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; deleted by Skier Dude (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 04:02, 5 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:UClogo.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by KitHutch (notify | contribs).

• OB 24.58.239.42 (talk) 00:18, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Replaced with Utica College logo.png

Speedy delete - F1, or how I learned to stop worrying and delete redundant, low res files. Lәo_(βǃʘʘɱ) 21:53, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - F1 does not apply as they are different formats.--Rockfang (talk) 22:12, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Thanks for pointing that out. I feel a bit silly, what with the rather cocky response and what not. Lәo_(βǃʘʘɱ) 01:42, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - Fair-use and orphaned, and currently tagged for deletion for that reason, independent of this discussion. Lәo_(βǃʘʘɱ) 01:42, 29 July 2009 (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: Removed from Innokenty Smoktunovsky, where it was just being used in the infobox to show what the actor looks like and from Hamlet on screen. There seems to be strong consensus for the image being kept in Hamlet (1964 film) so the image is not deleted. --B (talk) 11:52, 18 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:Smoktun.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Ghirlandajo (notify | contribs).

• None of the current rationales are strong enough to explain why the image meets the criteria in all of the various articles. –Drilnoth (T • C • L) 01:35, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - quite reasonable rationales, IMHO. We can use screenshots for the critical commentaries on the actor and director as well as the representation of a particular topic in cinema. Alex Bakharev (talk) 03:49, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep – The ((Non-free film screenshot)) tag went missing in an old edit (editor mistake, it looks like) and nobody had got around to actually adding the fair use rationale for Hamlet (1964 film). I've corrected both these issues, and as it's now properly tagged and used in at least one article where all the criteria are met, the image should be kept per WP:NFCC. The fair use rationale for the mentioned article is given below. Incidentally, the movie is from the USSR era when there apparently was no copyright protection for works such as this, so it's not even certain that this image isn't public domain to begin with. --Xover (talk) 13:50, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The screenshot of the movie is used to demonstrate the interpretation of Hamlet by a famous Russian film, and the actor—Innokenty Smoktunovsky as Prince Hamlet—starring in the role depicted. Since the article's subject is the film from which the screenshot is taken, no free equivalent can exist; the image is of one single frame (1/24th of a second) from the original work (a feature-length film), and is of a low resolution unsuited for commercial exploitation; the content has been previously displayed publicly outside Wikipedia; it meets the general and media-specific content guidelines for Wikipedia; is used in at least one (currently in four) article on Wikipedia; its presence will significantly increase readers' understanding of the film (the article's subject) and its lack would impair that understanding; it is used only in article space and its description page (this page) contains suitable information about the image's source, applicable copyright tag, and the names of and links to the articles in which it is used.

• Aren't non-free images of an actor in a role discouraged in the actor's article, ditto for movie screenshots in the article about the director? Those rationales seem to not contain enough information as to why they are needed per WP:NFCC#8, IMO. –Drilnoth (T • C • L) 16:15, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Quite possibly, unless the screenshot illustrates a role or movie the actor or director are particularly famous for; but I really wouldn't know what the topic-specific (actors/directors) guidelines say on this matter. For the film article, the actor is quite famous, and his performance in this role ditto, which is why the image needs to be there (and, I'll note, is why bullet point 3 under the Rationale for the NFCC is there). For this deletion discussion it is sufficient that one article uses it appropriately in order to keep the image; whether the image should be used on any given article, and whether the fair use rationale given for that specific article, is sufficient, is a different matter altogether (and one on which I don't really have a position). --Xover (talk) 17:24, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, but remove from all except Hamlet (1964 film) as failing WP:NFCC#8. Stifle (talk) 17:28, 1 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment — I've now had a closer look at the image's use in the other articles. In the article for the director, Grigori Kozintsev, there was no particular pressing need for the image; it's pretty and illustrative of one of his most famous films, but not sufficiently so to fulfill the fair use provisions. I have removed the image from this article. For the article on the actor, Innokenty Smoktunovsky, and the overview article on screen adaptations of Hamlet, Hamlet on screen, it turns out that not only is the actor very famous for this particular role, but his portrayal of the character is significant in the wider context of film and theatre criticism and Shakespeare criticism in particular. It is compared favourably, by English critics no less, to portrayals by Sir Laurence Olivier, who is otherwise widely considered the best Hamlet on stage or screen. The movie, largely due to the actor's portrayal of the role, is also compared and contrasted to versions by directors such as Olivier and Franco Zeffirelli; and said to define an epoch of filmmaking. Here the image was used at the top of he article, but I've now moved it down into the section that deals specifically with this movie and this role where it belongs. These facts constitute a strong fair use rationale for the image's use in these two articles, and fulfills the NFCC requirements. I've updated the fair use rationales for these two articles on the image page to reflect this. --Xover (talk) 08:16, 10 August 2009 (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: Delete; deleted by B (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 13:07, 18 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:Complicated Video ScreenShoot.png (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Krot8 (notify | contribs).

• Recent modifications still don't fully address how this image significantly increases the readers' understanding of the article. Why is this particular image important? –Drilnoth (T • C • L) 02:55, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment seems to me that a representative screen shot from the music video for a song does add to reader understanding about the topic, and is encyclopedically valuable. However, standing consensus here is to delete such images, and would probably need an well-subscribed RFC to review. Jheald (talk) 11:05, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • How does "Avril Lavigne at a skating place" from the music video increase understanding? It can be described in text easily, and so is replaceable per WP:NFCC#1, and showing the image doesn't seem (to me) to significantly increase the reader's understanding per WP:NFCC#8; it seems primarily decorative to me. –Drilnoth (T • C • L) 21:03, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • I think that without this images that article not be full. (talk) 16:59, 30 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Note to closing admin: See also discussion at User talk:Drilnoth#Pictures before closing these screenshot nominations! –Drilnoth (T • C • L) 21:03, 28 July 2009 (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: Not deleted per Bigaireatscheese, this screenshot does seem pretty central to the text. It doesn't make much sense without it. --B (talk) 12:00, 18 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:Girlfriend Video ScreenShoot.png (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Krot8 (notify | contribs).

• Recent modifications still don't fully address how this image significantly increases the readers' understanding of the article. Why is this particular image important? –Drilnoth (T • C • L) 02:56, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: I find this image important pecause it shows all three identities Avril took durring this music video. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bigaireatscheese (talk • contribs) 22:38, 5 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Neutral If this image is kept, I think it should be a smaller file; the current version is stretching the limits of the "low resolution" requirement. -RunningOnBrains^(talk) 18:00, 11 August 2009 (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: Delete; deleted by B (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 13:07, 18 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:He wasnt screenshoot.png (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Krot8 (notify | contribs).

• Recent modifications still don't fully address how this image significantly increases the readers' understanding of the article. Why is this particular image important? –Drilnoth (T • C • L) 02:56, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Neutral Same comment above: If this image is kept, I think it should be a smaller file; the current version is stretching the limits of the "low resolution" requirement. -RunningOnBrains^(talk) 18:03, 11 August 2009 (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: not deleted per Skoen, seems essential to reader's understanding --B (talk) 12:08, 18 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:Hot VideoScreenShoot.PNG (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Krot8 (notify | contribs).

• Recent modifications still don't fully address how this image significantly increases the readers' understanding of the article. Why is this particular image important? –Drilnoth (T • C • L) 02:56, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This picture shows a portion of the music video which potrays the theme of the video. What the uploader probarbly should have done, was to upload a smaller version of the picture. This can be easily solved. - Skoen (talk) 15:13, 7 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Neutral Same comment above: If this image is kept, I think it should be a smaller file; the current version is stretching the limits of the "low resolution" requirement. -RunningOnBrains^(talk) 18:11, 11 August 2009 (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: Delete; deleted by B (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 13:07, 18 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:IWU VideoScreenShot.PNG (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Krot8 (notify | contribs).

• Recent modifications still don't fully address how this image significantly increases the readers' understanding of the article. Why is this particular image important? –Drilnoth (T • C • L) 02:57, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Neutral Same comment above: If this image is kept, I think it should be a smaller file; the current version is stretching the limits of the "low resolution" requirement. -RunningOnBrains^(talk) 18:11, 11 August 2009 (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: Delete; deleted by B (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 13:07, 18 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:Mhe screenshot.png (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Krot8 (notify | contribs).

• Recent modifications still don't fully address how this image significantly increases the readers' understanding of the article. Why is this particular image important? –Drilnoth (T • C • L) 02:57, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Neutral Same comment above: If this image is kept, I think it should be a smaller file; the current version is stretching the limits of the "low resolution" requirement. -RunningOnBrains^(talk) 18:12, 11 August 2009 (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: Delete; deleted by B (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 13:07, 18 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:Nh screenshot.png (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Krot8 (notify | contribs).

• Recent modifications still don't fully address how this image significantly increases the readers' understanding of the article. Why is this particular image important? –Drilnoth (T • C • L) 02:57, 28 July 2009 (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: Delete; deleted by B (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 13:07, 18 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:WYG VideoScreenShot.PNG (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Krot8 (notify | contribs).

• Recent modifications still don't fully address how this image significantly increases the readers' understanding of the article. Why is this particular image important? –Drilnoth (T • C • L) 02:57, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Neutral Same comment above: If this image is kept, I think it should be a smaller file; the current version is stretching the limits of the "low resolution" requirement. -RunningOnBrains^(talk) 18:12, 11 August 2009 (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: delete. The 30-second rule applies for audio samples only, for which it is implausible to take a screenshot. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 22:49, 17 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:Crank That (Soulja Boy).ogg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Adammw (notify | contribs).

• 30 seconds seems pretty long for a sample, especially when most articles don't have any video music samples. Especially at that length, this seems like it fails WP:NFCC 3a, 3b, and possibly 2. –Drilnoth (T • C • L) 03:02, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: Wikipedia is not Youtube, and it seems that this clip does little a bit too much to enhance the reader's understanding. However, a silent GIF should suffice, since there'd be fewer copyright issues.--Andrewlp1991 (talk) 03:58, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep 30 seconds is the standard length for most music samples on Wikipedia, and using a music video removes the need to have both screen grabs of the video to demonstrate details as well as a music sample. Therefore in my opinion, this actually helps WP:NFCC 3a. Also, I have previously described how it enhances the reader's understanding on the page, but to emphasize my point, the article Crank That (Soulja Boy) has a whole section on the Music Video and the discovery of the dance by Mr. Collipark. There is little point describing the dance and interpreting "his interest" when a video sample can be shown detailing this and many other features about the video such as the dance itself. Futhermore, Wikipedia is not YouTube, but neither is it Last.fm, but it still has audio samples of music. Are you saying that just because it is available elsewhere in a proprietary, higher resolution format that probably is illegal as it violates the original copyright by having the full length video uploaded by people other than the publisher, that it should not be on Wikipedia? That's absurd, espacially if we want everyone to be able to access it and as a short sample it has little commercial impact while having large value to a reader. Animated GIFs aren't even allowed on Wikipedia AFAIK, and are not designed for video. If your only argument is that Wikipedia is not YouTube, I think you should have a closer look. 60.242.139.60 (talk) 09:14, 28 July 2009 (UTC) (a.k.a. User:Adammw)[reply]
• Comment - I think the 30 second length is fine. It should be smaller in resolution though. I've tagged it as such.--Rockfang (talk) 21:21, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong, strong delete. Non-free videos are not a slope we want to be heading down. A screenshot, or, at the very, very most, an animated gif can demonstrate everything that needs to be demonstrated. Clearly replaces the original market role and is massively excessive. J Milburn (talk) 21:45, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. One screenshot from a video is all we accept. Stifle (talk) 17:30, 1 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - not only is it short, it is poor quality video and audio and is comparable to such files as File:Galang.ogg, the only difference being that it is video instead of audio. Furthermore, it is clearly labelled that the clip is licensed for promotional use, therefore I see no reason why it can't be used for informative purposes as well. Mnmazur (talk)
• Delete The argument that "The standard excerpt for fair-use audio clips is 30 seconds" is invalid. You can not take a screenshot of a sound clip; you can with videos. -RunningOnBrains^(talk) 18:06, 11 August 2009 (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: Delete; deleted by Skier Dude (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 05:01, 8 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:AppleNewsWeeklylogo.png (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Quintin Barry (notify | contribs).

• Delete: orphaned non-free image dependent on deleted article Apple News Weekly is not freely licenced and the source is here. Uploader has same name as Owner/Editor in Chief of the site. ww2censor (talk) 04:37, 28 July 2009 (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: Delete; deleted by King of Hearts (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 00:00, 18 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:Westwing statedinner2.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Scm83x (notify | contribs).

• Purely decorative non-free TV screencap Ejfetters (talk) 08:11, 28 July 2009 (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: Delete; deleted by Skier Dude (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) A file with this name on Commons is now visible. AnomieBOT⚡ 05:01, 8 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:WobbleBasePairs.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by G3pro (notify | contribs).

• Replaced in Wobble base pair; orphaned; low quality; inappropriate file type. Leyo 12:19, 28 July 2009 (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: Delete; deleted by Athaenara (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) A file with this name on Commons is now visible. AnomieBOT⚡ 12:06, 5 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:Piritramide.png (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Porkchopmcmoose (notify | contribs).

• Replaced by SVG; orphaned. Leyo 12:24, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• keep However this is in a different format that IE could display, and the molecule has a different orientation, so I say no harm to keep it, as it may be useful to someone. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 22:59, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Moved to Commons. --Leyo 05:44, 5 August 2009 (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: not deleted - images don't show exactly the same thing. This one can/should be moved to Commons. --B (talk) 12:10, 18 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:X-gal reaction.png (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Vargob (notify | contribs).

• Replaced in X-gal; orphaned; low quality. Leyo 12:25, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• comment the new picture is clearer, but the old is still good enough with a different arrangement of molecules, no harm to keep it. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 23:01, 28 July 2009 (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: Delete. The arguments that this satisfies NFCC 8 are unconvincing. CIreland (talk) 14:39, 22 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:Wale Gaga.gif (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Tikkuy (notify | contribs).

• Fails WP:NFCC#8 as the image doesnot add anything to the reader's understanding and is purely used for descriptive purposes only. The supporting text donot describe this scene at all and the image doesnot contain anything that is not explainable by words. --Legolas ^(talk2me) 13:24, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. The image fails to significantly increase readers' understanding of the topic, and its omission would not be detrimental to that understanding. — Σxplicit 16:42, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep: In actual fact, the 'music video' section of the article does describe this scene but only in passing. The image is needed to describe the exact setting of the scene, as just saying 'they are on a pier' does not help the reader's understanding of the music video. Tikkuy (talk) 06:36, 2 August 2009 (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: Delete; deleted by King of Hearts (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 00:00, 18 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:Loso'sWayDeluxe.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by SE KinG (notify | contribs).

• Image fails WP:NFCC#3a as multiple non-free images are being used when one would suffice. Alternatively, the image fails WP:NFCC#8 as it does not add significantly to readers' understanding of the article and its omission would not be detrimental to that understanding. — Σxplicit 18:19, 28 July 2009 (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: delete. It is Wikipedia policy to respect the copyright law of other nations, even if these do not have official copyright relations with the United States. See Wikipedia:Copyright#Copyright_laws_by_country. Image fails non-free content criterion 8 as it does nothing more than show what bin laden looks like. -Nv8200p talk 19:02, 17 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:Bin laden 12 27a.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Nortee (notify | contribs).

• All but one of the uses of this file have been replaced with a free image, and the one remaining usage fails non-free content criterion 8. Yes, the video is clearly important to the article, but how Bin Laden looked when it was recorded is not. J Milburn (talk) 18:58, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Question Was the alternative image really "taken by an FBI employee in the course of their official duties"? I wonder when. Or are we propagating an FBI copyvio?
  Normally (eg for shows like Star Trek) we actually prefer a screencap from a known episode to a publicity still of uncertain provenance... -- Jheald (talk) 20:32, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • If you feel that the other image is non-free, please nominate it for deletion. Until then, we'll stick with the free images. J Milburn (talk) 21:44, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The replacement image, which I assume is File:Usama bin laden.jpg has been deleted so this is the only portrait of Osama that I can find anywhere on WP. I've just put it back in the main Osama article as there was no image before. Smartse (talk) 03:27, 10 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep at least for the moment per reasons above. Smartse (talk) 03:38, 10 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:Usama bin laden.jpg has been restored to the English wiki so this image can probably be deleted. Smartse (talk) 01:57, 11 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Do these images originate in Afghanistan? If so, we (the United States) don't have copyright relations with Afghanistan and the image is in the public domain in the United States. I'm assuming that Al Jazeera was not the creator of this video and that it was just broadcasting a video that OBL recorded from his hiding place in Afghanistan. In such a case, it's PD in the US - we can use it to our heart's content. Unless things have changed, Commons only accepts images that are PD both in the US and in the country of origin, but Wikipedia will take ones that are only PD in the US. We used to have a template - the name escapes me - that basically says "don't move this image to Commons because it's PD in the US, but not some other country." --B (talk) 04:41, 18 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Here we go ... we even have an article about it - Afghanistan and copyright issues. So that's a keep - it's PD for the moment. --B (talk) 04:44, 18 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• If the closer decides that B's conclusion is correct and this image is indeed PD, he should probably take action toward removing any other nonfree images of bin Laden and replacing it with this one. ÷seresin 02:59, 31 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Any photo of OBL that was created/published in Afghanistan is PD for the same reason. --B (talk) 10:40, 5 September 2009 (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: Delete; deleted by King of Hearts (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 00:00, 18 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:Grivas.gif (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Georgeg (notify | contribs).

• Original copyright holder and source are not specified. We should not be hosting non-free images like this when we have no idea of the copyright holder or of a legitimate source. We don't even have a reliable source saying this is who we think it is. J Milburn (talk) 19:04, 28 July 2009 (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: Delete; deleted by Drilnoth (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 21:13, 24 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:Nelly Brass Knuckles Alternate Cover.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Dungéte (notify | contribs).

• Image fails WP:NFCC#3a as multiple non-free images are being used when one would suffice. Alternatively, the image fails WP:NFCC#8 as it does not add significantly to readers' understanding of the article and its omission would not be detrimental to that understanding. — Σxplicit 20:13, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment The artwork here is quite different to the first cover, so could be keepable, if there was information as to when/where/how this alternate cover was released, to allow us to gauge its significance. Jheald (talk) 21:17, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  If my memory serves me correctly, this alternate image was originally the cover art before the current one. Looking through Amazon.com, I couldn't find the cover there at all, so I'm not sure if it's being used at all. — Σxplicit 22:21, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  As you know from WT:ALBUMS, if this were the original cover art, many would see that as making it particularly significant and notable. Jheald (talk) 03:15, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  By original, I meant the image that was going to be used as the main cover, but was replaced and isn't used. — Σxplicit 18:24, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  Okay, wasn't released at all. "Unreleased original artwork". Is there an interesting, citeable story to that? If there were, that could make inclusion justifiable. Jheald (talk) 18:28, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  I actually looked for a reason behind that at the time it happened, but found nothing. — Σxplicit 18:46, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as the additional image is not the subject of critical commentary in the article. Stifle (talk) 17:31, 1 August 2009 (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: Delete; deleted by Drilnoth (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 21:13, 24 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:IAmSashaFierceDeluxe.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Dindo94 (notify | contribs).

• Image fails WP:NFCC#3a as multiple non-free images are being used when one would suffice. Alternatively, the image fails WP:NFCC#8 as it does not add significantly to readers' understanding of the article and its omission would not be detrimental to that understanding. — Σxplicit 20:13, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Artwork is quite different from the first cover, and allows the deluxe edition discussed in the article with 50% more content to be identified. Therefore passes NFCC#8, per the NFC acceptable images list. The other image is not similar, so would not convey this understanding, and is therefore not a substitute. Therefore this is indeed "no more than needed to satisfy the purpose identified", i.e. "minimal" in the language of NFCC#3a. Jheald (talk) 20:50, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete; image does not appear to be important. If it was genuinely significant, it would be discussed. J Milburn (talk) 21:39, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Not necessarily. A date of birth can be significant, without being discussed. In this case, WP:NFC gives a test of significance: is the image a widespread identification of the work?

Furthermore, if you read the article, the deluxe version is a substantially different record, as laid out at some length in the article. For these reasons a keep is appropriate. Jheald (talk) 21:57, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Obvious delete per WP:NFCC#8 and WP:NFCC#3a. This image adds nothing to readers' understanding of the article over and above the single album cover present. Stifle (talk) 17:32, 1 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep image adds signifigant understanding of the article to the reader, as the article talks about the deluxe edition in quite large detail, and confusion is easily made between the differences of the two albums. They are different albums and the covers of both help to distinguish between the two. Also agreeing with Jheald. Loveable Daveo (talk) 13:05, 11 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - Image could be considered the main cover because, as far as I am aware, the deluxe edition is the only version of the album currently in print. The image also adds understanding because the deluxe edition is a different record with separate tracklist etc. The album cover is also completely different to the original cover. Also in agreement with the reasons provided by Loveable Daveo and Jheald. Dt¹²⁸ SpeakToMe 11:23, 18 August 2009 (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. Consensus is that the image adds value because both the U.S. and international releases are important and should be illustrated. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 22:53, 17 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:Fantasy ride uk cover.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Lil-unique1 (notify | contribs).

• Image fails WP:NFCC#3a as multiple non-free images are being used when one would suffice. Alternatively, the image fails WP:NFCC#8 as it does not add significantly to readers' understanding of the article and its omission would not be detrimental to that understanding. — Σxplicit 20:14, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Wikipedia is not U.S.-centric. Showing the cover by which the album is known worldwide, rather than just in the United States, significantly adds to the understanding our readers derive about the topic, and represents the identification a large proportion of our readership would have of the album. The alternate cover thus passes NFCC#8, and the explicit permitting of "Cover art, for identification". The artwork here is quite different from the first cover. The other image is not similar, would not convey this understanding, and is therefore not a substitute. Compare the largest run (10 Jan) of decisions on alternate album covers. 21:12, 28 July 2009 (UTC)
• keep for the same reaons as above. it is important to illustrate that two different versions of the album exist (the covers and tracklistings are different). By removing this image we then cause controversey because the album is a worldwide release and so then do you include the American Cover or the International one? (Lil-unique1 (talk) 21:35, 28 July 2009 (UTC))[reply]
• Weak keep. There's some discussion of the different covers- her record label and her herself have discussed the covers. It would be nice if some sources could be cited, but it looks like this alternative cover is legitimate. As said above, the difference between the covers is fairly large, and both reached a wide market. J Milburn (talk) 21:42, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  The only mention of covers in the article that I found was about the North American cover (the main image) where Ciara explains the whole "Super C" concept. As for the alternate, it just explains that the "international markets will receive the human cover featuring Ciara on a faded white background." Human isn't how I'd describe it, but basically, it's Ciara against a light blurred background. Easily described in words. — Σxplicit 22:25, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. The image adds nothing to readers' understanding of the article that free text, combined with the other image, could not. Stifle (talk) 17:33, 1 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep: This cover is completely different from the original and is important for all who are not living in the U.S. Tikkuy (talk) 06:39, 2 August 2009 (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.