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: Speedy keep. It is pretty clear consensus is developing against deletion, and the nomination borders on disruption, given the article is featured on the main page. The image has also passed considerable scrutiny before. If you want to discuss this image agin, I recommend doing so after the article has rolled of the main page. — Edokter (talk) — 09:58, 23 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

File:Stolen Earth.jpg (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Edokter (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log).

It doesn't pass WP:NFCC#8. It is a picture of two people looking at each other. Beerest 2 talk 19:58, 26 July 2013 (UTC) 00:06, 23 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - This image contains the woman holding the face of the dying Doctor (David Tennant) from Doctor Who. The scene is subject to discussion by sources. George Ho (talk) 00:23, 23 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy Keep - the image clearly meets the fair use guidelines. Seeing as it is on the featured article of the day, I recommend Speedy Keep so as not to have the article containing maintenance tags today. Oddbodz - (Talk) (Contribs) 00:44, 23 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy keep: prima facie disruption by including deletion tags on the FA of the day. Further more, the specific image was cleared in Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/The Stolen Earth, which focused in depth on NFCC#8. If it's okay for FutPerf and Fasach Nua, who were very strict on the NFCC, it's good enough for anyone. Sceptre ^(talk) 00:51, 23 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy keep Clearly passes WP:NFCC#8 when presented along with the caption, as was discussed in the featured article nomination linked by Sceptre above. Close and de-uglify the featured article of the day. Odg2vcLR (talk) 01:13, 23 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep I'm not a big fan of television images, especially in infoboxes - they give too much weight to the screenshot and seem to propose "yup this is official primary identification." But that's a different story - this image is discussed critically so it can stay. Taylor Trescott - ^{my talk} + _{my edits} 03:03, 23 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy keep I see no evidence that anything has changed since the last time this image was discussed and approved during the FA nom (per Sceptre, above). Raising the issue once the article reaches main page FA does seem a little pointy, to be honest. Anaxial (talk) 08:16, 23 November 2013 (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 Stifle (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 23:02, 24 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

File:Homer and Neds Hail Mary Pass.jpg (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Keyser Söze (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log).

Not discussed critically, used as decoration - WP:NFCC#8 failure. Taylor Trescott - ^{my talk} + _{my edits} 02:54, 23 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Speedy delete per G11. 108.218.12.104 (talk) 18:24, 23 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. The image is not necessary for the article; the fair use rationale doesn't even try to justify itself. - New Age Retro Hippie (talk) (contributions) 04:49, 11 December 2013 (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 Stifle (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 23:02, 24 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

File:Alls Fair in Oven War.jpg (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Keyser Söze (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log).

WP:NFCC#8 failure. Not critical to the reader's understanding - shows two characters. There is no sourced discussion of this image in the article. Taylor Trescott - ^{my talk} + _{my edits} 03:13, 23 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom; it's purely decorative. - New Age Retro Hippie (talk) (contributions) 04:56, 11 December 2013 (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. Having carefully reviewed the discussion here, the arguments for deletion are considerably more persuasive. In particular the arguments for keeping the image did not adequately explain how the image satisfies NFCC#8, that is how the image significantly increases readers' understanding of the article topic. PhilKnight (talk) 15:08, 18 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

File:Night of the doctor regeneration.png (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Hammersfan (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log).

Fails WP:NFCC#8 - image not subject to sourced commentary. Taylor Trescott - ^{my talk} + _{my edits} 21:38, 23 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep The image is referred to within the article, and all commentary can be confirmed by the official BBC video on YouTube. As with the other images in use on each Doctor Who episode article, it is important that this is kept. Cloudbound (talk) 21:42, 23 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep As per Cloudbound above Hammersfan (talk) 18:51, 24 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Not enough for it to be kept. It has to satisfy WP:NFCC#8. As it stands, the image is not subject to discussion in secondary sources. Taylor Trescott - ^{my talk} + _{my edits} 16:23, 25 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

By that rationale then every single screenshot used in a Doctor Who article should be debated - in any case, this particular screenshot displays the pivotal moment of the episode, the seconds prior to the Doctor's regeneration, which is not only pivotal to the episode itself, but a significant event in the recent history of Doctor Who. Hammersfan (talk) 16:49, 25 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Truly adds absolutely nothing. This looks to me like a regular man holding a cup. Not discussed critically as such is ornamental. A "pivotal moment" is not critical commentary.... Beerest 2 talk 00:31, 26 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - I added File:Paul McGann.JPG, the free photo of the portrayer of the Eighth Doctor. I believe that the whole scene itself is replaceable and insignificant. Sources must cover age difference of the actor in 1996 and in 2013, but I guess that's not possible. George Ho (talk) 02:42, 26 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

So essentially what you're saying is that if there is a way to display the difference between Paul McGann in 1996 and Paul McGann in 2013, then that's fine? Hammersfan (talk) 10:34, 26 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Just make sure not to use original analysis or research. Just facts from sources. And about his portrayal as Eighth Doctor, but an administrator like Masem must approve fair use of non-free pic. --George Ho (talk) 08:13, 27 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Yes, he regenerates. No, the image is not necessary to understand that this is a regeneration scene (given that the details of the process of regeneration are discussed elsewhere). Yes, McGann looks much different from the TV movie to this short, but a free image of the actor today can be used to show how McGann looks at the time of filming. Fails NFCC#8 + #1. --MASEM (t) 20:56, 26 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• KeepFor the reasons that Cloudbound had said and this is from the show. Every picture tells a story, and this picture deferentially tells a great story, so it is not pointless. It should stay. Nhajivandi (talk) 06:38, 27 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • A mere story is not sufficient fair use of unfree image. The image must also be discussed by critics and crew alike. George Ho (talk) 08:15, 27 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

No - NFCC says it has to "increase readers' understanding of the topic" - doesn't say anything about it having to be discussed by anyone. 188.223.5.95 (talk) 12:48, 27 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

How does this increas reader's understanding then. Beerest 2 talk 17:11, 27 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

NFCC#1 says the description of the image must be adequately sourced enough for fair use. Also, it says that the description must not make the image replaceable. The image is easy to describe, so it may fail. George Ho (talk) 01:22, 28 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The "Mona Lisa" is easy to describe: "Woman sitting with arms folded." But obviously my description isn't remotely a substitute for the image itself. A text description can never connect to the reader's memory the way an image can. Algr (talk) 06:56, 3 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The Mona Lisa is no longer protected by copyright. Richard75 (talk) 12:34, 3 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

That is beside the point. An image being easy to describe does NOT make it replaceable. Algr (talk) 07:38, 4 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep picture is from the regeneration scene — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.192.110.150 (talk) 19:14, 27 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep -- picture is adequately labeled with reference to the plot as discussedin the article. Sir Rhosis (talk) 04:57, 29 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete There is no critical discussion of what it looks like when the man is holding the goblet. The image therefore fails WP:NFCC#8. --Stefan2 (talk) 21:25, 27 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• To Masem: does File:Eighth Doctor Royal Mail Stamp.jpg help the other image being kept? George Ho (talk) 01:31, 28 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Would it not then be better to display both images beside each other in the same frame, as opposed to opposite sides of the article? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 184.175.1.108 (talk) 05:21, 28 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep It is fair use as there is no other way to illustrate the subject of the article. It increases the reader's understanding because a casual viewer, or a viewer years from now, might not otherwise be certain that the article refers to an episode they vaguely remember seeing. Algr (talk) 05:20, 2 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • So you are claiming that the image purely is decorative? That is not a valid reason to use a non-free image. Furthermore, there is no criterion at WP:NFCC which says that all articles are permitted to be illustrated. See also Wikipedia talk:Files for deletion/Archive 6#Non-free images of a specific television episode which discusses this matter. --Stefan2 (talk) 23:25, 5 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • Decorative and Illustrative are VERY different things - almost opposites. Please clarify your terms. Why is [File:Stolen Earth.jpg] receiving a speedy keep above? Isn't that the same thing? Algr (talk) 21:00, 6 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      • The article The Stolen Earth contains critical discussion of the regeneration, whereas this article doesn't contain any critical discussion about the things shown on the screenshot. In which way do you think that this screenshot is any different to the three screenshots which were recently at Wikipedia:Files for deletion/2013 October 19? --Stefan2 (talk) 22:31, 8 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Most of the arguments in favor come down to WP:ILIKEIT or the mistaken belief that every episode of a TV show needs to have an image illustrating it. There is no exception in the NFCC for "a special scene in the eyes of a TV show's fans". FunPika 11:32, 3 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps you should read those arguments more carefully. WP:AGF Algr (talk)

• Keep Nothing wrong with the pictures. Helps to illustrate what the episode was about. I don't understand what all the fuss is about. Mcs2050wiki (talk) 17:35, 9 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • There is a faction who are utterly paranoid that someday someone might sue Wikipedia over image use, and another who want no images at all. Both are intersecting right now. Interesting to note clear evidence that some voting against the image have not bothered to actually read the article. As IP opinions are ignored in this venue there's no point in me giving a "vote" on this. In my opinion the only image that should be disallowed in this article is the one of the postage stamp. 70.76.69.162 (talk) 15:05, 28 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. It's possible to make it work, but as it stands the rationale is extremely weak. We don't need an image to explain that the grail makes him regenerate. - New Age Retro Hippie (talk) (contributions) 04:44, 11 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. This image does not significantly add to the article. Yes, it shows that McGann looks quite different than in the 1996 movie (many years older, shorter hair), but I do not think that criteria alone is enough to keep it; the scenes in the ship would illustrate that better. Other users' comments that this is a pivotal scene are not significant as the sequence is sufficiently described in the article and the image does not add sufficiently to the reader's understanding of that scene. Nutster (talk) 07:16, 15 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - helps illustrates the article. Jonesy702 (talk) 16:26, 22 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - explain the story and gives you visual representation of the character. Thanks Kelvin 101 (talk) 21:48, 15 February 2014 (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.