nominating all but one image of this character - currently there are four in the article Calliopejen1 00:10, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Mumble is seen in the film as both an adult and a chick and both of these appearances are significant enough to warrant illustration in order to identify the character. The image of Mumble from the magazine makes an important point regarding his original design, a concept not often explored and worthy of note in the article. I removed one image from the article so that there is only one of him as an adult. I would like some further explanation as to why all but one of the images need deleting. If I've missed something in the Wikipedia guidelines, please direct me to it. Thanks. Blue Phoenix 21:19, 29 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
doesn't significantly increase readers' understanding- there are already other pictures of the character in the article Calliopejen1 00:14, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
there are two pictures of this videogame character on the page, and only one is necessary (i would be equally happy if the other one were deleted) Calliopejen1 00:25, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
this appears in a list of characters in which there are two pictures per character. only one is necessary. Calliopejen1 00:26, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
this appears in a list of characters in which there are two pictures per character. only one is necessary. Calliopejen1 00:27, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
this appears in a list of characters in which there are two pictures per character. only one is necessary. Calliopejen1 00:27, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
this appears in a list of characters in which there are two pictures per character. only one is necessary. Calliopejen1 00:28, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
this appears in a list of characters in which there are two pictures per character. only one is necessary. Calliopejen1 00:28, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
this appears in a list of characters in which there are two pictures per character. only one is necessary. Calliopejen1 00:28, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This image is pretty much pure fan speculation about the structure of the Firefly universe. This diagram can not be backed up with sources. Phirazo 04:20, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
KEEP - Image is based off the verse diagram in the RPG game which is based off Joss Whedon's work. Article needs something to look at IMO. Cyberia23 05:41, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Content issue -not AfD. Properly licensed, come back when it's decidedly orphaned. . . yada yada yada. R. Baley 07:41, 29 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Until something better is proffered, I vote Keep. The article is aided by the image; a better image is certainly conceivable. Until such is available/posted this will need suffice. --Ma'ath'a'yü (aka: Proofing) 09:16, 30 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Accusation is incorrect. The image goes perfect with the article. Offer better or keep the image! Ein2015 09:05, 07 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
we already have one nonfree image to show what the subject looks like. the rationale given for the use of this image is "By showing author of book about Monitor with Tedi Thurman, who did an introduction for that book, this indicates her contribution to NBC during the 1950s is significant and enduring." This image does not significantly add to the reader's understanding of the topic. Calliopejen1 14:50, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
KEEP Frank Sinatra has ten images, just in case someone doesn't know "what the subject looks like." The argument could be made that more images might be posted of obscure people than well-known celebrities because FEWER know what they look like. Tedi Thurman may be somewhat of a forgotten figure today, but during the 1950s, she made TONIGHT show appearances and her breathy weather reports emanated from thousands of car radios each weekend, hour after hour. She got much press coverage. Then she vanished for decades. As explained on the template, the second photo was not "to show what the subject looks like," it was to show an event where she came out of obscurity to be part of a tribute and reunion. In the photo, she is seen with the author of a recent (2004) book detailing her contributions to NBC radio-TV programming of the 1950s. How many people were heard on radio during the 1950s who go unmentioned in any books? Consider this: There is information conveyed in photos. Such information can be much more than the surface appearance of what is seen in a photo. Pepso2 15:58, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
There were three nonfree images on the Sinatra page, which shouldn't have been there. I have removed them, and now there are only free images. Pointing to another article is not a valid argument to keep an image - see WP:OTHERSTUFF. You could explain all the things you did above in words, without harming readers' understanding. The picture in itself does not significantly contribute to readers' understanding of Tedi Thurman, as opposed to words alone. See WP:NONFREE for the relevant policy--we are very stringent with inclusion of nonfree media. Calliopejen1 04:03, 28 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You simply repeated your original comment, so I'll repeat mine. There is more to a photograph than what something "looks like." Where is Susan Sontag when we need her? Pepso2 06:00, 28 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Fair use rationale looks good. Since there's already a free photo as well, keeping this one out doesn't do any good -content issue, not for AfD to decide. R. Baley 07:45, 29 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This had one delete and two keeps, yet it was deleted anyway. I still feel that Thurman's Greta Garboesque return from obscurity after decades merits a visual. Even beyond that, photos become doubly important when they show personalities mainly known only as voices on radio. Pepso2 09:36, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This image was not formatted in the manner of other flag images on Wikipedia. Flag of City of London.gif obsoleted by Flag of City of London.png Electrafiction 15:46, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Image in wrong namespace; non-notable; document has nothing to do with the man so far as I can tell (if it doesn't contain a virus) The Evil Spartan 19:07, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
