< July 8 July 10 >

July 9

File:Barty.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: speedily deleted as an attack file (non-admin closure). — Σxplicit 18:44, 9 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:Barty.JPG (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Cradaxi ( | contribs).
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:Samandmomatbrokenglass.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 Seresin (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 05:52, 17 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:Samandmomatbrokenglass.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Fleurings ( | contribs).
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:DisneyCheshireCat.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: - Keep - Peripitus (Talk) 07:20, 21 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:DisneyCheshireCat.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Lord Opeth ( | contribs).
"In the 1951 Disney movie, Alice in Wonderland, the Cheshire Cat is depicted as an intelligent yet mischievous character that sometimes helps Alice and sometimes gets her into trouble." What do you want, a thesis on his psychological inconsistencies? This image is iconic. ¦ Reisio (talk) 19:38, 11 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'd have to say this is a keep, as with most other cartoon characters. Stifle (talk) 11:04, 14 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Per above. Why delete an image when an image like it will eventually be loaded on the site. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 03:00, 15 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I wouldn't say it's critical to the commentary, but it's certainly a famous depiction of the Cheshire Cat. If Wikipedia is generally keeping images of cartoon characters for use on their pages, there's no reason to remove this image. 64.9.243.31 (talk) 15:36, 17 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I don't see a reason for it's removal, it depicts the character in his most famous form, a clear ilistration of the character, deleting this image would remove a clear image of the character, After all as an encylapedia, wikipedia's job is to give a clear understanding of a chosen topic, and as this tells of a cartoon character whose mere representation plays a large role in his image, I believe it should be kept.--AnOicheGhealai (talk) 17:02, 18 July 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.

Adam Wilson images

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: - Keep the infobox (Muhney) image and delete the rest. Random musing: it is interesting that the kept image (File:MichaelMuhney.jpg) looks basically identical to the actor wearing a black shirt as he is wont to do outside the series...even the hairstyle is unchanged. (see here). Perhaps in this case a free image could replace the remaining one ? - Peripitus (Talk) 07:17, 21 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:MichaelMuhney.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs)- uploaded by Kogsquinge ( | contribs).
File:ChrisEngen.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs)- uploaded by Candyo32 ( | contribs).
File:Adamandrafe.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs)- uploaded by Candyo32 ( | contribs).
(Note - The following three images are not currently included in the article. — TAnthonyTalk 01:34, 21 July 2009 (UTC))[reply]
File:Adammeetsvictor.png (delete | talk | history | logs)- uploaded by Candyo32 ( | contribs).
File:Adamandheather.png (delete | talk | history | logs)- uploaded by Candyo32 ( | contribs).
File:Adaminjail.png (delete | talk | history | logs)- uploaded by Candyo32 ( | contribs).
I would note that single images of alternate performers are conventionally included for identification purposes.— TAnthonyTalk 16:43, 9 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Per 3a, One image can not convey equivalent significant information, they are are different actors. As for the Rafe one, per User:TAnthony. - Epson291 (talk) 17:00, 9 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
And why do we need to see the different actors? We don't use the historical flags in the infobox of United Kingdom, and there isn't even a non-free use issue there. J Milburn (talk) 17:45, 9 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia:WikiProject Soap Operas states that in the template that if there are two portrayers, if an image is avaiable then to use both images of actors.Candyo32 (talk) 18:15, 9 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Guidelines issued by various WikiProjects are not binding and act as an unofficial manual of style. The cannot and do not overrule Wikipedia policies. AniMatedraw 18:20, 9 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep the image with Rafe, and at least other image depicting a storyline from the Engen era, other than the one in the infobox. Disneyxrulesx (talk) 15:06, 9 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep the first two pictures of the characters portrayer. I'm ambivalent on the last one, as it does involve a rare soap opera story garnering alot of main stream press. AniMatedraw 17:00, 9 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all but the main infobox image. A single image of the character is suitable for identification, but no one has yet explained why the other images are needed, and it is far from obvious. I fail to see why two infobox images are appropriate, unless the appearance of the character while portrayed by the past actor is discussed- this is exactly the same as the way we wouldn't have multiple covers, logos or photos of a dead person. The single image of how the character looks now is acceptable, any more have to be justified, and no one has done that yet. J Milburn (talk) 17:01, 9 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Can you point to policy or guideline that says that "unless the appearance of the character while portrayed by the past actor is discussed" there should only be one? The character has been portrayed by two different actors it is reasonable to have both actors visually protrayed for indenfication purposes. You wrote that "a single image of the character is suitable for identification" but with only one image a person would be unable to identify the character when portrayed by the other actor. - Epson291 (talk) 17:21, 9 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, and that's the current incarnation of the character. Using your logic, we would be justified in showing 30 images if the character had been portrayed by thirty actors. What about comanies? Every alternative logo? Books? Every alternative cover? Per our non-free content criteria, an image must add significantly. The character is already illustrated by the main image- so, what is the second one showing? The character with a different actor? Why do we need to see that? J Milburn (talk) 17:48, 9 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
To display what the character looked/looks like in his still most recognized incarnation. I agree that we should not have thirty images of a character to show that a character has been portrayed by thirty different actors. But, so far, there have only been two actors to portray the adult versions of this role. And Engen, who is discussed thoroughly within this article, is currently the most associated with this role. The image significantly enhances the reader's understanding of the article. Flyer22 (talk) 09:05, 11 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with what Flyer22 is saying, and yes, if the role was played by 30 characters I would absolutely not support 30 images here. However, there were two actors representing this adult character and a significant part of the article is about the first actor in regards to his role and controversy as this character. - Epson291 (talk) 04:06, 13 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all except the first one in the infobox, per J Milburn. Only one image is needed until the differences between the two portrayers are discussed. Then maybe two, but definitely not six. —Ed (Talk • Contribs) 17:10, 9 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • I think with the addition of the in-depth discussion of Engen's exit from the series now in the article, the second image is relevant. I'm still not sold on the other four. AniMatedraw 17:41, 9 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. It seems to me that the Engen image would be acceptable only if there were sourced commentary on how similar/dissimilar the two actors appear. But even then the current image version's dark blurry screenshot is not appropriate; perhaps one of the previous versions would be better. In any case the Rafe image is not needed for readers' understanding of the accompanying text. —teb728 t c 20:21, 9 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I've never believed that screenshots are necessary to illustrate characters who have no costumes or makeup, and so look exactly like the actor portraying them. So I'm inclined to delete all of them. Outside of that though, the only two images that aren't blatantly unjustified are the infobox ones; all others are excessive and should be deleted. ÷seresin 18:10, 10 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep the two infobox images, per what others have stated in favor of keeping those two images and what I stated to J Milburn above. Flyer22 (talk) 09:05, 11 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • A significant part of the article may be about the first character, but that doesn't suddenly mean that how he looked in the role is significant. J Milburn (talk) 10:56, 13 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • Of course it does. Visual identification of a character is important, and it is something words cannot convey. - Epson291 (talk) 13:51, 13 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        • And that's why I don't support the deletion of the main infobox image. I am challenging the need for the second. J Milburn (talk) 14:42, 13 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
          • So you agree that to be able to identify the character is important, but you still want to delete the image, enabling that impossible. The second image is of a different actor, and as has been pointed out, who's portrayal of the character was very notable. - Epson291 (talk) 23:30, 13 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
            • The character is identified by the first image. The second image is how the character used to look- yes, maybe that actor's portrayal of the character is important and worth discussing, but how he looked when playing the character is not. As you yourself said above, it would be ridiculous to show every incarnation of the character if he was played by 30 actors, and I see this as no different- we're showing two images of the character when one is enough. J Milburn (talk) 23:36, 13 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
              • I disagree with "how he looked when playing the character [not being important]." It is not about how he looked portraying the character; it is about the fact that this is how the character looked in his most substantial and notable incarnation; and that, within fiction, he will always look this way, due to fiction unfolding in the present for every new viewer who witnesses that part of the story for the first time or a viewer returning to that part of the story (meaning that olds clips of this character's original adult form on YouTube will always show him looking like Engen). I highly doubt that many different actors portraying one role would all be significantly substantial and notable to that role, which, besides the number, is the difference in this case.
              • With James Bond, only a few models and actors are significantly substantial and notable to that role...and you clearly see that the article at least shows more than one physical incarnation of the character. Flyer22 (talk) 01:31, 14 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
                • If that is the more important image of the character, then maybe it should be that one in the lead position, and the other one should be deleted. Regardless, I still fail to see why multiple images are needed. Again, would you support thirty different pictures, if it had been played by thirty actors? J Milburn (talk) 01:45, 14 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
                  • J Milburn, I have already given my reasons for why both images should be kept, and have already replied to your various actors question. The fate of this debate is now up to its closing administrator. Flyer22 (talk) 01:53, 14 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
                  • Thirty images? J Millburn, you are going straw man on us and blowing two performer images out of proportion.— TAnthonyTalk 01:34, 21 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
                    • Completely wrong, you appear to misunderstand the meaning of the term. The point I am making is that if two images are acceptable, would thirty images be? Would five images be? Would three images be? We have to determine some means to judge the appropriateness of the images. If you do not believe that thirty images would be, why? The argument given is "both of them performed as the character". If that argument is valid, then it would be valid no matter how many actors had portrayed him. Clearly, as we all agree thirty images would be excessive, it is not valid. J Milburn (talk) 01:37, 21 July 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.

File:ATT00048.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 Seresin (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 05:52, 17 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:ATT00048.JPG (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Hueydoc ( | contribs).
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:New pic 1.2.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 Peripitus (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 08:03, 21 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:New pic 1.2.JPG (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Hueydoc ( | contribs).
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:Alicia Keys - Songs In A Minor UK album.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 Seresin (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 05:52, 17 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:Alicia Keys - Songs In A Minor UK album.JPG (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Funk Junkie ( | contribs).
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:ICT HW LOGO.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 Seresin (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 05:52, 17 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:ICT HW LOGO.JPG (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Schoolkaadon28 ( | contribs).
File:ICT HW LOGO 2.JPG (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Schoolkaadon28 ( | contribs).
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.

Artistpraveen's images

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:

File:Artistpraveen.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs)- uploaded by Artistpraveen ( | contribs).
File:Artistpraveen1.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs)- uploaded by Artistpraveen ( | contribs).
File:Artistpraveen2.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs)- uploaded by Artistpraveen ( | contribs).
File:Artistpraveen3.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs)- uploaded by Artistpraveen ( | contribs).
File:Artistpraveen4.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs)- uploaded by Artistpraveen ( | contribs).
File:Artistpraveen5.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs)- uploaded by Artistpraveen ( | contribs).
File:Artistpraveen6.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs)- uploaded by Artistpraveen ( | contribs).
File:Artistpraveen7.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs)- uploaded by Artistpraveen ( | contribs).
File:Artistpraveen8.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs)- uploaded by Artistpraveen ( | contribs).
File:Artistpraveen9.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs)- uploaded by Artistpraveen ( | contribs).
File:Artistpraveen10.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs)- uploaded by Artistpraveen ( | contribs).
File:Artistpraveen11.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs)- uploaded by Artistpraveen ( | contribs).
File:Nature(AP).jpg (delete | talk | history | logs)- uploaded by Artistpraveen ( | contribs).
File:Artistpraveen File-black and white nature.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs)- uploaded by Artistpraveen ( | contribs).
File:Black and white nature.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs)- uploaded by Artistpraveen ( | contribs).
File:Artist praveen.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs)- uploaded by Artistpraveen ( | contribs).
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:ChileCongress.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 Seresin (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 05:52, 17 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:ChileCongress.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Cantus ( | contribs).
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:Gotbattling.png

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 .Discounting the issues that have been resolved, and those not arguments not having a policy basis, there is a consensus that the image does not meet NFCC#8 (it does not significantly increase reader's understanding). Image also lacks an acceptable rationale (see Wikipedia:Non-free use rationale guideline) - Peripitus (Talk) 11:08, 24 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:Gotbattling.png (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Jeremjay24 ( | contribs).
Keep, That rationale is so ambiguous that it's easily fixed in just a few seconds. ViperSnake151  Talk  20:17, 10 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I can't think of a rationale that would pass WP:NFCC#8. —teb728 t c 20:54, 10 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I bet you don't even understand that rule. Jeremjay24 (talk) 14:20, 14 July 2009 (UTC) [reply]
Delete: there is no commentary of any kind about this non-free image in the prose and it very specifically fails WP:NFCC#8. ww2censor (talk) 14:35, 14 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment to All Read my vote. I uploaded it because the Games department themselves asked me to make a screenshot. So I did it. Why do you let RuneScape Classic's battle screen stay up but not this one? It's exactly the same. Stop vandalizing Gods of Time's page. Jeremjay24 (talk) 15:22, 17 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The video game WikiProject has no authority to override our non-free content criteria. In this debate, we are talking about this image- if you feel another image should be deleted, you are welcome to nominate that for deletion yourself. J Milburn (talk) 15:26, 17 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Ok jeremjay24, calm yourself....... Ok, now this is a battle screen, and Gods of Time isn't as popular as RuneScape, and how come RuneScape Classic's battle screen show but not this picture? That shows a bad graphic person shoot a bad graphic person. In this one, it shows someone hitting someone! SAME EXACT THING! I looked in many image rules and I cannot find one about a picture about this! J Milburn, give me 5 reasons why you put this up for deletion. So why did you put it up for deletion? I can't think of at least one. Oh yeah. RuneScape's picture has the picture on the left side. Gods of Time's page has it on the right side. Does it matter what side it is? Are you that sensitive? Cannot be. Jeremjay24 (talk) 20:23, 17 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
As I said, this image is about this image. If you believe there is an issue with the RS image, nominate it. As is noted in the non-free content criteria, the burden of proof lies with those wishing to include the image- as such, it is not up to me to give you "5 reasons why [I] put this up for deletion"- you simply need to explain how this image meets non-free content criterion 8. J Milburn (talk) 21:24, 17 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: As a Non-free Screenshot there is most certainly not a free alternative. A screenshot is clearly useful in articles describing games as it shows the features that the article is talking about in a clear manner. The nom makes no sense as an image can be shrunk to any size to fit any particular pages needs.--Gordonrox24 | Talk 20:32, 17 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Woot you voted! Thanks for voting for keep! Jeremjay24 (talk) 14:28, 18 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
As I said previously, I can give my input, but I doubt I can change anybody's mind.--Gordonrox24 | Talk 14:46, 18 July 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.

File:PeterPan1.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: keep. There were legitimate arguments raised for keeping this file, and they seemed to enjoy considerably more support than the legitimate arguments raised for deleting it. Steve Smith (talk) (formerly Sarcasticidealist) 04:08, 27 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:PeterPan1.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by SFTVLGUY2 ( | contribs).
  • I fail to see what this image is adding. Yes, the portrayal is significant, and is worth mentioning. How she looked when in role as the character is unimportant. J Milburn (talk) 18:09, 9 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Mary Martin as this character is one of the most famous roles in Broadway and television history. It also adds a great deal to see Martin and her costume in color. Pepso2 (talk) 12:40, 10 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merely stating that it does doesn't make it so. If the appearance of the character is so important, why is there no sourced discussion of it? If you actually read my nomination, you'd understand why your argument is completely invalid. J Milburn (talk) 12:45, 10 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
And merely stating "I don't get it" doesn't make it not so. - Jason A. Quest (talk) 19:46, 13 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
No, but the burden of proof is on you to demonstrate that it is necessary, not on me to demonstrate that it isn't. J Milburn (talk) 09:15, 16 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep on the basis that it is an historic role,and there should be no problem finding sources to that effect. From the WP article, ref 10,--source is Time: ""Mary Martin, America's favorite leading lady of musical comedy, as Ens. Nellie Forbush in "South Pacific," Maria von Trapp in "The Sound of Music" or the title role in "Peter Pan," died Saturday afternoon at her home in Rancho Mirage, Calif. She was 76 years old."" Evidence for it being one of his 3 most famous roles. From ref 7, similar evidence. --source is again Time: "Mary Martin, 68, star of Broadway's original South Pacific and TV's first Peter Pan, in good condition (after an automobile accident). --source is Time. DGG (talk) 23:48, 10 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete: All that is true and perfectly understandable without showing this image. The criterion for use of a non-free image is, "Non-free content is used only if its presence would significantly increase readers' understanding of the topic, and its omission would be detrimental to that understanding." —teb728 t c 06:37, 11 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The image is particularly useful at Producers' Showcase where the broadcast of Peter Pan is discussed at length. 209.247.22.164 (talk) 15:04, 13 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I just want to say that if non-free content was used only if its presence would significantly increase readers' understanding of the topic, then there would be hardly any illustrations in Wikipedia. 209.247.22.164 (talk) 15:04, 13 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
We accept that there are a lot more than there should be, but you are pretty much quoting our non-free content criteria there. If you accept that this does not significantly increase reader understanding, then you're arguing for deletion. J Milburn (talk) 15:11, 13 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I know I was quoting the non-free content criteria. The point I was trying to make is that I don't agree with it! 209.247.22.164 (talk) 19:43, 13 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Actually strict enforcement would not have that great an effect on the number of illustrations in Wikipedia as a whole: Most illustrations are either free or PD and so are not covered by NFCC. —teb728 t c 20:42, 13 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
So, 209, what you're actually saying is "this violates the NFCC, but, because I don't agree with the NFCC, I support it being kept". Not only is this a non-policy argument, it's an anti-policy argument. J Milburn (talk) 21:02, 13 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Just want to interject here that the Disney image of Peter Pan (1953) was so pervasive that it's necessary to provide a contrasting image of Martin, ranked by many as historically equal to or superior to the Disney image. Films have a staying power resulting in revisionist histories. For example, people today are unaware that the films of Marty and Days of Wine and Roses are actually inferior to the original TV productions. Pepso2 (talk) 13:53, 16 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Again, I am not proposing we don't discuss her role, I'm just saying it's not necessary to show a picture of her. Is her appearance notworthy? J Milburn (talk) 14:06, 16 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep This is possibly Martin's most famous role, and the first live television broadcast of Peter Pan in March 1955 on Producers' Showcase was historically significant in that it drew the highest ratings for a single television program up to that time. It was so popular it was presented again the following January. LiteraryMaven (talk • contrib) 16:42, 16 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Ok... So why does that mean we keep it? What is the image adding? Lord of the Rings was possibly Tolkein's most famous work, we don't place pictures of him while he was writing it on the article, nor do we use the book cover. The significance can easily be explained in words. J Milburn (talk) 11:18, 17 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note to closing admin: This user already !voted above. –Drilnoth (T • C • L) 15:57, 24 July 2009 (UTC) Keep for all reasons already mentioned. 209.247.22.164 (talk) 13:40, 17 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment We get it, J Milburn, you don't think this image adds anything to the articles where it appears. You don't have to repeat yourself every time someone votes to keep it. You made your opinion clear, so please stop trying to shove it down everyone's throats. People aren't going to going to change their votes just because you keep protesting! 209.247.22.164 (talk) 13:40, 17 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
No, but others are going to ignore their votes because what they've said is clearly not inline with policy, and misses the point entirely. J Milburn (talk) 13:45, 17 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. I was about to actually close this as "delete" and had a whole long closing comment written out, but it would inevitably be taken to DRV. I'm just not convinced by any of the keep !votes that this image is nesseccary. Many of them seem to discuss the fact that Martin portrayed the character without discussing this image specifically... comments which would belong in a discussion about the text of the article which this picture is used with, but not in a deletion discussion. The other !votes seem to have hints of WP:ITSUSEFUL, and do not address the policy concerns, of which there are two major ones. First, WP:NFCC#1—can text provide a replacement for the image? I'd say yes, because actually seeing the image in the article about the actress is not nessecary and her appearance in the role can be described with text. WP:NFCC#8—Does her appearance in the role significantly increase the readers' understanding? I don't think it really does... it seems more like a decoration, and without discussion from reliable sources about her actual appearance, I don't see what the image is supposed to supplement. J.Milburn brings up many valid points above. –Drilnoth (T • C • L) 15:57, 24 July 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.

File:Christian Center Church,Anaheim,Pastor Staff.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 Seresin (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 05:52, 17 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:Christian Center Church,Anaheim,Pastor Staff.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Ctrups ( | contribs).
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:Melodyland,Ralph Wilkerson,1970.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 Seresin (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 05:52, 17 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:Melodyland,Ralph Wilkerson,1970.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Ctrups ( | contribs).
  • Unclear source. Possibly in the public domain due to being published prior to 1978 in the US without a copyright notice. I've declined the speedy, and brought it here for discussion. PhilKnight (talk) 18:45, 9 July 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.

File:RamBahadurBamjan.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 Seresin (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 05:52, 17 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:RamBahadurBamjan.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Mskadu ( | contribs).
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:ANON.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 Seresin (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 05:52, 17 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:ANON.JPG (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Saint Malice ( | contribs).
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:P2260009.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 Seresin (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 05:52, 17 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:P2260009.JPG (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Saint Malice ( | contribs).
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:Jionu.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 Seresin (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 05:52, 17 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:Jionu.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Saint Malice ( | contribs).
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:Abcc5722.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 Seresin (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 05:52, 17 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:Abcc5722.JPG (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Wad572 ( | contribs).
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:Aboutnext splash.gif

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 Seresin (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 05:52, 17 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:Aboutnext splash.gif (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Accaldwell ( | contribs).
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.
Allikas: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Files_for_deletion/2009_July_9
No tags for this post.