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: speedily deleted per CSD G7 (author request). —Ilmari Karonen (talk) 23:50, 19 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Image shouldnt be in wikipedia...wrong image uploaded...doesnt have authors permission anyway...needs to be deleted. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Simon898 (talk • contribs) 19:25, 19 October 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 discussion was: keep. The article is about the character, not the actor so the image of the character in context is not replaceable by an image of the actor. Generally images of characters are considered significant in articles about the character. -Nv8200ptalk 16:59, 28 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Numerous non-free images in version history, even if this file is not deleted most of the revisions need to be deleted. Fails NFCC#1, replaceable. There is nothing special about how this kid looks on his show that can't be conveyed in text, and there's no commentary on this image. -Nard 02:19, 19 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I agree as per the nomination. This uploader has a history of uploading non-free images and using them outside of the guidelines. Asher196 (talk) 02:59, 19 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
That was because I did not know what fair use was then.Some of the previous uploads did violate policy. They were the original and when I didn't change the tags when I uploaded my picture. But the current one is fair use.--Jay M. Baxter-Payne (talk) 01:29, 20 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: See image fair use justification. Illustrating the appearance of a fictional character is generally considered fair use as long as it is limited to once in the character article. NrDg 03:22, 25 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. A free picture could be found/taken of this living actor and that would serve just as well. (I've deleted the 16 older unused revisions.) —Wknight94 (talk) 16:04, 27 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
A free picture of this character does not and cannot exist. A generic actor picture does not represent the character. --NrDg 17:45, 27 October 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.
primary subject is a copyrighted advertisement, no Freedom of Panorama in the USA. Unfree image that should be deleted MBisanztalk 02:20, 19 October 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 discussion was: delete. The image fails WP:NFCC#8. There is nothing significant about this image to the article. There is no commentary about the image that justifies its use. The image is from a news source and the odds of actually getting a free image of a reproducible event are rarely a consideration. -Nv8200ptalk 17:10, 28 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
This image fails several nonfree content guidelines for its use in Perfect game. Firstly, a perfect game is, while a rare event, one which will likely occur again, rendering the image replaceable by a free image. (This is especially true given the increased likelihood of fan pictures in the future, and a fan would be more likely to be amenable to a free release request.) It thus fails the content criteria #1. It is from a news source, which has an increased chance of direct competition with commercial opportunities, and thus is more likely to fail #2. Finally, it is not critical or essential to explaining what a perfect game is, as a perfect game is determined statistically and by a fixed set of rules. The concept and rules regarding a perfect game are explained quite adequately by the article, and so the image is not essential to the article, failing #8 as well. It is claimed in the nonfree rationale that the image illustrates the rarity and significance of a perfect game, but this too can be and is explained quite well by the article's text. For this reason, the image fails #8. SeraphimbladeTalk to me 05:32, 19 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
As the article describes, a perfect game is very rare indeed, and while one may occur again, it is also possible that one may not occur again. At any rate Wikipedia is not a crystal ball, and our content can not be determined by speculation about what may or may not occur in the future. The image thus clearly passes content criterion #1. If and when a perfect game occurs in the future, it will certainly be appropriate to replace the current image with one from that hypothetical event.
While there is always a degree of criterion #2 concern with any news-source image, such concern in this case is clearly belied by the fact that a version of the image has appeared in the article since November 8, 2006 and its commercial exploitation continued, even eight years after the image was taken. Witness, for example, its publication by Sports Illustrated on July 16, 2007.
The complainant's discussion of criterion #8 reveals a misunderstanding of the primary purpose of the photograph. Of course it does not demonstrate what a perfect game is in terms of rulebook definition, information which is, indeed, conveyed perfectly adequately via text. Rather, as the image's fair use rationale indicates, the image serves the significant purpose of illustrating the perfect game's importance, its exceptional nature, in a way that words alone cannot sufficiently convey. The complainant is incorrect--the significance of the perfect game, in terms of its emotional impact on players and fans alike, cannot adequately be conveyed in encyclopedia-quality text and it is not; it can, is, and should be conveyed by an encyclopedia-quality image. The present one serves this significant purpose efficiently and effectively and thus passes criterion #8 on these grounds alone. In addition, in the scope of American sports history, because of their exceptional rarity and importance, each of the seventeen perfect games is a significant historical event, further supporting the image's passing of the criterion #8 test.—DCGeist (talk) 00:16, 20 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
As to #1, I believe it is DCGeist who misunderstands. "Replaceable" does not mean that a free replacement is available right now, it means that there is a reasonable likelihood that one can be created. The game of baseball is still being played, so it is quite likely that another perfect game will happen in the future. We do not allow nonfree images until the replacement actually arrives, else we would allow them in articles on living people. The standard is not "Has it been replaced?", it is "Can it be replaced?" The answer to that question here is clearly yes.
To #2, the fact that the image has continued to be commercially exploited does not mean we're not in danger of competing with that, and we always should apply very strict scrutiny to photos from news sources and use them only if there is an overriding need.
Finally, to #8, I would like to note that my initial argument specifically addressed the image's rationale, in terms of providing illustration of a perfect game's importance and rarity. Again, the fact that a perfect game is important, rare, and a tremendous accomplishment for a major league pitcher is conveyed entirely adequately in text. (I just conveyed it in one sentence!) The picture is not necessary to make that point, and text conveys it quite clearly and unambiguously. It's not necessary, not even if it's nice. SeraphimbladeTalk to me 03:26, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Obviously, the complainant forges a false analogy between an event, such as a perfect game, that may or not occur again--and if it were to occur again, we can only speculate when it might--and a living person, who is in theory available for free-use picture-taking right this minute, later today, tomorrow, the day after that, next week, etc. The complainant has failed to make a sensible case on criterion #1.
Strict scrutiny has been applied. There is clear evidence that the appearance of the image in Wikipedia has not interfered with its commercial exploitation and neither evidence that it has nor reason to believe it particularly will. The complainant has failed to make a sensible case on criterion #2.
Simply look at the picture. It contains a breadth and depth of information--significantly, emotional information--that the complainant in fact has completely failed to convey (despite his excited parenthetical claim!). Again, an historically notable image (within the context of sports history, of course, and whose notability is demonstrated by its republication in America's leading sports periodical eight years after the fact) conveys this information much more clearly and in much more encyclopedic form than text can or does. The complainant has failed to make a convincing case on criterion #8.—DCGeist (talk) 04:06, 22 October 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.
Unencyclopedic image, possibly test image. Unused in any article. Deadly∀ssassin 07:53, 19 October 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 at uploader's request. --SeraphimbladeTalk to me 03:30, 22 October 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.
Test image. OsamaK 19:21, 19 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Please keep: this is a test image demonstrating how the same image filename on enwiki overrides a commons image of the same name. I've written explanations which reference it on the talk pages of various users, but it seems none of them archived the discussion, so it looks orphaned. I'll correct that in due course. —EncMstr (talk) 05:44, 20 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Commons image showing through. -Nv8200ptalk 17:14, 28 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, that's because the image was deleted already, despite my plea. —EncMstr (talk) 17:22, 28 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
