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 Chick Bowen (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 03:02, 26 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

File:Final Fantasy Tactics Lion War Screen01.jpg (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Nall ( | contribs | uploads | upload log).

Fails #8. This image does not significantly increase readers' understanding of the topic, and its omission would not be detrimental to that understanding. It also fails #'s 1 & 2 of the NFCC. It's a copyrighted image that has an invalid FU rationale, especially for a FA. "The image is being used in an informative way and should not detract from the game." Is that actually supposed to be a disclaimer respecting the outside copyright of an image in a "featured article" here? Doc talk 04:26, 10 February 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: Wrong forum. The file is on Commons. Please nominate it for deletion there if you still feel it should be deleted. AnomieBOT⚡ 07:05, 10 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

File:Nuit Blanche Toronto 2010 (2).jpg (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Skeezix1000 ( | contribs | uploads | upload log).

Orphan image and source file has been deleted from photographer's online account. 24.246.52.79 (talk) 06:56, 10 February 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 Chick Bowen (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 03:02, 26 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

File:ChrisKyle.jpg (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Dpm12 ( | contribs | uploads | upload log).

This image has been discussed at DRV (Wikipedia:Deletion_review/Log/2013_February_4) and although the original speedy deletion was out of process there do seem to be valid concerns over whether this image meets the NFCC that need to be addresses. First concerns for me would be whether this image breaches NFCC #1, #2 and #8.

• Specifically, just because we can't find a free image on google doesn't mean one exists and we usually require more diligence than that,
• Secondly, is the image being used in a way that would impact on the holders commercial rights? and
• Finally is the image necessary to add anything to the article that a discription cannot. There is no critical commentry in the FUR and being used to show what someone looks like is rarely accepted as a valid reason under #8.

As I closed the DRV I formally take no position in this discussion but have simply tried to frame the basis around which discussion would be most helpful. Spartaz ^Humbug! 09:08, 10 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete, professional journalistic source, WP:NFCC#2 violation. Fut.Perf. ☼ 10:35, 11 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete very likely replaceable with a free version. Hobit (talk) 03:22, 12 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

1. google image search is a good faith effort to show there are no free images on internet. what is the standard of effort required to prove no "free equivalent is available". does the fact that one image is buried in a military dossier, but not released, preclude any image from use. it is not reasonable that "free exists that is unavailable; therefore fair use may not"; "very likely replaceable" - if it's so replaceable, then you do it and then delete the "fair use".
2. this is a publicity headshot for a TV show, it is not a commercial news source [1]. google is currently using the pic for searches on this name [2] what is the commercial value of publicity headshots?
3. "Could the subject be adequately conveyed by properly sourced text without using the non-free content at all?" where is it written "what someone looks like is rarely accepted as a valid reason under #8." where is the consensus, why dosn't the NFCC reflect this statement? 198.24.31.118 (talk) 21:22, 13 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• • I agree on your last two points, but disagree on the first. It is very likely we can get a free image of him. Asking family for example. In general we don't allow unfree images of living people because of the relative ease of getting a new picture. The same applies for the recently deceased--it is likely we can get someone to share a free image with us. I think that's a bit too strict, but it's a pretty long-standing interpretation of the rule. Sorry... Hobit (talk) 02:37, 16 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• The discussion above mentions points 1, 2 and 8 of WP:NFCC.

WP:NFCC#1: The guy worked for the US military. Any photos taken by the military would be {{PD-USGov}}. I don't know how the US military works, but a likely guess is that the military issues identity cards or takes photos for identification for some other reason. However, I would suspect that such photos typically are classified and thus not easily accessible to the general public. We have sometimes kept non-free photos of military buildings because they are inaccessible to anyone but the military, and this seems like a similar situation: it is very likely that there are free replacements, but they might be inaccessible to people outside the United States armed forces, de facto making this image irreplaceable by those images. There is a possibility that there are other images elsewhere which are easily accessible, so it might still be replaceable, but I'm not sure how to find out.

WP:NFCC#2: The image is sourced to NBC. {{Db-f7}} tells that images by certain companies such as Getty Images and the Associated Press can be deleted immediately per WP:CSD#F7. NBC seems to be a company fitting that criterion. Thus, the image appears to violate WP:NFCC#2, so it needs to be deleted.

WP:NFCC#8: This depends on how the image is used. The image currently violates WP:NFCC#7, so I'm not sure how it is meant to be used. It is pretty standard to allow irreplaceable non-free images of individuals in the main infobox in the article about the person. If that is how the image is meant to be used, then I don't see how it would violate WP:NFCC#8. --Stefan2 (talk) 13:24, 16 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Presumably replaceable. The death of a public figure does not operate as a carte blanche authorization to use a nonfree image ; the fact a free image might not prove easy to locate online does not show, as required under WP:NFCI, "that ever obtaining a free close substitute is not reasonably likely." Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 02:25, 20 February 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.