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. — ξ^xplicit 20:41, 12 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

File:Ffmovie1994.jpg (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Lajbi (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log).

New information may invalidate fair use (see file talk). Now believed not to have come from a press kit or similar source, so Template:Non-free promotional cannot be used. I found plausible evidence that the image has been published as part of a print magazine cover (see fair use rationale: source, as I have updated it). If this image is only part of the magazine cover, does unacceptable use #9 apply? – Wdchk (talk) 02:25, 11 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• I've left a notice on the talk page for them to contact Wikipedia about this, which will also help to establish that they are who they claim to be. The only thing I'm worried about is that this might be some random person trying to cause trouble, which can happen on Wikipedia. We could always e-mail Film Threat and ask them if it was part of a promotional package - they should have records on this. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 07:53, 11 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• The site is inactive, but is there someone from there we can contact? Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 07:54, 11 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Derp, that's the owner claiming copyright. Still... wouldn't be a bad idea to find a way to e-mail him just to make sure that this is him. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 07:56, 11 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I did a bit of Googling and a line from an article in The Hollywood Reporter set me thinking. The line said "During shooting, the movie was promoted by the comic book press, with images of its little-known cast", which made me think, there are only two ways they get pictures, either through a Press Kit or through a photo opportunity for the press. So I did a bit of digging and turned up images that appear to have been taken at the same time, from different angles and with differing levels of photographic ability. Whilst not ruling out the Press Kit angle it does lend a little weight to the claim that a freelancer was paid to take them for the magazine at a press event. But it also brings hope to the article as there are other images out there - not sure if it being an open press event affects Free-Use rule as well.

Would showing the full magazine cover along with commentary about the film being "promoted by the comic book press" be fair-use? - X201 (talk) 08:47, 11 August 2015 (UTC) The magazine where this image was published was "Film Threat" #12, dated October 1993. I found the reference in the YouTube trailer for DOOMED! The Untold Story of Roger Corman's "The Fantastic Four". The full cover of the magazine can be found here and here. – Lucas Pestana (talk) 07:03, 14 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• What, exactly, is this image necessary to illustrate in the article that cannot adequately be explained through text alone? – czar 00:08, 24 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Considering the movie has never been released, and likely never will, the photo highlights what the cast looked like in costume, and is the only way to see them. Text alone in insufficient to illustrate that. EVula // talk // ☯ // 16:20, 30 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    That kind of explanation belongs in the image's fair use rationale – czar 17:04, 30 August 2015 (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: Wrong forum. The file is on Commons. Please nominate it for deletion there if you still feel it should be deleted. AnomieBOT⚡ 21:14, 11 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

File:Nair woman.jpg (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Achayan (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log).

The picture was originally uploaded by a user who was constantly making disruptive edits in the Nair article that were unsupported and did not benefit the wiki. The picture claims a link to USC, but there is no verification in the site that the picture is that of a Nair, other than the name itself. Anyone who is part of the university (especially someone who wants to publicly change the 'identity' of the Nair community could easily have posted the picture. The picture was told to be removed in the Nair article countless times via consensus but the edit requests were ignored or archived and never seen. When I had searched the USC libraries again (not using the link given), I found the image missing, suggesting it was deleted in their digital libraries. Kanchipuramsilk83 (talk) 20:20, 11 August 2015 (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.