The result of the discussion was: keep. — ξxplicit 00:47, 28 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I don't see why it is relevant to have a photo of her father in the article. Stefan2 (talk) 00:05, 20 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The result of the discussion was: Delete; deleted by Explicit (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 02:04, 28 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Non-free TV episode screenshot, used in infobox of an article that consists entirely of an in-universe plot renarration. Merely shows a generic headshot of one of the characters in a nondescript situation. Not embedded in analytical commentary, not necessary for helping to understand the article, purely decorative use; fails NFCC#8. Fut.Perf. ☼ 08:12, 20 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The result of the discussion was: Kept - Peripitus (Talk) 08:47, 28 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Article Banknotes of the Australian dollar: fails WP:NFG, see WT:NFC#Proposed modification to WP:NFC. Article Australian one-dollar note: there is already a different image (showing the obverse side of the note) which is sufficient to tell what this note looks like, so this extra image fails WP:NFCC#3a. Stefan2 (talk) 14:42, 20 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
A similar argument is being made here, though for banknotes we're applying it to a front and a back cover, rather than two different front covers: the design of the back of the note is quite different to that of the front of the note, and showing it adds something of value to reader understanding of the topic. Jheald (talk) 21:35, 27 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]an alternate cover that is significantly different from the original and is widely distributed and/or replaces the original passes the criteria for identification. Also, an alternate cover that is the subject of specific (sourced) critical commentary passes the criteria for inclusion."
The result of the discussion was: Delete; deleted by Explicit (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 02:04, 28 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The fair use rationale suggests that this is a unique item, but note this sentence in the article: "The price of this Gibson Les Paul ranges from $11,100 for one fitted with new old stock components to over $40,000 for a true vintage guitar signed by Jimmy Page himself." If you can buy a copy for anything between $11,100 and $40,000, it seems that multiple copies exist. It seems that this is replaceable. Stefan2 (talk) 15:23, 20 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The result of the discussion was: Delete; deleted as F5 by Peripitus (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 13:05, 23 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Replaceable nonfree image of living persons. All recent or draft article uses of the file have been illustrations of performer in role, a paradigm NFCC failure for living persons. The American Idol article itself is adequately illustrated by free individual images of the judges; the case for including nonfree judging panel images in the judges' bios therefore fails. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 17:48, 20 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The result of the discussion was: Delete; deleted by Explicit (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 02:04, 28 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The commentary as of now on the article Yavarum Nalam doesn't justify use of this non-free image. Fails WP:NFCC#8. §§AnimeshKulkarni (talk) 18:57, 20 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The result of the discussion was: Delete; deleted by Peripitus (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 10:08, 28 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Non-free images only used in galleries. They fail WP:NFG. Stefan2 (talk) 22:13, 20 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The result of the discussion was: withdrawn. — ξxplicit 00:47, 28 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Image is sourced from here, which has a "© all rights reserved" Flickr copyright. Does the fact the underlying image is PD-pre-1923 mean that a photograph of the postcard/photo in question is also PD? The Bushranger One ping only 23:32, 20 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]