles. One of them has to go. I like the other one better. Fut.Perf. ☼ 14:02, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Done I agree! Fixed. The Bald One ^{White cat} 17:16, 19 August 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.

Image:Don Chipp portrait - National Library of Australia.jpg[edit]

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 debate was:

- Delete - per the below, Image:DonChipp-1977.jpg seems an adequate free alternate - Peripitus (Talk) 12:05, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Don Chipp portrait - National Library of Australia.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Hide&Reason (notify | contribs).

There's a funny free image showing this guy: Image:HainesChipp.jpg Damiens.rf 13:02, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep In this case funny≠encyclopedic for purposes of identification.
Query Respectfully, it seems as if you have a vendetta against images from Australia. Is that the case? Or is it just an area of interest in which your interests overlap with Australia? — BQZip01 — ^talk 04:46, 21 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Query Result: None. It's the case that (1) Articles from a with subject are wikilinked to each other, and (2) The editors writing articles on the subject of Politics of Australia in the last few years seem to be (in good faith) ignorant of our policies and practices about images. --Damiens.rf 12:31, 21 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Fair nuff. — BQZip01 — ^talk 19:27, 21 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - superseded by free image. Cumulus Clouds (talk) 06:31, 25 August 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.

Image:TimeDec10 1984.jpg[edit]

Image:TimeDec10 1984.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Rlevse (notify | contribs).

As determined in dozens or hundreds of precedents, we do not include Time magazine covers just to show that a person was on them. Fut.Perf. ☼ 15:25, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

And once again FP has orphaned an image then listed it at IFD. I put it back til the IFD is over. — Rlevse • Talk • 16:01, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

He's not asking the image to be deleted because it's orphan. He's asking it to be deleted because it's not usable, and that's valid reason to remove the image from the article. --Damiens.rf 16:44, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've removed the image from the article again. The rationale on the image clearly says the purpose of the image is to illustrate a living person. By the way, I have just uploaded a free image of this man. --Damiens.rf 17:10, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - The first successful permanent artificial heart implantation was a notable event. The picture that Time used to sell magazines with this story wasn't. --Damiens.rf 16:44, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The level of interest is clearly shown through the use of a Time article, but it probably isn't necessary to actually have a picture of the magazine cover with a non-notable, non-iconic image. There is little reason to use such a low-res photo to illustrate what can be clearly emphasized in text. — BQZip01 — ^talk 05:00, 21 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Reaction Logo.png[edit]

Image:Reaction Logo.png (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Sammo000 (notify | contribs).

Orphaned Sammo000 (talk) 16:02, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete no context for usage. — BQZip01 — ^talk 05:01, 21 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Vages.jpg[edit]

Image:Vages.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Indarlange (notify | contribs).

Orphaned, Unencyclopedic Calliopejen1 (talk) 17:54, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom + probable copyvio — BQZip01 — ^talk 05:02, 21 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Vahanrally.jpg[edit]

Image:Vahanrally.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Jacokaro (notify | contribs).

Orphaned, this was used in an article deleted as a copyvio. Judging from the resolution and border of this image, it's probably a copyvio as well (assume good faith doesn't work when your only other contribution is a copyvio) Calliopejen1 (talk) 17:56, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete no context to show the notability of this person. — BQZip01 — ^talk 05:03, 21 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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 debate was:

- Delete - It is possible that the image is copyright and the consensus tends towards that view. Also the image is of very poor quality and really serves to illustrate nothing apart from a vague shape - Peripitus (Talk) 11:47, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Image:ValenciaP.JPG[edit]

Image:ValenciaP.JPG (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Cedro (notify | contribs).

cited to "reference page" in article, appears to be copyvio Calliopejen1 (talk) 17:58, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Marginal Keep the "reference" may mean the article in which the picture is used. I see no evidence of a copyvio. That said, there are appropriate images already on this page and this one isn't really that good. Still, it works. — BQZip01 — ^talk 05:11, 21 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - There is no way to verify where it came from and we aren't in the business of second guessing copyrighted works. Cumulus Clouds (talk) 16:21, 21 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Why do you assume it is copyrighted. Near as I can tell it is an image created by the uploader. There is no evidence to suggest otherwise. In fact, there is some evidence to indicate this image was made by the creator as the ~~photo's~~ image's information was retained from the ~~photo~~ image (see the bottom of the image page). Under your assumption ("There is no way to verify where it came from..."), there is no way to verify all of the images uploaded to Wikipedia aren't copyright violations and that isn't Wikipedia policy. — BQZip01 — ^talk 19:11, 21 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Are you kidding? Those "details" came from an image editing program, not from a camera. This user has a history of uploading copyrighted content and this picture is an incredibly poor illustration of whatever that thing is and the uploader hasn't edited for close to 9 months now. So we have not way of independently verifying if it's a copyright violation or not. So we err on the side of caution, and, if that's not enough, we delete it anyway because of an absent uploader, a low quality image and unencyclopedic content. Cumulus Clouds (talk) 05:24, 22 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, or that the picture in the article is listed (within the caption) as being "from reference article." Which explains why it's black and white, since it's probably from one of the academic studies done to which Etrog is sourced to. Cumulus Clouds (talk) 05:38, 22 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Did you want to comment on any of this, Captain, or are just choosing to ignore it? Cumulus Clouds (talk) 23:38, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I've made my point and it stands on its own. Your accusations that it is copyrighted are absent any direct evidence. Will this image ever attain status as a featured image? No. Does that mean it should be deleted? no. I would have little problem in solving this little dilemma by simply transferring the image to commons (thereby retaining an appropriate image for later use) and deleting it from the article (if it causes you that much of a problem). — BQZip01 — ^talk 05:28, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

On a related note, there is no need to bring my rank into this. That I post my rank is strictly to give people an idea of my lifestyle and perspective. I've never used my rank or position in government to unduly influence a discussion on Wikipedia and invite anyone/everyone to check my edit history (top to bottom) to confirm this. — BQZip01 — ^talk 05:30, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You do realize that low quality images are one of the primary criterion for deletion right? Especially when they're superseded by other, better quality images. And if this gets tranferred to commons I'll nominate it for deletion there because its copyright status is in great doubt, even if you believe it isn't. Cumulus Clouds (talk) 06:29, 25 August 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.

Image:Valucian_logo.jpg[edit]

Image:Valucian_logo.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Pastorijj (notify | contribs).

Orphaned, Unencyclopedic, copyvio Calliopejen1 (talk) 17:58, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. — BQZip01 — ^talk 05:11, 21 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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 debate was:

- Delete - my reading of the debate is that the image clearly fails NFCC#1 and 8 - the image is replaceable by a free version and does not add significantly to the readers understanding - Peripitus (Talk) 04:09, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Paris Hilton Responds to McCain Ad – talking head.jpg[edit]

Image:Paris Hilton Responds to McCain Ad – talking head.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Justmeherenow (notify | contribs).

Fails NFCC #8, picture does not enhance the reader's understanding of the video, since it's a headshot of Paris Hilton, of which we have plenty of free alternatives. Cumulus Clouds (talk) 22:05, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Compare the screenshot Image:DeltoroCHE.jpg from the upcoming film Guerrilla. Let's suppose somebody had taken a free photograph of Del Toro in a fatigue military shirt and a beret while he was eating lunch on the Guerrilla set. Would such a shot best enhance readers' understandiung of the film? Or would a headshot from the actual film? And, I could go through other 2008 or 2009 releases and come up with numerous additional examples.

As for the screenshot from Paris Hilton Responds to McCain Ad: An ad for The Paris Hilton Presidential Campaign: which image, from this filmed artistic creation of political satire, would best enhance readers' understanding, per NFCC #8? Would it be the selected image that specifically depicts Hilton as a candidate's talking head? Or another shot of Hilton that happens to be outdoors, in a bathingsuit, talking? In the spoof ad, Hilton is not wearing fancy makeup nor fashion-shoot get-up or evening "clubbing" wear, nor does she have fancily coifed hair, rather she has her hair pulled into pigtails with her shoulders bare with the sole exception of a swimsuit strap across the back of her neck, and behind her back can be seen the slats of her chaise lounge and then farther in the background, neatly trimmed shrubbery. This image is simply not replaceable since were Wikipedia to use an image of Hilton out clubbing or doing a fashion shoot this simply would fail to lend encyclopedic coverage to the viral video and if Wikipedia were to use a sketch drawn of Hilton fashioned after the screenshot this still would be copying the original. $\sim$ Justmeherenow ( ) 03:57, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ditto!!! Or we should take out all pictures that just show the person if s/he is not nude or shows other kind of indecent disposer, right? It's getting sillier every day here! --Floridianed (talk) 05:44, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, as per nom. To Justmeherenow: It's not a question of what image would be better. No image at all works just fine. I can perfectly understand the article without it. If you have sourced and non-trivial, non-OR discussion to add to the article about the significance of her visual styling, then by all means, add it. In the absence of that, text alone is perfectly sufficient. (BTW, just incidentally, I can not understand the article just fine, but that's just because the article is poorly written.) Fut.Perf. ☼ 05:45, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Why did the costumer of Guerilla choose a black-felt beret adored with a silver, brigadier-general's star? Why does Del Toro wear his beard at the precise length he does in that shot? The fact is, the film's collaborators chose those particular variables and for WPdia to include this shot in the article about the film Guerrilla, it need not locate any commentary specifically about its costuming, it need only a screenshot of how its protagonist is depicted. (As for the stub's level of writing: encyclopedic coverage given Hilton tends toward the lowbrow it seems and maybe nobody's gonna nominate folks on her beat at US Magazine for Pulitzers because of it. But, in case any in-house Wikipedia journalism awards are forthcoming here, although I'll modestly accept credit for the stub's lede sentence, I must humbly deflect praise for the shadings and nuance within the graf about the viral video and ask that it be directed to its original contributors over at the Paris Hilton bio! (as I'd credited it on the article about the video's talkpage).) :^)

\sim

Justmeherenow ( ) 07:15, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The comparison with the "Guerilla" film is specious (and even if it was not, it would still be WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS). For a movie about an historical personality whose visual appearance is as iconic as Che's, it's an obviously crucial issue to illustrate how the film and its actor approach the task of representing him. There's nothing of even remotely comparable interest in the details of how Hilton appears in this spot as opposed to elsewhere. Fut.Perf. ☼ 07:32, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The iconic statuses [actually pronounced "STAY-tyess," in the plural.....and, whether these statuses should "rightfully" pertain to either!] of el (¡Viva la revolucion!) Che and Miss «Vive le Paris!» Hilton indeed adds to public interest in how they were styled on some notable occasion. But, putting iconic statuses aside..... Whatever bib overalls a bit-part player wears in a scene in a certain flick from a film festival, their pattern of soiling, the degree of their fading from washing, the way his mineral-oiled hair falls across his forehead, and the look of mirth mixed with bedevilment plus maybe a dollop of scorn that plays in his eyes...is what somebody reading about the film Cumulus Clouds Over Kansas is gonna wanna see the image of; that is, an actual still, not some completely unrelated 8 1/2-by-11 glossy from the dude's portfolio. (Oh! but I anticipate that somebody's going to mention the point that Hilton plays herself in the "ad"; OK, here goes.) And a reader reading about a documentary would expect to see an actual image from it: say, some momentarily appearing, anonymous Manhattanite man startled by a cat while sweeping the back stoop to his brownstone, randomly shot by the woman filmmaker as she wandered around the neighborhood; and a completely unrelated Polaroid of the guy taken a half-hour later by his neighbor as he pantomimes having been startled by the cat earlier, isn't going to be a better replacement.

\sim

Justmeherenow ( ) 09:57, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, but if you want to make a point, could you make it in simple clear words please? I'm not going to try to scan this paragraph a second time. Fut.Perf. ☼ 10:15, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hilton is pretty iconic. But this aside, readers expect actual screenshots to accompany commentary about a creative work, not an unrelated photograph, even if it's of the work's primarily featured actor or participant.

\sim

Justmeherenow ( ) 12:26, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You missed my point. I wasn't talking about the alternative of using some other unrelated image of hers. I was talking about not using any image at all. Which would not lead to any noticeable loss in information. Whoever wants to see what she looks like can look at her main article. Fut.Perf. ☼ 12:36, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Wait until AFD is completed, to see what form this article eventually takes. I know that there have been reliable sources which discussed and analyzed Paris Hilton's appearance in this video; if such material is added, NFCC #8 will be fulfilled. I agree that the image is not replaceable by a random free pic of Paris Hilton. However, I'm not certain whether this screenshot is the best one to fit with the hypothetical discussion of Ms. Hilton's appearance — another screenshot might work better. Can't say until said sourced discussion is added to the article. (If it's not added, then obviously delete.) —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 06:02, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, fails NFCC8 any which way. Stifle (talk) 08:37, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, there are already better shots of Paris in Wikipedia, plus as mentioned above it also fails NFCC8. Brothejr (talk) 11:59, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep (for now) - it's a photo of a well-known actress in an iconic / memorable role, used in an article about that role. For those who know the video in question it's instantly recognizable as such, not just a random picture of Hilton. Very standard class of images. The mock-concerned look on her face, the bikini, and the swimming pool chair, are all essential elements of the performance, and would not be conveyed by simply mentioning that Paris Hilton starred in this video. Given the status of the article right now a deletion would be non-binding anyway. Per Josiah Rowe we should take the time to see where the article ends up before considering the importance of the image to the article. Wikidemo (talk) 12:58, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Can you attribute to some reliable source this theory about the relevance of the "mock-concerned look on her face" for the video? Or is this just your original research? --Damiens.rf 15:40, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No. There's no source, and it's not original research. This is a discussion so those concepts do not apply here. In fact, by definition, one cannot reliably source everything that makes a photo more useful than text - if we could we wouldn't need photos would we? Wikidemo (talk) 16:46, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think he's asking you to back up what sources cover the "mock concerned look on her face" so we can establish why that's notable and if there are reliable sources that can be included for any such discussion about the look of concern on Paris Hilton's face. Cumulus Clouds (talk) 17:13, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - the headshot adds nothing to the understanding of the article. --Damiens.rf 13:58, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
wait per Josia Rowe. JoshuaZ (talk) 14:03, 20 August 2008 (UTC) delete Thinking about this more, there's no way this meets criterion 8. I've tried to find commentary in reliable sources that might be primarily relevant to the picture at hand but have not succeeded. At this point I doubt it exists. I'm am willing to change my mind if relevant, reliably sourced commentary is provided. JoshuaZ (talk) 21:17, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Both AFD and IFD take 5 days so waiting for the AFD is pointless, since they'll close at the same time. In any case, this picture fails the NFCC with or without the article. Cumulus Clouds (talk) 15:56, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- So we can put this discussion on hold and finish it after the AfD is over. Alternatively, we can always have another IfD discussion. JoshuaZ (talk) 17:59, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Or, we could just have side-by-side discussions since, again, the presence of that article doesn't actually affect that image's failure of the NFCC. Cumulus Clouds (talk) 18:12, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well it does if the article is going to be expanded or if the image doesn't in fact fail it as is (I'm inclined to see it needing more details in the article to meet fair use but with the article up for deletion it is likely to get expanded doing exactly that). JoshuaZ (talk) 18:59, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Furthermore, if the article is deleted, there is no debate about this image being deleted as it fails the "at least one article" requirement. — BQZip01 — ^talk 19:31, 21 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Fails NFCC #8? Oh, please. You can't say that unless the article it goes with, now at AfD is deleted. The image perfectly illustrates the fluffy, air-heady, light-as-a-feather imagery of the video which is combined with the serious-policy wording of her script: the pig-tails, prominent in this particular shot, are extremely useful for that. The video forces the viewer to ask, OK, just what is going on in that pretty little head of hers? This headshot actually works better than a view of her in the bathing suit lounging on the chair does, because that image is too "busy". Let the AfD be decided first. The image can always come up for deletion again. I don't know of any other justification for the pic other than that article, but if we're going to have the article then we only diminish it by deleting the pic. It's reasonable to interpret all "wait" votes amount to "keep", at least if the article passes AfD. -- Noroton (talk) 16:15, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It's a picture of her face, man. Nothing in that picture illustrates anything encyclopedic about the information in the article. I'm also aware that your vote was canvassed by User:Justmeherenow, so I doubt very much that we're going to get a reasonable discussion here any more. Cumulus Clouds (talk) 16:22, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

'Comment I would gladly change our rules as far as the Foundation permits to allow the use of anything within the US legal definition of fair use, including even this, but such is not the current policy. This is stretching the fair use exemptions to the point of absurdity. The effect of the ad is the video with the image plus the sound, and since it is freely available on the internet, the still adds nothing. The request, indeed, harms those of use who wish to use the existing rules relatively broadly for better purposes. DGG (talk) 20:48, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep...for now I'll reserve judgement until after the AfD is complete, but the impact of this video is still up for debate. It may be kept and this video frame serves to identify the video. — BQZip01 — ^talk 05:20, 21 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There is nothing in this image that can be easily linked to that video since it's a cropped picture of Paris Hilton's face. Cumulus Clouds (talk) 16:19, 21 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Cumulus, if you believe you're unable to identify this frame as one of the closeup shots from the video, fine. But repeating the same point after each persons' comment otherwise is a bit much, don't you think? $\sim$ Justmeherenow ( ) 16:45, 21 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Apparently not, since we keep seeing the same rationale behind the keep votes when it's clearly insufficient to meet the criteria for the NFCC. Cumulus Clouds (talk) 17:26, 21 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

General comment to those with latent distaste for Hilton's particular brand of burlesque humor: I'd presume any commenting here would have already viewed this free video or at least perused news stories about it, especially those the proposed article references. $\sim$ Justmeherenow ( ) 17:15, 21 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, the fact of her participation in the video and the reaction to it can be quite well conveyed by text. We have plenty of free images of her, we don't need nonfree ones. There simply is not a possible way that this image can pass #1 (it is replaceable and replaced by free images of the subject), or #8 (text alone adequately conveys what happened). Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 16:11, 22 August 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.

The result of the debate was:

- Delete - While it is correct that Wikipedia:NFC#Images notes that cover art may be acceptable, that is a guideline. The image fails NFCC#8 (significance for reader's understanding) and it can be argued NFCC#3a as Image:Quidam illustration.jpg in the same article is basically the same image, that the image is on a CD cover does not seem significant - Peripitus (Talk) 12:00, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Quidam_CD_cover_2001-edition.jpg[edit]

Image:Quidam_CD_cover_2001-edition.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Funhistory (notify | contribs).

Fails NFCC #8, does not significantly enhance reader's understanding of CD. No FUR. Cumulus Clouds (talk) 23:46, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Wikipedia:NFC#Images#1. — BQZip01 — ^talk 05:28, 21 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There is no critical commentary on this item. It's a subsection on the CD in an article about the performance. Cumulus Clouds (talk) 16:20, 21 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There's four paragraphs... — BQZip01 — ^talk 23:40, 22 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Those are all pure conjecture and most of them have been removed. Cumulus Clouds (talk) 02:56, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

And none of that was critical commentary on the cd cover. Cumulus Clouds (talk) 02:57, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Critical commentary isn't required for the CD cover, but the CD itself: "Cover art from various items, for identification only in the context of critical commentary of that item"
You failed to mention that you were the one who removed the commentary.
If no one else does it, I'll be happy to add references to the material. — BQZip01 — ^talk 19:30, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There are no reliable sources for the information on the CD. It was originally forked to its own article, which was then merged back into the main article and over the course of the past 6 months I have removed a large amount of unsourced conjecture that was present in both the CD's article and the main article. We don't need a picture of the CD to illustrate anything about it since the cover is essentially a recreation of the show's poster, which is already present in this article. That would, therefore, strike me as a violation of NFCC 3a.
You have apparently reinserted some of this unsourced OR and then -i guess- sourced to the CD cover. I don't know how you did that if you didn't own the CD (and I seriously doubt you do) so I'm going to dispute that reference. Cumulus Clouds (talk) 23:34, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please assume good faith and realize that, even if I didn't have the CD cover in my hand, that isn't the only way to see what is contained on them: [2] and [3]

Just because you "removed a large amount of unsourced conjecture that was present in both the CD's article and the main article" before doesn't mean it is warranted now. Associating my edits with the edits of others is guilt by association. I am not the same individual that put this on before and I know my way around Wikipedia. I'm not about to put something up that isn't sourced appropriately. — BQZip01 — ^talk 06:15, 25 August 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.