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 Drilnoth (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 03:03, 12 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:Jim Thomas (Canadian football).jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by DoubleBlue ( | contribs).

• Is of a living person who is reasonably famous, can be replaced. MBisanz ^talk 02:47, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• His notability is due to his career as a professional football player which ceased in 1971. A new picture cannot serve the same purpose as this image taken during his career. DoubleBlue (talk) 03:48, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• This stuff is routine. See Wikipedia:NFC#Images_2 #7. This person is living, and therefore free imagery can be obtained. Unless there was something particularly notable about his appearance then, verifiable by secondary sources, that is not part of his appearance now, there's no argument to retain the image to illustrate the person. Delete --Hammersoft (talk) 17:53, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• I think that a new image of him is extremely unlikely and, regardless, an image of him now, approximately aged 70, cannot serve the same purpose as an image of him in his Eskimos uniform at the height of his notability. DoubleBlue (talk) 03:04, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Can you identify secondary sources that indicate his appearance in an Eskimos uniform as being a significant factor in his notability as opposed to his athletic ability? --Hammersoft (talk) 13:25, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • All sources for notability rest with his career as an Edmonton Eskimos football player. DoubleBlue (talk) 21:17, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • And that is because he was a good player or because he looked good on the uniform? --Damiens.rf 21:40, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Notability rests on his visual appearance during his career. A free picture of him at 70 would not serve the same encyclopedic purpose. decltype (talk) 07:41, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Can you provide secondary sources that indicate his notability is dependent on his visual appearance during his career? I think it was dependent on his ability as an athlete, not his visual appearance. --Hammersoft (talk) 13:25, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, standing rule is that non-free images of people still alive aren't allowed. Stifle (talk) 09:45, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Image is of him during his football career, which is a whole lot better than a picture of him today in his 70's, keep.--Giants27 (t|c|r|s) 14:01, 6 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - If I understand correctly, the written language and record keeping in Canada had developed enough by 1968 that we no longer need to rely on pictures to give us encyclopedic information. And if CFL is anything like the NFL, notability of players probably rests on their on-field accomplishments, rather than their appearance. Clearly fails WP:NFCC#1. --Mosmof (talk) 17:33, 6 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • The encyclopedic purpose here is visual identification of the subject. This scan is just large enough to do so and small enough to not impact the market value for the original copyright holder. No free alternative can be conceived at this date some 40 years after his career. DoubleBlue (talk) 02:33, 7 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • We have a zillion articles on Wikipedia where we do not permit the use of fair use images of the BLP in question. The Foundation has been very strict about this. Actors, actresses, sport people...all across the board. What is so incredibly notable about this image that we must include it when so many articles don't? Visual identification isn't enough. --Hammersoft (talk) 13:17, 7 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • My argument is that this is clear fair use, your argument is that the Foundation has been pretty strict about this. We are both correct. P.S. WP:WAX. DoubleBlue (talk) 15:09, 7 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        • I don't disagree it's fair use. Of course it is. That doesn't automatically make it acceptable here. --Hammersoft (talk) 17:45, 7 June 2009 (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 Drilnoth (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 03:03, 12 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:TheFutureDKRTMS.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Nwtxqt ( | contribs).

• Fails WP:NFCCs #1, #8, and #10. While "www.hornfans.com" is listed as source, I haven't been able to find the image at the domain, and I"m not sure the site owns images that it posts. There is no indication of exactly who took the photograph (or which agency owns the image), so there is no way of verifying whether the copyright holder's commercial rights are affected. And we don't know where the photograph was taken, so we don't know whether anyone can walk right up to the model in the glass case and take a picture. Mosmof (talk) 08:16, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per NFCC#8 (not essential to understanding the article) and #10a (source not properly identified). The image is not replaceable by a free image, however, as any image which someone walks up and takes of the model would be subject to the same copyright. Stifle (talk) 10:44, 4 June 2009 (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 Drilnoth (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 03:03, 12 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:'Around the World Submerged by Edward L Beach.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Marcd30319 ( | contribs).

• This image is being used in an article not about the book itself, so according to WP:NFC#Images #1 it may not be used in USS Triton (SSRN-586) as claimed in the fair-use rationale. This is a blatant misuse of a non-free image. ww2censor (talk) 17:30, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Obvious delete. --Hammersoft (talk) 17:51, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Deletion nomination withdrawn: the image has been removed from original article and is now being used properly in the book article of the same name: Around the World Submerged with an appropriate fair-use rationale. ww2censor (talk) 13:27, 10 June 2009 (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 Xavexgoem (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 20:58, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:306.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Carlitonds ( | contribs).

• Probable copyvio: no metadata, photographer's watermark is in lower left corner. Durova^Charge! 19:38, 4 June 2009 (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 Drilnoth (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 03:03, 12 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:Ph pres magsaysay.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by TheCoffee ( | contribs).

• The Roosevelt visited Manila and some public domain pictures of Mr. Magsaysay were produced at the time (like this one). We should use the free alternatives instead of this copyrighted work. Damiens.rf 21:09, 4 June 2009 (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 Drilnoth (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 03:03, 12 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:Janina san miguel screencap.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by TheCoffee ( | contribs).

• We already have free pictures of this girl. We don't have to see what it was like when she responded "What role did your family play for you as candidate to Binibining Pilipinas?". Damiens.rf 21:31, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per NFCC#8. Conveys little more than the free images. decltype (talk) 07:44, 5 June 2009 (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 TimVickers (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA)

File:Of Pandas and People 1987 manuscript copy.png (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by TimVickers ( | contribs).

• Note - per discussion on Talk:Intelligent_design#Alternative_image, we may have reached consensus on a replacement free image. If so, I'll close this discussion and delete the manuscript image. Tim Vickers (talk) 18:52, 6 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• All the (relevant) information contained on this non-free image can be easily transmitted to the reader using free material. Damiens.rf 21:39, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Whether the excerpted text is typed or forms part of an image, the copyright is exactly the same. If the source of the image is a problem, I could type the text myself, convert this to a new image, and then upload this new image. Having this as an image is basically a matter of formatting. Tim Vickers (talk) 21:43, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have done this. The image is now completely my work, presenting two short quotations from a copyrighted text for the purpose of critical commentary. Tim Vickers (talk) 21:52, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If you really need it, just use {{quote}}. But why this urge to abuse non-free content on Intelligent design? --Damiens.rf 21:57, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

So you are saying that exactly the same pieces of text would be acceptable as an in-text quote, but that they are unacceptable as an image? That makes no sense to me. Wikipedia:Non-free_content#Text_2 states that what is unacceptable is "Excessively long copyrighted excerpts." I don't think two sentences are excessively long. Indeed, the policy states "Brief quotations of copyrighted text may be used to illustrate a point", I think these two brief quotations illustrate one of the points made in the article particularly well. Tim Vickers (talk) 22:00, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No. I've never said that. Where did you took that conclusion from? --Damiens.rf 22:28, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

From your suggestion that I use a text quotation template if I "really need it". I assumed you meant the quotations, when you said "it". If I misunderstood you, what text were you suggesting I put in that template, if not the text quoted in the image? Tim Vickers (talk) 22:30, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If you really need to quote the book to make your point, just use the {{quote}} template. --Damiens.rf 22:41, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Quoting exactly the same text as in the figure? Tim Vickers (talk) 22:42, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Whatever copyright issues may exist would apply equally to either format, correct? The use of an image of a quote versus a quotation template seems to be an editorial one, to be discussed on the article's talk page. Is there an ongoing issue with the use of non-free content that needs to be discussed in this venue? MastCell ^Talk 23:06, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• I think the Damiens.rf misunderstands that text is subject to copyright just the same as images. Removing the IP from a png file and place it in {{quote}} does not make it free material. It would still be fair use.--BirgitteSB 00:18, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

May be a moot point anyway, the consensus on the article talkpage seems to be leaning towards the image being unnecessary. If so, I'll delete it myself. Tim Vickers (talk) 01:34, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• If I understand correctly the original version is a photographic copy of the original manuscripts. If that is correct, then in my opinion that original version is acceptable fair use because it allows readers to compare the actual manuscripts. The modified version, however, fails not only WP:NFCC#4, because it has not been published previously in that form, but also fair use because it gives the false impression that it is a photographic copy of the manuscripts. Delete at least the new version. Keep the original version if the editors of the page decide to keep it rather than pure text quotations. —teb728 t c 02:04, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

OK, I've reverted to the original scans and have also added links to two articles that published the same images previously. Tim Vickers (talk) 02:52, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep as fair use of an image of historic importance, originally published as fair use of the image of a brief extract from an unpublished draft. There would be no copyright difficulty with citing the text of this brief extract in text format under fair use, and an image of the same text is more informative. . . dave souza, talk 16:53, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - it's no less a copyright infringement than would a quote be, and there's agreement that the quote would be ok. Add to that the fact that it's a historically significant scan. Guettarda (talk) 18:49, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete in part due to the concerns raised by teb728 regarding WP:NFCC #, and in part because it is replaceable by free text. I was able to understand the gist of the image without seeing the image by the text already present in the article. Therefore, it fails WP:NFCC #1 as well. --Hammersoft (talk) 19:09, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

As a comment, I responded to teb728's concerns by reverting to a version of the image that was a direct copy of the manuscripts, and adding links to two instances of previous publications containing scans of this exact text. As to the issue of if this is needed, I see this as direct evidence for a very surprising claim, and that including this text will therefore "significantly increase readers' understanding of the topic". This is not a decorative image. Tim Vickers (talk) 19:25, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• • • I'm not claiming it is decorative. I'm claiming that the value of the image can be replaced without compromising copyright of any scan or textual reproduction of the text. --Hammersoft (talk) 19:48, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I see, what is your opinion of the use of the same copyrighted text at Of Pandas and People? Do you think this fair-use of copyrighted text is justifiable? If so, how does presenting a scan of a book differ in copyright law from directly quoting the same passage of text? Tim Vickers (talk) 19:55, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• That's a straw man argument. I choose not to respond directly. Instead, I choose to note that you can describe what happened in the global-search-replace fault without using the garbled words. Nobody owns copyright to "creationist", "design" or "proponent". --Hammersoft (talk) 19:56, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The text is the copyrighted entity. Use of the text, in whatever form, is therefore covered by the fair-use policy. Therefore if I type the text into an article, type the text and create my own image, or scan the original text, the copyright remains exactly the same. I can't see how you make a distinction between direct quotation in text and direct quotation in an image, can you please explain your position in more detail? Tim Vickers (talk) 20:01, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

(ec)No Hammersoft, it's not a straw man - it's the central point of your oppose (since the other element, teb728's opposition, had been corrected even before you based your support on it). Quite frankly, a large part of what makes text subject to copyright is the way that ideas are described in words. It's a mistake to think that close paraphrase is exempt from copyright. It's a case-by-case determination. There's a reason why concepts like "fair use" are so vitally important. Guettarda (talk) 20:05, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• People, look, the reality is I can say "the editors accidentally supplanted the words 'design proponent' into the word 'creationist', revealing that there was an unedited global-search-replace performed to remove the word 'creation' from the work", and there's not thing one anyone can do about copyright on that sentence. You can't copyright a word in the dictionary for chrissake. --Hammersoft (talk) 20:07, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

But you think I could quote this exact sentence in an article without difficulty? As the article Of Pandas and People does already? Could you please answer the question, as I may be mistaken in how I am understanding fair-use of copyrighted text. Tim Vickers (talk) 20:11, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• I don't see the point of this strawman. If you did some form of edit as I suggested, it wouldn't be necessary to even consider the question, because the presentation would be free of copyright making this moot. --Hammersoft (talk) 20:14, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

So you're refusing point-blank to answer the question of whether exactly the same text in an image versus article text differs in copyright status? Tim Vickers (talk) 20:19, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• You and I both know the answer to that. Good grief. I've worked in copyright stuff enough to know, ok? What point is there to trying to grill me about this? I'll tell you. NONE. Because if you do as I suggest, IT DOES NOT MATTER. And let's be clear. I don't have to be forced by you to answer a question anymore than I demand to know the answer to a question I ask of you. Back off. --Hammersoft (talk) 20:26, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• [rm, per Tim's request, below - Guettarda (talk) 00:09, 6 June 2009 (UTC)] Guettarda (talk) 20:40, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Guettarda, the way to respond to comments that could be interpreted as angry is to try to defuse the situation, lower the temperature and focus on facts, not personalities. Could you do me a favor and please rephrase your reply to try to avoid any unnecessary aggravation? Tim Vickers (talk) 20:45, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm guessing that you could say that without problem. But you claimed that the text in question could be replaced with a "free equivalent", so your example is a straw man. To begin with, "design proponent" was pasted into "creation scientist", not "creationist", and the rest of your sentence goes beyond the sources. Accuracy matters, and can be lost if quotations have to be replaced by "free text". Secondly, the significance of this (and other) substitutions in the manuscript lie as much in their context as in the simple fact of the substitution. The fact that "creation science" was replaced by "intelligent design" isn't the only issue (that was reflected in Matzke's graph of word frequencies). It was also important where the words were replaced, the fact that in these contexts ID was being substituted for creation science. Finally, "cdesign proponentsists" (and various misspellings thereof) has become a significant phrase in itself. The pair of sentences shows clearly how it came into being. Guettarda (talk) 20:32, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry, I'm not trying to grill you, Hammersoft, as you say you have worked on this for a lot longer than I have so you seem the right person to ask about this. I'm just trying to understand how fair-use of this quoted text is not acceptable in one format, but is acceptable in another. Particularly, if, as you say, there is no copyright difference between the two. As Guettarda say, accuracy matters, particularly in contentious areas. Direct quotes, in whatever format, are often preferable to paraphrasing. Tim Vickers (talk) 20:35, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• keep Given the importance of this sentence as a transitional form between creationism and intelligent design, the image is clearly of historic importance. And it isn't any more replaceable than any other historic image. Incidentally, since this came up during the Dover trial does anyone know if there was a variant image shown possibly in Barbara Forrest's testimony? If so, then there should be a near identical copy of this image that is PD since it was used as evidence in a court case. JoshuaZ (talk) 20:22, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately this particular quotation was not presented, see the PNAS article. Tim Vickers (talk) 20:24, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep As explained above, the image was entirely created by Tim Vickers from 17 words typed by Tim (two versions). Such an image, with such a brief extract, is not a copyvio. The image is a useful part of the section where it appears to illustrate the origin of the term (highly relevant to the article, and the point of the section). Johnuniq (talk) 01:54, 6 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep As above. There is no Copyvio here. The editorial choice to use an image over a quote tag can be discussed on the article's talk page.--Knulclunk (talk) 02:01, 6 June 2009 (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 Drilnoth (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 03:03, 12 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:MASH-episode4.png (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Am520dj ( | contribs).

• Non-free episode screenshot, fails NFC8: no analytical commentary, no relation to text (in fact, not even a caption clarifying what it is supposed to show), hence no significant and indispensable contribution to the understanding of the topic. Fut.Perf. ☼ 21:39, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep and add caption to connect to the plot. Fix before delete. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 22:24, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Of course, just adding a caption will not automatically solve this. Once we know what it's supposed to show, we can only begin to consider whether it makes a significant and indispensable contribution. Just saying: "this is character X in a scene where he does Y" will definitely not be enough. Same for the other cases below. Fut.Perf. ☼ 04:53, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. This can't be fixed; it's just a decorative screenshot. Stifle (talk) 09:44, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per Stifle. --Hammersoft (talk) 17:30, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  Can you point out in this random article on a TV show how this image fits the standard? Starvin'_Marvin_(South_Park). Please try not to use Othercrapexists. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 05:56, 6 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  Thank you for pointing this out. This image depicts a character who is central and essential to the episode, as mentioned in the image's fair use rationale, where words could not identify the character in the way the image does. Stifle (talk) 14:52, 6 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

To apply this to MASH, if there was an episode that was named after a particular character, and this character only appeared in this episode, then you could use an image of that character to illustrate an article on that episode. This argument might apply to "The Moose" for instance. Tim Vickers (talk) 18:56, 6 June 2009 (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 Drilnoth (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 03:03, 12 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:TheMoose.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Mhrmaw ( | contribs).

• Non-free episode screenshot, fails NFC8: no analytical commentary, no relation to text (in fact, not even a caption clarifying what it is supposed to show), hence no significant and indispensable contribution to the understanding of the topic. Fut.Perf. ☼ 21:40, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep and add caption to connect to the plot. Fix before delete. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 22:25, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Your caption only says which characters are shown in the picture. That's not analytical commentary. Fut.Perf. ☼ 06:02, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• delete I don't need to see a still with three characters chatting to understand the article about the 343453th M*A*S*H* episode. --Damiens.rf 22:44, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, doesn't add to readers' understanding of the article. Stifle (talk) 09:44, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Stop the retrofitting of images to lamely fit into articles. Either it's a significant, secondary source for notoriety image, or it isn't. This scene isn't significant. --Hammersoft (talk) 17:37, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - illustrates the main subject of the episode. Better caption possible. --skew-t (talk) 11:42, 7 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Illustration alone isn't useful enough for fair use. Is there something significant about the actress' appearance to warrant the inclusion? Something significant about the scene reported in secondary sources? The purpose of this photo can easily be replaced by a "local Korean woman" and serve the same purpose. --Hammersoft (talk) 13:11, 7 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree that a picture of a random Korean woman would serve the same purpose. Just as a photograph of the cast is used in the main article for the program, this photo provides a way of identifying the particular actress who is the focal point of the episode, as well as showing how a "moose" is portrayed by the series. --skew-t (talk) 14:31, 7 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• I never said a PICTURE of a random Korean woman. I'm saying there's nothing notable about her appearance that can't be replaced by text that says "local Korean woman". We don't have to have images to identify every person in the episode, and indeed we've deprecated a large swath of such types of usages all across the project. Could you please locate some secondary sources that indicate her appearance is significant in some way? --Hammersoft (talk) 17:47, 7 June 2009 (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 Drilnoth (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 03:03, 12 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:Yankeedoodledoctor.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Mhrmaw ( | contribs).

• Non-free episode screenshot, fails NFC8: no analytical commentary, no relation to text (in fact, not even a caption clarifying what it is supposed to show), hence no significant and indispensable contribution to the understanding of the topic. Fut.Perf. ☼ 21:41, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep and add caption to connect to the plot. Fix before delete. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 22:25, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Caption was added but is far from sufficient. We need analytical commentary explaining, at least, in what way this particular image illustrates something particularly noteworthy about the episode. Fut.Perf. ☼ 05:08, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete once again the forced retrofitting of images to standards. This image is not significant in any way. I don't care what the caption is. If there's no secondary source showing the notability of this scene in this episode, then it's basically OR and/or decorative. Hatchet this sort of usage. --Hammersoft (talk) 17:40, 5 June 2009 (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 Drilnoth (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 03:03, 12 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:MASH-episode7.png (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Am520dj ( | contribs).

• Non-free episode screenshot, fails NFC8: no analytical commentary, no relation to text (in fact, not even a caption clarifying what it is supposed to show), hence no significant and indispensable contribution to the understanding of the topic. Fut.Perf. ☼ 21:42, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep and add caption to connect to the plot. Fix before delete. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 22:25, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Caption was added but is far from sufficient. We need analytical commentary explaining, at least, in what way this particular image illustrates something particularly noteworthy about the episode. Fut.Perf. ☼ 05:09, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. We're trying to build a free encyclopedia here. Stifle (talk) 09:45, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete I despise the attitude of 'Oh hey, we have a screenshot that's going to be deleted. Ok, quick, come up with a caption that ties it in so we can keep it!' I'm not saying this against Richard, but the general sentiment which I've seen all too frequently. I agree with Stifle. If the scene in particular was pivotal to the plot, reported on in secondary sources, then I can see a reason to keep. Else, we are deriving original research from primary sources and/or attempting to illustrate the article for the sake of illustration. --Hammersoft (talk) 13:11, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, I think I can understand the plot synopsis without this image. Tim Vickers (talk) 04:45, 6 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep You will understand it better with the picture. For those who have seen the episodes, the visual image refreshes one's memory and helps the understanding of the material. All episodes of this and all other series should have screenshots. TV is a visual medium, and the description in words is important, but limited. Even more than a free encyclopedia, and the stress is equally on both words--there is no point in being free if we're not useful.DGG (talk) 21:50, 6 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Including fair use images 'just because' isn't enough of a reason. We don't include fair use images just because we should have a fair use image on every episode of every series on Wikipedia. We're plenty useful without having to be forced to carry hundreds of thousands of fair use images for all these episodes when most of the episode screenshots have nothing significant about them reported in secondary sources. We have to be highly motivated to have a need to include fair use, not just because. --Hammersoft (talk) 13:14, 7 June 2009 (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 Drilnoth (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 03:03, 12 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:Ph pres macapagal-arroyo.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Mk32 ( | contribs).

• A free picture of this lady is available at File:Gloria_Macapagal_Arroyo_WEF_2009.jpg Damiens.rf 21:43, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• delete, obviously replaceable. Fut.Perf. ☼ 04:56, 5 June 2009 (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 Drilnoth (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 03:03, 12 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:Plush quatchi.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Mikeypants87 ( | contribs).

• UE OR and conflicting licensing statements (both gfdl and fair use) Damiens.rf 21:46, 4 June 2009 (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 Drilnoth (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 03:03, 12 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:Ps storefront.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Jericho1337 ( | contribs).

• Replaced with PlayStationStore-Screenshot.png Chimpanzee - User | Talk | Contribs 23:41, 4 June 2009 (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.