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. Fails WP:NFCC#3 and #8 -Nv8200ptalk 02:17, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Redundant fair-use image: This image is an unneeded satellite photo of a stadium that was destroyed. While the stadium is no longer in existence to be photographed, the article already has two very good quality fair-use images of the stadium from the ground. There's no reason an image of the stadium from outer space is needed. VegitaU (talk) 18:24, 19 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Object - The image is designed to provide a full view of the now destroyed stadium. The other two pictures on the article do not provide this only demonstrating part of the stadium. There are only two ways to do this, either via a full panoramic or a top-down view. Since the stadium is no longer in existence then I feel that until an image created by someone previously is found then this image should stay in place.
Response: Why does this demolished stadium need three fair-use images to illustrate it? What exactly does the satellite photo add that the ground shots do not? Tampa Stadium, another demolished structure, does not have any satellite or top-down shots. The first two images already satisfy non-free content policy for images. -- VegitaU (talk) 23:29, 21 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. It is an important source the like of which cannot be taken again. The argument "x doesn't have so-and-so, so why should y?" is not valid. I'm sure there are as many articles that do as do not - it's all down to the contributors editing the articles is it not? L.J.Skinnerwot|I did 15:36, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Response: I guess you don't understand the situation very well. It's not that this image can't be taken again. There are already two fair-use images that can't be taken again on the article. I suggest you read WP:NFCC#3: "As few non-free content uses as possible are included in each article and in Wikipedia as a whole. Multiple items are not used if one will suffice; one is used only if necessary." The first two fair-use images suffice to illustrate to the viewer that, yes, this was indeed a stadium. -- VegitaU (talk) 15:52, 28 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Response: I'm not sure whether you have started to take this personally? You nominated this for a speedy deletion and after the speedy the administrator that deleted it (east718) reverted the deletion for the reason the building has been destroyed. He also added a marker to prevent future deletions to which you removed and he also added the image back to the article. Another administrator Spebi has also reverted your attempts for a speedy deletion. Maybe you should consider others opinions on this matter. ChappyTC 10:04, 29 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Response:
Maybe you should consider others opinions on this matter.
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
Keep. Sole screenshot used in article about the unfree movie from which it is taken. In the two actor articles, used can be discussed there. WilyD 20:33, 28 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
This image violates NFC#8 and does not significantly increase readers' understanding. Image is being used in two articles, Silk Smitha and Thulasidas. But both this article does not provide enough explanation on importance of the mage. It just merely looks like two people lies on the bed. Readers would easily understand articles subject without this image. NAHID 18:30, 19 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
CommentBoth the subjects are dead. And, yes, it does improve readers' understanding significantly. According to the logic of the nomination, there may be no need to take a look at a piece of creative work to know that exists. But, well... that isn't exactly so. Right? Aditya(talk • contribs) 18:51, 19 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
BTW, it is also used in Layanam, the article on the film itself. Aditya(talk • contribs) 10:05, 20 March 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.
OK, let's delete it. --YarpTalk 19:25, 19 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Commons showing through. -Nv8200ptalk 01:57, 25 March 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 Orphaned, Copyrighted. WilyD 20:35, 28 March 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. No consensus to delete. -Nv8200ptalk 02:07, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I believe this photograph to be a hoax. I frequently gleek, and I have observed others doing so. Not once have I seen such a focused and contigious stream, nor from between teeth so close together. Therefore I believe the conclusion that this is a manipulated photo is inescapable. I note that the uploader has a short contribution history, including some issues noted on his talk page. CKCortez (talk) 19:44, 19 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment–leaning towards keep. I'm not so sure it is a hoax. Although I don't "gleek", I know someone who does and when they show me it doesn't look dissimilar from this. Perhaps some are just better gleekers than others? The stream, to me, looks like it is coming out from just above the lower teeth, by the way, not from "between the teeth". Good Ol’factory(talk) 00:57, 20 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Leaning towards keep. Also not convinced it's a manipulated photo. I've met people who gleek intentionally that form a thin stream like this photo that breaks up into droplets a foot or so from the face. I will add, in fairness, that I also know people who can spit mouthfuls of water in very long, thin streams by forcing it between their teeth, but how it happens is unique to each person due to subtle variations in the dentistry. Legitimus (talk) 15:42, 24 March 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.
