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 Explicit (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 02:01, 13 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

File:Waffle friedman.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) – uploaded by Mblumber (notify | contribs | uploads).

• Fair-Use image used in image gallery (and therefore, inherently decorative) contrary to WP:IG Seidenstud (talk) 04:02, 4 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• I will create an article Martha Friedman today where the picture will be more relevant to the story and thus justify fair use. Thanks for looking out --Mblumber (talk) 20:36, 4 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Now it's decorative fair use in a different article. SchuminWeb (Talk) 03:29, 11 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - the article says the artist's work has been exhibited throughout the world, so if a sculpture is exhibited in a jurisdiction that allows freedom of panorama, a free image should be possible. PhilKnight (talk) 20:32, 12 November 2010 (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 SchuminWeb (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 14:05, 11 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

File:Rayo Withanage.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) – uploaded by Ozymandius1980 (notify | contribs | uploads).

• Appears to be a poor quality derivative of http://i1.sinaimg.cn/cj/chanquan/2009-11-06/U1485P257T31D81978F965DT20091106184053.gif, consequently the claim of copyright needs more evidence that an anonymous upload. Fæ (talk) 10:03, 4 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Possibly even WP:CSD#F9: appears to be a cropped screen cap of the Flash at http://www.thebmbgroup.com/ : "Who we are" : "Chairman's message". -- Rrburke (talk) 17:41, 4 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. The picture's resolution is not sufficient and the copyright status is limited Jab843 (talk) 02:44, 9 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Poor quality, no description, unused. DARTH SIDIOUS 2 ^(Contact) 20:02, 9 November 2010 (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: no consensus. SchuminWeb (Talk) 07:48, 12 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

File:Deol95.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) – uploaded by Dr. Blofeld (notify | contribs | uploads).

• Contested fair use disputed: The screenshot is used in the actor's article without critical commentary about the film against Wikipedia:Non-free content and against "for critical commentary and discussion of the film and its contents" from the licensing agreement. The image was disputed with the following edit summary: "(disagree. It is clearly used to represent his only Filmfare award" which clearly shows the image is not about the film itself. Aspects (talk) 22:03, 4 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The image is used to represent an award winning performance showing him in that film which is very significant ot his career. Image is used in the same way as featured articles like Preity Zinta and Cillian Murphy.♦ Dr. Blofeld 14:31, 5 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This image is perfectly acceptable like the many images used in several featured articles about actors. The image significantly increases readers' understanding of the topic. Please see WP:FU#8. Shahid • ^Talk2me 14:42, 5 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Image adds nothing of any educational or informative value, claiming fair use is a long stretch of the imagination, its just a picture (screen shot) of him from any place in any country, you wouldn't like it if someone claimed fair use for your work, strong delete. Off2riorob (talk) 14:46, 5 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Why then does this differ from the use for images such as File:ZintaKya Kehnazinta.jpg and File:RedEye05.jpg in two featured articles which both passed FA after a vigorous discussion that finally approved it is OK? This was discussed heavily at FAC by image deletionists like BlackKite. Even he agreed that one or two can quality for fair use if used clearly for critical commentary.

"you wouldn't like it if someone claimed fair use for your work, ". On the contrary I'm certain film companies are perfectly happy to have screenshots of their film on wikipedia for obvious reasons.♦ Dr. Blofeld 14:50, 5 November 2010 (UTC) -[reply]

Few images of things actors and such have appeared are really needed to demonstrate anything,(in a BLP) it is more an excuse to add a non free picture, there are some in this and that article but unless they are really really representative of something the just has to be included they are better to only add commons licensed pics. Claiming that film companies are happy to have their pics on wikipedia as fair use is a stretch of the imagination imo. As I understand from what users have said and Jimbo commented, what we want are commons licensed pics, you should concentrate on that and avoid the position that thinks, ow, he was in a movie, I must rush off and choose myself a screen shot and add that to the article, I like a lot of pics, its all fair use isn't it? Off2riorob (talk) 14:56, 5 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Well wikipedia would be a pretty boring place without images. As the saying goes "a picture is worth a thousand words". I do not see why it is such a problem for an article about an actor to contain one or two samples of them in character for their most notable films/acclaimed performances when the roles/film is discussed in the article and a free image cannot replace it. Actors and films go hand in hand. You could basically use the same argument and say we don't really "need" any images on wikipedia as information is given in the text. You are missing the importance of information that is conveyed in photographs. I'm not buying your argument or removal of images from the Deol article until you remove every fair use image from every other actor article and any fair use image from wikipedia ♦ Dr. Blofeld 15:02, 5 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Seems a bit pointy, there is another one so I can add them wherever I want...I am unimpressed by users desires to add non free pics, in an attempt to make the wikipedia a more exciting place. I see you have replaced them , anyways, these are my comments, so do with them what you will. This picture adds absolutely nothing that is not conveyed in the free pic in the infobox. Off2riorob (talk) 15:06, 5 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

" This picture adds absolutely nothing that is not conveyed in the free pic in the infobox. " What so you think File:RedEye05.jpg does? What's the difference? What in your view is the point in having File:RedEye05.jpg when we have File:Cillianmurphy.jpg ? Is that image up for deletion. NO. SO why is this? II am strongly opposed to double standards on wikipedia. I'm not being pointy. I just don't know why my image is being deleted and others which ar eused in EXACTLY the same way are permitted. Either we delete the whole LOT or we allow fair use articles in every actor article. Your choice.♦ Dr. Blofeld 15:58, 5 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep. A good rationale can provide a reason to include an image in accordance with WP:FU#8. There's nothing pointy about mentioning other articles because these articles were accepted as FAs. Shahid • ^Talk2me 16:19, 5 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

"The image contributes significantly to the article by illustrating Bobby Deol's appearance in Barsaat, a role which is specifically discussed in the article as his debut, and is significant in that it earned him the Filmfare Best Debut Award. The image, which has been reduced in size that the original to prevent copies being made of it adds significant depth and quality to the article by providing a visual representation in a clearer manner than could be achieved with prose alone." - perfectly acceptable as supported by WP:FU#8. Shahid • ^Talk2me 16:39, 5 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The image issue was widely discussed during the Preity Zinta nomination. I wonder Shahid if you could kindly find the discussion and the result of it also there was another one with Sarvagnya ages ago in which ar lot of comments were made. If I recall one or two images may be used if they are used in critical commentary with the text. Well the article discusses the film and how it won him his only FIlmfare role so having an image to illustrate him in this important role in his career should quality as fair use. How you can give the argument that an image of a person in character gives the same information as a biography images outside of acting beats me. I'm just tired of this being brought up again and again. Either we accept one or two fair use images in actor articles or we don't. PLEASE make this a guideline either way so people don't continue to twist things to their advantage. The guidleines obviously need to be made a lot clearer. You could argue tht 99% of fair use images are unnecessary so provide the person with essential information. If so, why arne't they all deleted? ♦ Dr. Blofeld 16:47, 5 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yeh the same issue occured with the Cillian Murphy article. The images do not necessarily have to appear in the article about the film, and the rationale explains why it increases readers' understanding of the topic. The images show Bobby Deol's look in his very first film in a role that earned him popular recognition and it illustrates his own persona which could not have been explained through prose alone. Shahid • ^Talk2me 16:59, 5 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Important note - the image is now also used in the Barsaat article, so it cannot be deleted as there can be no debate about its inclusion there. As for the Bobby Deol article, if there are further doubts about its inclusion there, then we have a talk page to discuss it there. Shahid • ^Talk2me 20:00, 6 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• 'comment about alleged important note - adding your pic(its not your pic, it belongs to other people) to another article during a deletion discussion and then claiming it has to be kept because you have now added it to another article is a weak tactic indeed. Your discussion on your talkpage with Blofield is telling indeed about your positions and thoughts on the issue. Off2riorob (talk) 20:42, 9 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

My "thoughts on the issue" are clear enough on this very page, and I have nothing to hide. I've been open enough about what I do and what I do. This image is perfectly acceptable on a film article as a fair use image. Whether its use is appropriate on the Bobby Deol article or not is another issue and it can be debated on the article's talk page. It should not have been proposed for deletion from the beginning, because as an image it is not a violation on WP. You have to discuss first, and not try to enforce your views (I'm not referring to you). The use of the image is perfectly supported by WP:FREE in accordance with the clause I already cited. So, please avoid the use of such words as "tactic" when describing my actions, Off2riorob. We already know each other. Shahid • ^Talk2me 22:32, 10 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, excuse me, tactic is undue. The pic is only allowed to stay on wikipedia if it has a valuable free use reason, it is actually better on the movie article and I don't mind it there. I still don't see it adds anything at all on the BLP though, regards. Off2riorob (talk) 23:04, 10 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Textbook violation of WP:NFCC#8. We don't need a non-free screenshot of a character to show that the role earned an actor a certain award. Other stuff exists, that's nice. Let's not ignore the fact that those two other examples were promoted to featured article status in 2007 and 2008, when the NFCC criteria wasn't as strictly applied as it is today, nor the fact that several actors played significant roles that earned them prestigious awards that don't contain a non-free screenshot in their biographies of their articles, where they aren't merited. — ξ^xplicit 00:47, 12 November 2010 (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.