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: Kept. Those arguing for deletion made some good points (if I do say so myself), but the replaceability issues are thorny. If a neutral Wikipedian attempted to create a replacement, it would be both non-notable and original research. This seems to fall into the category of "modern notable extremist propaganda", and in a similar case (Image:AntiWarRallyFeb162003.jpg), the image was kept. Unless there is a well-understood consensus on what to do with this class of images, I'm not quite comfortable deleting it, given the contentiousness and lack of consensus displayed below. – Quadell ^{(talk) (random)} 23:26, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Image:AntiRussianPoster.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Moe_Epsilon ( | contribs).

• This non-free poster of a Russian characiture is used to illustrate anti-Russian sentiment in general, and could thus be replaced by a free image. See Wikipedia:Fair_use_review/Archive_2#12_August for previous discussion. – Quadell ^{(talk) (random)} 01:29, 17 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: what kind of free image you have in mind that would replace this one? --Irpen 02:06, 17 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Reply: any freely-licensed image showing something similar. If there are enough such images for the topic to be notable, then it shouldn't be unreasonable for at least one author to release it under a free license. – Quadell ^{(talk) (random)} 14:07, 17 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • What do you mean? What makes you think anyone would release the professional work under a free license. Anyway, it hasn't happen in Ukraine. --Irpen 17:22, 17 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • Lots of professional photographers release their work under a free license. Check out Commons sometime. – Quadell ^{(talk) (random)} 14:27, 18 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • So if something does not have any free content image that makes in non-notable? Come on, Q, I know you can do better than that! Is Star Trek notable? No free images. Disney non-notable? (No free images... and photos are all of copyrighted objects as well, as you would point out.) This ridiculous "argument" is, well, ridiculous. VigilancePrime (talk) 02:30, 18 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • Star Trek characters are copyrighted, so it is impossible to create a free image of Captain Kirk. It is not impossible to create a free image of anti-Russian sentiment. See the difference? – Quadell ^{(talk) (random)} 14:27, 18 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
          • Nope. Self-created anti-Russian or anti-anything statements are not notable, don't prove anything and do not warrant inclusion into articles to illustrate the phenomenon. We have seen self-created xenophobic statements even within Wikipedia itself[1], presumably GFDL. Nothing warrants their presence in the articles and there are plenty of reasons why such self-created statements violate NPOV, RS and other policies. This image is an anti-Russian statement made by a specific party notorious for its Russophobia and used to illustrate this narrow issue as elaborated in the article's text. The only scenario for production of comparibly useful image is an appearance of a new notable political movement that would combine a xenophobic stance towards Russians and a strong commitment towards free content. As the issues are unrelated, this is extremely unlikely. --Irpen 10:13, 19 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep what is important that the image comes from an officially recognized modern organization having substantial membership. I think we can safely guess that all such images will be copyrighted Alex Bakharev (talk) 03:18, 17 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • If it were important to have an image from an officially recognized modern organization in the article, wouldn't the article at least mention this poster? In order to pass WP:NFCC#8, the article would have to discuss the poster adequately enough to merit the use of a non-free image, the article would have assert the importance of this particular image, and that assertion would have to be sourced to a reliable source. That isn't hard for CD covers or logos -- obviously those particular images are specifically notable to the subject -- but is this non-free image specifically notable to anti-Russian sentiment as a whole? If so, you'll have to source that. – Quadell ^{(talk) (random)} 14:07, 17 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • It would be nice, Quadell, if you actually read the articles before commenting. Claims like above suggest that you did not. FU image management requires due diligence and the seriousness of this task is greatly undermined by sloppy and careless deletionism Abu badali-style. --Irpen 17:22, 17 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • I have read both articles. Your personal attack isn't helpful. Would you care to respond to any of the points, instead of speculating on my diligence? – Quadell ^{(talk) (random)} 14:27, 18 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • Unwarranted invoking of NPA out of the blue is indeed unhelpful. I responded to your points. I thought that your claim of non-applicability of FU is due to the neglect to sufficiently study the matter. Now, that you state that you consider the deletion warranted after actually reading the relevant articles, I am even more alarmed to see such judgment being displayed by the user who is more active than anyone in FU-related debates. --Irpen 10:13, 19 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak keep: this is the only sentence in both articles that use the image regarding the poster itself:

The ultra-right nationalist political party "Svoboda", marginal on the national scale, often invokes the radical Russophobic rhetoric (see poster) and has sufficient electoral support to form factions in several municipal and provincial local councils in Western Ukraine.

• I'm sure it's not hard to expand upon this fact to explain more about Svoboda (which, I should add, there's no information on here on Wikipedia), and this media campaign in particular, to justify keeping it. But at this moment, justifying the use of the image based on a single sentence that a party uses it is circular reasoning: the text does not give enough information for the image to expand on, and vice versa. Kelvinc (talk) 19:51, 17 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per above (other supporters of keep). VigilancePrime (talk) 02:30, 18 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per policy. Absent any evidence that this particular poster is a keystone of anti-Russian sentiment or of the experience of Russians in Ukraine, it fails NFCC. It appears to be simply an example of anti-Russian sentiment in Ukraine which could be replaced with other, free examples. <eleland/talkedits> 20:33, 19 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep the argument that it could be replaced by a free-use equivalent seems dubious. Of course were such an equivalent to be added, then fine. Johnbod (talk) 17:37, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • This is a common misperception. If it is possible to find or create an equivalent (and you suggest it is), then we can't use a non-free image. People often say "Keep this because it's non-replaceable, but if it gets replaced, that would be fine." That always means that it's replaceable, and should be deleted. – Quadell ^{(talk) (random)} 16:41, 23 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • The self-created image that is "possible" to create would not be notable and encyclopedic to illustrate anything. This image is not replaceable by any free image anyone can make because its value for the article's illustration lies in its authenticity. The vote above implies that if there appears a political party that would combine a russophobic agenda with a free content agenda and this party also would become significant enough to gather notable percentage of country-wide and local support, they may come up with propaganda posters released under free license. Well, "possible" of course. But not reasonable to expect. --Irpen 19:01, 23 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • Excuse me, but all it takes is a Ukranian, Estonian, etc Wikipedian to show up at an anti-Russian demonstration and bring his camera. Frankly, the keep comments here simply ignore image fairuse policy. "Replaceable" does not mean that a nearly identical free image can be found, it means that a free image can serve substantially the same encyclopedic purpose. <eleland/talkedits> 19:33, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per above (other supporters of keep). It is not necessary that this poster is the keystone of anti-Russian sentiment to make the issue clear. Rationale for using it is sufficiently explained in the article. - Mafia Expert (talk) 18:41, 22 December 2007 (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: Deleted. Violation of WP:NFCC#3 (using three screenshots when one will do) and #8 (in that the additional screenshots do not show additional information that cannot be adequately conveyed by text). – Quadell ^{(talk) (random)} 23:29, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Image:UndercoverMosquekill.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by CltFn ( | contribs).

• This is a screenshot from the documentary Undercover Mosque. The article is contentious, and this nomination may be too, since the documentary attempts to highlight the danger of pro-violence teachings at certain mosques. But the article Undercover Mosque has three screenshots, and one will suffice. I don't see anything conveyed by multiple images that can't be conveyed by one image, plus text, so I'm nominating 2 of the 3 images for deletion. See also Wikipedia:Fair use review/Archive 2#Undercover Mosque. – Quadell ^{(talk) (random)} 14:43, 17 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak Delete Three does seem OTT. Brad Potzenik (talk) 17:28, 19 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong Keep The different pictures demonstrate different aspects. This one is both a close up of one of the clerics as well as specifically mentioning "Jews". -- Avi (talk) 21:48, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong Keep This image illustrates controverdial statements discussed in the article about the documentary "Undercover Mosque" . It is also used in the article on Abdullah el-Faisal as the main article image. --CltFn (talk) 17:07, 22 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment If it is the lead image in another article, this ifd is moot and should be closed. -- Avi (talk) 03:00, 23 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • No, in that use it's being used to show how a living person looks, failing NFCC#1.
• Keep. Useful and instructive. - Mafia Expert (talk) 18:46, 22 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong delete. The man in the image looks alive, and it very likely that he still is. The caption is attributing to him a very contentious line, that he may or may not have said. WP:BLP says we shouldn't ascribe contentious info to living persons.Bless sins (talk) 21:54, 22 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Unless you are accusing the BBC of deliberately mistranslating the spoken words that accompanied that segment of the film, there is no issue. -- Avi (talk) 02:59, 23 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • So you are saying that this image comes from a BBC documentary? That BBC covered an undercover investigation? Can you post the relevant BBC link here?Bless sins (talk) 04:45, 23 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • It is a snapshot from the Undercover Mosque documentary. -- Avi (talk) 14:48, 23 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • 'twas a C4 documentary. ITAQALLAH 15:09, 23 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - as discussed here, it fails NFCC policy, specifically 3a and 7. there are currently three non-free images being used in this article, all under the justification of displaying the documentary. this can be achieved by the first, without the need for two other images. the other two images (this, and the image below), besides being redundant on the previous basis, are replacable by text quotes from the documentary, as has already been done here for this very image. ITAQALLAH 15:09, 23 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. While there nay be no need for 3 images in the Undercover Mosque article, this image is also used to illustrate its subject's article - Abdullah el-Faisal. TheTonyExpress (talk) 17:42, 23 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Well that one's a NFCC#1 violation, is it not? – Quadell ^{(talk) (random)} 00:17, 24 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per Avi. This is 12-month long secret investigation. The various images show different aspect of this lengthy coverage. --Matt57 ^{(talk•contribs)} 18:33, 23 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment: Remember, the reason this is nominated for deletion is that I believe there is no essential encyclopedic information provided by the second and third images that could not be provided by text: "The documentary showed Abdullah el-Faisal saying 'And as for the Jews, you kill them physically." I understand the photos were hard to get, and that they're "useful and instructive", but I'm specifically concerned about NFCC#8. So far as I can see, no one has attempted to address that concern. – Quadell ^{(talk) (random)} 00:17, 24 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • The article is about the documentary and only has three "snapshots" of its content. Three images instead of one give a better idea of what the doc is about and how it is made, and provide useful encyclopedic information. - Mafia Expert (talk) 01:03, 24 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Image:UndercoverMosqueHeroOfIslam.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by CltFn ( | contribs).

• As above. – Quadell ^{(talk) (random)} 14:44, 17 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak Delete Three does seem OTT. Brad Potzenik (talk) 17:29, 19 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak Keep This is in its own section, so I do not think it is over the top, but I agree it is the least necessary of the three. The first one deonstrates the size of the crowds in attendance, and the second, as I state above, is both a clerical close up and a definitive statement of anti-semitism. This one does not necessarily have anything special about it that the others do not; but I do not think it overloads the article. -- Avi (talk) 21:51, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Concur with Avi above. This image further illustrates the scope of the statements that were made duding the undercover filming of British Mosques ans helps make that point to the reader --CltFn (talk) 17:44, 22 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Useful and instructive. - Mafia Expert (talk) 18:46, 22 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - redundant, as explained above. ITAQALLAH 15:10, 23 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep as for the image above. --Matt57 ^{(talk•contribs)} 18:34, 23 December 2007 (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: Deleted as a clear violation of NFCC #1. – Quadell ^{(talk) (random)} 17:59, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Laurel_McGoff_(Kid_Nation)_SC.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by VigilancePrime ( | contribs).

• This is a non-free portrait of a living person, used at List of Kid Nation participants. The photo was taken earlier this year, so it's recent. I believe this image to be replaceable, since the person is still alive and could be photographed. Disagreement has been voiced at Image talk:Laurel McGoff (Kid Nation) SC.jpg and Wikipedia:Fair use review/Archive 2#Image:Laurel McGoff .28Kid Nation.29 SC.jpg, but has been largely based on the observation that no free replacements are known to exist at this time, and that the individual shown is not terribly famous. I don't believe these arguments are enough to get around WP:NFCC#1. – Quadell ^{(talk) (random)} 14:53, 17 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: Actually my argument was that no free replacements were possible because the fact that the image was being used in the List of Kid Nation participants article and not in her own article and the image's purpose was to show how she looked on that show then it wouldn't be replaceable be a free one. It's analogous to any other List of XXX characters that would contain pictures of characters from a show. Even if an actor looks pretty much the same in real life as does on a show, a picture of him from the show is still allowed in the article for the characters even if that same picture is not allowed in the article for the actor. Ospinad (talk) 18:45, 18 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: no convincing argument has been provided as to why this image is needed. Unless McGoff's appearance has changed significantly since the show was broadcast (which has not been claimed), or this specific image has been commented on in some significant way, a free photo of her would be just as representative, so the image is replaceable. -- Pak21 (talk) 15:11, 17 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: Even if not a lot of time has passed since the show ended, the fact that all of them were only allowed to bring with them 3 changes of close and they didn't have access to a bathroom (except for an outhouse) means that they wouldn't look anything like they did on the show in any public appearance they may happen to make.
• Keep - The above statement is inaccurate. The assertion has been made that her appearance has changed (by virtue of being a kid...this is common sense), and far more rationale than would ever be needed by other similar photos has been provided. This is just another step in the unending attempts by some to delete perfectly legitimate content. The articles were attacked and now the image, all the while similar pages are all over the place and far lesser pages survive Votes (since that's what they really are) for Deletion. "Over the Top" barely describes it. The image's main page and Talk page go into excruciating detail. VigilancePrime (talk) 02:13, 18 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS is still not a valid keep argument, no matter how many times you make it --Pak21 (talk) 08:38, 18 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment - And OSE "This is an essay; it contains the advice and/or opinions of one or more Wikipedia contributors. It is not a policy or guideline, and editors are not obliged to follow it." No Matter How Often You Try To Assert That It Is Policy. You seem to use this as your sole defense (in a lot of things). Children grow and change and this is a simple fact. Do any of the characters look the same today? Look at it this way: Did you see the Survivor: China finale and reunion? None of the final three looked even close to how they looked in the finale. By the same token, the Bonanza kids would have a different, living-in-civilization look, and be older and more grown. I'm not understanding how anyone can den that children grow and change and have grown and changed... VigilancePrime (talk) 16:01, 18 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • No one has provided a source to indicate that her appearance has changed in the months since this photo was taken, and the article does not mention any change in her appearance -- since it's non-notable. As an aside, I'm really tired of being accused of having ulterior motives when I try to uphold Wikipedia's policies. No one is trying to delete perfectly legitimate content. Many people feel that this is not legitimate content, and it's pretty clear why we think this: The Wikimedia licensing resolution says we "may not allow material where we can reasonably expect someone to upload a freely licensed file for the same purpose, such as is the case for almost all portraits of living notable individuals." – Quadell ^{(talk) (random)} 14:51, 18 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • It hasn't been mentioned that her appearance has changed because it's obvious, not because it's non-notable. Children, especially children around the age of puberty (in Laurel's case, she was 12 on the show) change very rapidly. Not to mention the fact that she wouldn't go out in public looking the same way she did on the show anyway, which is something that I think was already mentioned before... Ospinad (talk) 18:45, 18 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep: Just to make it official. Ospinad (talk) 18:45, 18 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment: The McGoff content has been demerged from the List of Kid Nation participants article. Any case being made for keeping content there is much weaker if she has her own article. --Pak21 (talk) 20:18, 19 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Can you explain that please for the uninitiated? It would logically follow that a conglomerate article would be in less need of an image, FU or otherwise, than a standalone page. Thus, as its own page, the image would be more necessary and more reasonable. I read through the entire NFCC and couldn't see anything addressing standalones versus conglomerates. VigilancePrime (talk) 20:39, 19 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: Per WP:FAIRUSE, Unacceptable images, #12 - the requirement is that a free replacement is likely to be possible, rather than a free replacement currently exists. Regardless if its in the List or her own article. Even if the argument is that this demonstrates what she is like on the show, it would be better served with a picture of, say, the original Town Council, as it both serves to identify 4 people instead of one (reducing # of fair use) and can be used at least a second time (to demonstrate what the Town Council is). --MASEM 21:23, 19 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment - But if we had a photo that was a full screenshot or showed the entire town council, wouldn't that be a violation of WP:NFCC#3b as it could be minimal? That's why the image was cropped down so much in the first place, to avoid fair use issues! VigilancePrime (talk) 21:26, 19 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • A shot of the TC could be used in two possible places: Kid Nation (as an example of what the TC setup looks like) and List of Kid Nation participants (to identify 4 people on the show), with a shot that cannot be freely replaced, is much much better free use (effectively being a 5-fold use image) and avoid Biographies of living persons policy issues than one image of one person from a show that can be easily replaced; additionally, should Laurel's article be merged back to the participant list, that image would not be appropriate, but the TC image would be. (Generally, if you're focused on one person in a TV/movie screen grab, you don't crop down to get it, just a single frame from the original work is considered "minimal use".) --MASEM 23:10, 19 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • That makes sense. In other words, to a certain extent (as far as cropping down the image), I was trying too hard? (I just can't win!) Ultimately, the article won't be (well, shouldn't be based on tons of precedent), but I can see a group image being better in the listing article. Then again, I'm not really thinking that images are necessary in the list of participants article at all, only in any individual articles that we may ultimately create. ANYWAY, Masem, thank you for helping explain that and (actually) responding to questions and concerns; I appreciate the collaboration through Wiki! VigilancePrime (talk) 23:24, 19 December 2007 (UTC) :-)[reply]

• SUMMARY - It's been five days now and this "debate", which arose from a failed "Fair Use Review", has boiled down to the following two issues: DELETE, the image could potentially be replaced by a fair use image as someone could go take a photo of this person today (or arrange to have a photo taken and released); KEEP, the person in question, as a kid, has aged and her appearance today in a potential new photo would not be representative of her appearance at her primary notable time and as such a minimally-used FU screencap is allowable. Delete asserts that her appearance has not changed and demands a specific source to assert that she has aged or changed in appearance, while Keep asserts that she has obviously aged and her appearance changed from the actual Kid Nation show. Delete has pointed out that the article has also been put up for AfD (though apparently going to survive that process) and Keep points out that this image was requested for a Fair Use Review already (though this was never completed or not given enough time to be completed). VigilancePrime (talk) 13:01, 22 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • The Fair Use Review was started on the 29th November and brought here on 17 December by an admin very experienced in dealing in image fair use issues. I do not see how that can be described as either not completed or not given enough time to be completed, especially as you asserted the review was complete on 18 December. The review did not "fail", whatever that may mean; it determined there was enough doubt to seek further discussion on this issue, which was done here in accordance with policy. The AfD for Laurel McGoff is not concluded either, so asserting it is going to be kept is also factually incorrect as AfD is not a vote, whatever your views on the subject or how many personal attacks you may wish to make on admins closing discussions contrary to your views. --Pak21 (talk) 16:09, 22 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Pak, I'm really tired of you fighting so much on this. The Fair Use Review was not completed. That's a fact. Initially I had believed that it was not, you corrected me, and I acknowledged that error. The above is a fair and inpartial assessment of the overall discussion. The AfD for the page is clearly leaning toward keep with rational and even policy-based arguments on the keep side. Why do you feel the obsessive need to attack every word I write (and yet, when I asked for your help with another article, you refused to even respond to me, attacking me personally instead)? (By the way, welcome back from your short-lived WikiBreak; I genuinely hope you're feeling better.) VigilancePrime (talk) 02:11, 23 December 2007 (UTC) :-)[reply]
• ^{Note: Your definition of a personal attack, BTW, is laughable. If those are personal attacks, then virtually any word you have ever said to me, and for that matter the borderline WikiStalking you've been doing, would also qualify. Your ill-fated MfD on my USERSPACE essay even has comment after comment about the civil tone and the non-attacking narratives. I am very careful in my writing to not call people names and to make painfully clear the Good Faith I try to believe. I did as much for you, specifically stating that I had hoped your ingoring my request for help was an accidental oversight rather than an intentional snub. Instead of addressing that hope, you flamed me subtly. I attributed that to WikiStress, especially after seeing you go on a WikiBreak, and am hopeful that you are now going to be more helpful, collaborative, civil, and reasonable. Granted, your first few edits back that I have seen appear to be the polar opposite of those qualities. Time will tell if this is temporary or if I will always have you following my edits around... VigilancePrime (talk) 02:17, 23 December 2007 (UTC)}[reply]

Side Note: You have no standing to lecture others about Good Faith... (+1 to Jack Merridew's POINT) VigilancePrime (talk) 03:04, 23 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - replaceable non-free image.--Doc^g 23:31, 26 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

UPDATED SUMMARY: It's been nearly ten days now, and thus a new discussion summary is probably warranted.

BLUF: This debate centers around the issue of whether the subject of the image, 12-year-old Laurel McGoff of Kid Nation fame, has likely grown or changed appearance in any significant form since her time on the television series. DELETE asserts she has not; KEEP asserts she has.

• DELETE Rationale - Doc & Pak21 probably say it best in summary fashion, "replaceable non-free image" & "Unless McGoff's appearance has changed significantly since the show was broadcast" (respectively). DELETE position centers on the claimed replacability of the image, asserting that the person in the photo has not changed appearance since the time of the image and primary notability. This position has claimed that a photo taken today would serve the exact same purpose and illustrative benefit as the image in question, which is from the series it is attempting to depict.
• KEEP Rationale - Ospinad probably said it best in summary fashion, "It hasn't been mentioned that her appearance has changed because it's obvious, not because it's non-notable". KEEP position centers on the claimed irreplacability of the image, asserting that the person in the photo has certainly changed appearance since the time of the image and primary notability. This position has claimed that a photo taken today would not serve the exact same purpose and illustrative benefit as the image in question, which is from the series it is attempting to depict.

^{NOTE: The article on which the image is used, Laurel McGoff, was found to be a KEEP on its own AfD.}

^{Whether this is relevant or not is a question/decision for the closing administrator.}

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: Deleted. The article has not been changed to include enough critical commentary to merit keeping this image, and I don't think it could be. – Quadell ^{(talk) (random)} 18:01, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Image:62_war.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Idleguy ( | contribs).

• Photo of a soldier used to illustrate article on the war. Neither this soldier nor the magazine cover is mentioned in the article, so it fails WP:NFCC#8. See also Wikipedia:Fair_use_review/Archive 2#Image:62_war.jpg. – Quadell ^{(talk) (random)} 15:02, 17 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Wait - As the image's page says, "The cover has been uploaded to show some image in the Sino-Indian War which doesn't have a single image, let alone fair use. Also the image shows the portrayal of the war in the western media." The article could easily be improved to better include this image. It is the only non-map image on the page and does illustrate the global awareness/significance of the event, even if that is not stated in as many words in the article. The image would be better with a line or two that explicitly relates this instead of leaving it to the image page or reader's inference. This adjustment could be reasonably accomplished and any deletion should wait until that has been given ample time to happen. VigilancePrime (talk) 02:40, 18 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • In my opinion, a few sentences mentioning the magazine would still not pass NFCC#8. But that's a matter of opinion. Let's see what happens to the article in the next few days. – Quadell ^{(talk) (random)} 15:01, 18 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Useful and instructive. Article should be expanded, not the image deleted. - Mafia Expert (talk) 18:52, 22 December 2007 (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: Deleted as a clear WP:NFCC#8 violation. – Quadell ^{(talk) (random)} 18:02, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Incumming3.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Aditya Kabir ( | contribs).

• This image does not significantly increase readers' understanding, as would be required by WP:NFCC#8. Furthermore, the article is about the person and she is adequately illustrated (without this image). NAHID 18:00, 17 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - unlike the other image that was slated for deletion, this one has some context on why the image is important. According to this and the text, this is one of the first DVD covers with a porn star from Bangladesh. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 18:06, 17 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• The article is not about the DVD and there is no significant section about the DVD at the article on the subject. So it's not adding any value in the entry--NAHID 19:07, 17 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - If what the caption of the image says is true, this DVD cover is most interesting indeed. It also, according to the article Jazmin gave her early success, and is thus important to a reader's understanding of the section in which the inage is placed :) Cheers, ( arky ) 22:27, 17 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • What caption? – Quadell ^{(talk) (random)} 15:03, 18 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The caption is no longer visible because of it being replaced by the deletion notification, it used to say:The first Bangladeshi on a formally released porn movie cover. Jackaranga (talk) 17:45, 18 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete after 7 days Fails criterion 10a of WP:NFCC, no copyright holder attribution. Jackaranga (talk) 17:45, 18 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Copyright holder added. Aditya^{(talk • contribs)} 10:55, 19 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: The original caption claimed that this was the first Bangladeshi on a formally-released porn movie cover. That would certainly make the image notable, if it were true. Is there a source? – Quadell ^{(talk) (random)} 17:32, 19 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Since that assertion was unsourced, and has gone undefended here, I have to assume it was false. Since the only reason that cover might be notable is now dismissed, I can't see any reason to keep the image. – Quadell ^{(talk) (random)} 16:45, 23 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep It clearly illustrates what the article is about, the cover is interesting at that.--English836 (talk) 17:16, 26 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Interesting is not the fact. The fact is, its assertion is apparently unsourced. Therefore,it's failing to prove its notability.--NAHID 19:08, 27 December 2007 (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.