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 by @pple per uploader's request, without reservations to reupload. — Edokter • Talk • 15:20, 29 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
copyrighted image failing WP:NFC, someone handing some one else a drink, easily described with text (#1) Fasach Nua (talk) 16:45, 20 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep, bad faith nomination - I'm sorry, but it looks suspiciouslylikeyou'refollowing editors around. I really can't assume good faith. Will(talk) 22:07, 20 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Image conveys key element of the plot and NFCC criteria are met. Plus the article it is used on has just passed Good Article status. — Edokter • Talk • 22:54, 20 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - are you trying to get all doctor who images deleted? I have agreed with you on some, but i can't see how this fails the criteria. StuartDDcontributions 08:52, 21 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.
I believe this photo is purely decorative, and a free photo would really illustrate the same purpose. The Evil Spartan (talk) 01:56, 20 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The purpose for uploading the image was to highlight the key production personnel for the film. To get a free image is difficult. If you disagree with my thoughts, you may choose to delete the image. Thanks and regards, Mspraveen (talk) 10:39, 20 January 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.
Keep - I don't see your rationale, it was a notable event...sorta ViperSnake151 14:26, 20 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Discussion moved to Jan. 27 to give more users time to comment. -Nv8200ptalk 17:46, 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.
Orphaned, and unneccesary. David Pro (talk) 12:59, 20 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I sense a bad faith nomination, since it replaced the image you originally uploaded for the article, which you took from mobygames. Yours is worse for the article, since its clearly watermarked, while mine is better since its of lower resolution and promotes the ORIGINAL version of the game. Jonny2x4 (talk) 15:08, 20 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, Absent uploader, Very low resolution not suitable for Commons, From a copyrighted website so it may not actually be PD-Navy Nv8200ptalk 15:48, 20 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The image name is too generic and it has been overwritten by different users. Some are not obviously licensed. All involved uploaders have been asked to upload to more specific image names. Jusjih (talk) 22:34, 20 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
