< February 27 February 29 >

February 28

File:'Timorous' image, Pilgrim's Progress.pdf

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 Czar (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT 19:12, 6 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

File:'Timorous' image, Pilgrim's Progress.pdf (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Setonb (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log).

Unused, and in a bad file format for an image file; a png version exists: File:'Timorous' image, Pilgrim's Progress.png FASTILY 09:49, 28 February 2016 (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.

File:Surface2fruitsbasket.jpg

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 Czar (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT 19:12, 6 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

File:Surface2fruitsbasket.jpg (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Mexp2 (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log).

Small size/low quality, poorly lit, probably a derivative of non-free content FASTILY 10:18, 28 February 2016 (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.

Partners (statue)

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 three czar 17:30, 6 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

File:Cinderella Castle and Partners statue.jpg (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Elisfkc (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log)
File:Partners Statue at Walt Disney Studios (Burbank).jpg (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Elisfkc (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log)
File:Partners Statue at Walt Disney Studios (Paris).jpg (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Elisfkc (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log)
File:Tokyo Disneyland Partners Statue.jpg (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Elisfkc (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log)
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.

File:Tulku screenshot.jpg

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 05:03, 7 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

The screenshot is used in the plot section of Tulku (film) against WP:FILMNFI in that the plot section describes the film and is not critical commentary of the image itself. There is no critical commentary of the image itself in the article, it does nothing to increase the reader's understanding of the film and its exclusion is not detrimental to the understanding of the film, thereby failing WP:NFCC#8. Aspects (talk) 23:39, 28 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

WP:NFCC#1 refers to media, not to words, and therefore this image meets WP:NFCC#1 and all other WP:NFCC criteria. Also, since this film is a documentary, not a fiction, the summary of the film contains factual encyclopedic information rather than a fictional story; therefore illustrating the encyclopedic information and the two notable people therein greatly enhances the reader's understanding of that factual encyclopedic information. Removing the image of those two would be significantly detrimental to the reader's understanding of both the film and the encyclopedic non-fiction information it conveys. Softlavender (talk) 05:41, 1 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
"...WP:NFCC#1 refers to media, not to words..." No it doesn't. It means exactly what I said it means. The best example I can provide is a copyrighted graph that can be recreated as free with wikitext. Steel1943 (talk) 05:45, 1 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
You are misunderstanding the clearly worded policy: "1. No free equivalent. Non-free content is used only where no free equivalent is available, or could be created, that would serve the same encyclopedic purpose." Words cannot possibly convey or be "equivalent" to an image and what it conveys, and can never serve the same encyclopedic purpose. That is why any image exists anywhere on Wikipedia. Softlavender (talk) 06:34, 1 March 2016 (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.

File:Seth and Kane.jpg

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 05:03, 7 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

File:Seth and Kane.jpg (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Softlavender (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log).

The screenshot is used in the cast information section of Cosmopolitan (film) talking about the "conflicting acting styles", the consistent theatrical acting of Seth versus the improvisational acting of Kane. The concept of numerous rehearsals versus just acting in front of the camera would make it hard for any single image from the film to be able to show the conflicting styles. Having an image from the film trying to show preparations taken before filming began seems futile because few times do behind the scenes problems give rise to on screen evidence. There is no critical commentary of the image itself in the article, it does nothing to increase the reader's understanding of the film and its exclusion is not detrimental to the understanding of the film, thereby failing WP:NFCC#8. Aspects (talk) 23:58, 28 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Steel1943, this is not in a "plot" or "synopsis" section. It is in the "Cast Information" section; where it is more than appropriate to show the two leads -- who are not depicted in the DVD cover -- of this romance film. Moreover, since the two leads and two characters are of different races/ethnicities/skin colors, it becomes even more relevant and important, as this difference is the main plotpoint of the film. Moreover, WP:NFCC#1 refers to media, not to words, and therefore this image meets WP:NFCC#1 and all other WP:NFCC criteria. Softlavender (talk) 05:33, 1 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Close enough. The image isn't necessary when it can be explained by text alone. Steel1943 (talk) 05:46, 1 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
No images anywhere on any article are "necessary". We are discussing fair-use polices and criteria, and this image meets all of Wikipedia's and it more than meets legal fair-use criteria. Softlavender (talk) 06:28, 1 March 2016 (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.