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 debate was: Keep (by non-admin due too tardy of housekeeping)   Justmeherenow (  ) 17:35, 2 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Fey Poehler as Palin Clinton.png (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Jamie jca ( | contribs).

• Non-free image that is replaceable by free images   Justmeherenow (  ) 06:09, 28 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - while the article it is used in is currently under AfD and depending on that outcome it will impact here should it become an orphan; this image is not replaceable by free images of Fey and Poehler.--Jordan 1972 (talk) 14:14, 28 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - Image:SNL Palin Clinton.png is used in several other articles and has not been contested, can that be a substitute for this image? —Politizer ^talk/_contribs 17:49, 28 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • I'd be fine with deletion were that changeover to occur. Powers ^T 18:18, 28 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, not replaceable unless Fey starts appearing as Palin in public (not likely!). Powers ^T 18:18, 28 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• I agree with LtPowers that there is no free equivalent, and therefore no reason provided for deletion. As for the other image listed above, I think it is perhaps a better image for the article in question, as the text on the image it relates to the video, which is the article in which it is used. On that related note, I'm not sure the FU rationale for use in the Tina Fey on this new image is valid, as it doesn't significantly increase the reader's understanding of Tina Fey; it would, however enhance the reader's understanding in the video article (as would the one up for deletion). seresin ( ¡? )  23:57, 28 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • I agree completely. Powers ^T 02:14, 29 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Non-free image that is not replaceable by free images, unless it turns out that some maverick (ha ha) photographer was in the studio at the time and divulges his/her photos -- which in turn might raise legal problems. So keep already. -- Hoary (talk) 04:40, 2 November 2008 (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 debate was: - Commonsed - Peripitus (Talk) 03:00, 5 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Image:T r.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by El C ( | contribs).

• Orphaned PD image of Teddy Roosevelt. Ricky81682 (talk) 04:48, 28 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - I personally like this picture of Teddy, as it shows a more human side missing in the article - maybe we could remove one of the political cartoons and use this instead? - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 14:43, 28 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Since when did we delete orphaned public domain images? They're free, so if anything it should be moved to Commons. ···日本穣^{? · Talk to Nihonjoe} 01:58, 29 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

In fact, I've done just that, so the image can be deleted as a duplicate. ···日本穣^{? · Talk to Nihonjoe} 02:42, 29 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I forgot but my point was that it was a smaller version of Image:Theodore Roosevelt laughing.jpg at Commons, but I guess it's a moot point. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 04:22, 29 October 2008 (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 debate was: - Delete - basically on the basis of NFCC#8 - there is nothing below or in the image description page to show why the image significantly increases reader's understanding. The image is also of such low quality and resolution that it could also be replaced by a simple piece of text. - Peripitus (Talk) 03:32, 5 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Fr.John.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Simon Cheakkanal (talk).

• CV: Appears to be a scan of a newspaper image. Also LQ. Image was tagged back in June but never listed here. Springnuts (talk) 10:06, 28 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The picture is scanned from the book Thomas Inchakkalody, Archbishop Mar Ivanios Vol.1, p. 400. Simon Cheakkanal (talk) 10:39, 28 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

When has the book been published? If before 60 years, then it's a public domain image. Else, since the subject is dead, you can state non-free-image copyright template as in Image:C achuthamenon.jpg. --Jacob.jose (talk) 21:17, 28 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: I feel the current license is correct. --Jacob.jose (talk) 22:53, 2 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Date of book publication The book was only published in 2006 - see Mar_Ivanios#Sources - so is certainly still in copyright. Springnuts (talk) 22:32, 3 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Anyone said otherwise? Simon has replaced the license template on the image with "Non-free fair use in" --Jacob.jose (talk) 22:37, 3 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

OK, thanks - but issues remain in terms of WP:FUP esp policy #8 (LQ of image - does it "significantly increase readers' understanding of the topic") and #10 - a properly written fair use rationale. Springnuts (talk) 22:56, 3 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

As the only image of the subject in the article, I don't understand how it shouldn't conform to #8. About #10, could you elaborate what is the problem or show this new user by making the change yourself? --Jacob.jose (talk) 00:44, 4 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I am real newbie about licensing issues - I just note that WP:FUP is written in a much tighter way than most Wiki Policy - as has to be precisely as it is not free material. What I don't see there is a template for a fair use rationale - so sorry but I can't help write one, but the policy is clear that there must be one. The #8 issue is this: the image is very low quality - far too poor imo to be identifiable as the one person - so does it add anything to the reader's understanding? Springnuts (talk) 21:38, 4 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your comments. I faced a similar situation in Image:C achuthamenon.jpg. Then I created {{Template:Non-free Indian-politician-photo}} and placed it there. However, it was replaced by {{:Non-free fair use in|C. Achutha Menon}} by another user. Since I have not been an expert in this, I thought this template is more suited and didn't challenge the replacement. So I advised similarly for this image

About #8, having something is better than nothing. Unlike the former, I have little concern about this. --Jacob.jose (talk) 22:00, 4 November 2008 (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 debate was: - Delete - We don't host non-free images of living people without exceptional reasons. - Peripitus (Talk) 01:23, 5 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Lucas Cruikshank as Fred screenshot.png (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Rtphokie ( | contribs).

• This is a non-free image used, nominally, per our FU guidelines. It, however, is replaceable by a free image for both articles. (Therefore failing point 1 of the FU policy) We don't put FU images for biographies (point 12 under the Image section under the Unacceptable use section of the FU policy), and there isn't an FU image needed for the channel page, as a picture of Cruickshank himself will suffice, per point 8 of the FU policy: a picture from a specific video gives the reader no better understanding of the channel than a picture of Cruikshank himself would. Therefore, the non-fair image fails our FU policy, and should be deleted. seresin ( ¡? )  22:27, 28 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It's an image of Cruickshank himself used in a biographical page.It's a screenshot from the work he's best known for.--Rtphokie (talk) 23:26, 28 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Fair use is used to show actor's playing their characters all the time... see John Locke (Lost), Fred Elliott, Mark Corrigan. That is just your interpretation of point eight, it doesn't explicitly state that, and the precedent used elsewhere overules it (otherwise, we'd better get to work on deleting the thousands of images used for character pages). I believe that it does show him in character and is therefore of value. (The image should be removed from the Cruishank page though, definately). Yohan euan o4 (talk) 13:40, 29 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The difference would be that there is significant difference between what those actors would regularly appear like, and what Cruikshank looks like as Fred. There's not enough difference to require a use of a copyrighted image. seresin ( ¡? )  23:49, 29 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well this shows Cruishank portraying Fred much more starkly...would something like that qualify? I'm not going to fight desperately for this photo; I realize that there is some ambiguity over whether or not it is 'in character' enough. Yohan euan o4 (talk) 01:24, 30 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That is on the LA Times website, would it be fair use?--Rtphokie (talk) 02:34, 31 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The source isn't the issue, it's the rationale. My argument is that no rationale for a copyrighted image from one of the videos would be valid. No image of Cruikshank qua Fred would give the reader significantly more understanding of the channel than a picture of Cruikshank himself would, and therefore the FU policy does not provide for an image used under fair use. seresin ( ¡? )  21:25, 2 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

As far as I'm aware, most copyrighted material can be used, providing the rationale is in order...and it certainly works for most TV shows. The source shouldn't be too much of an obstacle. Yohan euan o4 (talk) 14:50, 31 October 2008 (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 debate was: - Delete - We don't host non-free images of living people without exceptional reasons. - Peripitus (Talk) 01:23, 5 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Nigahiga screenshot.png (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Rtphokie ( | contribs).

• Does not meet our FU policy. It is a non-free image that can be replaced by a free image, as an image from a video from this YouTube channel gives the reader no better understanding of that channel than a free image of the creator would. In addition, the image in used in a biography page, which fails point 12 under the Image section in the unacceptable use section of the FU policy. seresin ( ¡? )  22:32, 28 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

As above, what free image do you propose replacing this with?--Rtphokie (talk) 23:27, 28 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have no image to replace it with. However, an image with which we can replace this one exists, and, as below, this fact means use of this image is not permitted per our FU policy. seresin ( ¡? )  23:51, 29 October 2008 (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 debate was: - Delete - We don't host non-free images of living people without exceptional reasons. - Peripitus (Talk) 01:23, 5 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Brian Collins screen shot.png (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Rtphokie ( | contribs).

• This is a non-free image used in a biography page, which is not permitted per our FU policy (point 12 under the image heading of the unacceptable use section). seresin ( ¡? )  22:36, 28 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No free image exists as a replacement. This is a screen shot of a TV program that the subject of this biographical article is best known for.--Rtphokie (talk) 23:27, 28 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Just because we do not possess a free image does not mean it does not exist. They do exist, and therefore it is replaceable by a free image, which means it fails the FU policy. seresin ( ¡? )  23:50, 29 October 2008 (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.