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

Deleted.  Contains copyrighted material in such quantity we can reasonably expect this image to qualify as a copyrighted derivitive.  WilyD 14:41, 9 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Free-software-badge.png (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Gronky (notify | contribs).

• Unfortunately the combination of licenses is problematic. The BSD logo is the main problem. This needs deletion, or at the very least re-tagging a la Image:Free Software Portal Logo.svg. See also the discussion at Commons:Deletion requests/Image:Free-software-badge.png Optigan13 (talk) 03:14, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The link Commons:Deletion requests/Image:Free-software-badge.png points to a page that doesn't exist. Is there a working link? I am interested in retagging this image to keep it available in Wikipedia. --Gronky (talk) 10:10, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, it needs double commons, Commons:Commons:Deletion requests/Image:Free-software-badge.png. -Optigan13 (talk) 17:04, 25 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 debate was

Deleted.  While one can make a case that a different article might justify this as fair use, at the moment we can only evaluate the article as it is.  The article is only "in-world biography", and this image fails test #8.  It might reasonably be undeleted if some relevant "critical commentary" appears.  Until then, WilyD 14:32, 9 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Sod02032004cover.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by TheCustomOfLife (notify | contribs).

• Seems like fairuse overuse. The article Soap Opera Digest already has Image:Sodfebruary1977.jpg which seems adequate to identifying the magazine. This doesn't really add any particular information. Ricky81682 (talk) 05:25, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - I have removed the image from this article, where it serves little purpose, but added it to the character's article, Marlena Evans, because the image illustrates one of the character's most famous storylines, in which she is revealed to be a serial killer after decades as a heroine. — TAnthony^Talk 05:41, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment But again, there is not any indication of the importance of that particular magazine cover image of her. This looks almost exactly like non-free inappropriate use # 8: "A magazine cover, to illustrate the article on the person whose photograph is on the cover." In this case, of course, it's a fictional character but Image:Mevans.jpg is already in the article. If there somehow an article on the Salem Stalker itself or about the publicity the gimmick created, I would understand a possible use for the image. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 05:47, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The article definitely needs some work, and some sources regarding the notability of the storyline, but there is no question that it is probably the second most notable DAYS story in non-soap sources. It's really not the same as a #8 violation, and there would be many better images if its only purpose was to identify the character. — TAnthony^Talk 06:12, 25 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 debate was

Delete.  Nonfree image used for the identification of a living person.  WilyD 14:24, 9 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Image:175 sami omar alhussayen.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Sherurcij (notify | contribs).

• Non-free image that clearly fails non-free content policies.

1) It is replaceable as he a living individual. The fact that no-one can currently get any pictures off the internet is beside the point 2) It does not "significantly increase readers' understanding of the topic" - the image itself is not discussed in the article, and what the guy looks is not an issue under discussion. We don't need to know what he looks like to understand the article, thus it is not true that "omission would be detrimental to that understanding". I've tagged this as failing the criteria, but was reverted twice. Doc^g 13:03, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep, I would argue that photograph is not reasonably replaceable, since the subject has re-entered the private sphere and thus is no longer a public figure. The photo also offers the reader the approximation of his age, his appearance, the fact he wears al-Kuffiyah, these are all at least as important to understanding why somebody was falsely accused of terrorism - and as such, adds as much context to the article as any photograph of a person does. The image is not one that represents financial loss for its copyright holder, since it is a photograph released by his family to the media, and I don't see that its presence can in any way detract from our project. Note also that nominator originally deleted the entire article on al-Hussayen, but when faced with a deletion review, is now trying to have the image deleted instead. Sherurcij ^{(Speaker for the Dead)} 13:11, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, replaceable unfree image, no compelling reason for inclusion. Guy (Help!) 13:23, 25 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.