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 by Backslash Forwardslash (talk · contribs) as unambiguous copyright infringement (non-admin closure). — Σxplicit 04:50, 31 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:Portsmouth pompey.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Hazza111 (notify | contribs).

• I'm pretty sure this is a copyvio - see [1] for instance. And it is an orphan. Tagishsimon (talk) 01:29, 31 August 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 Skier Dude (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 06:04, 8 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:Pahar 07 cover image.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Anoop8725 (notify | contribs).

• Not used to identify the article's subject; a portrait is already included. This non-free use is unjustified. (ESkog)^(Talk) 02:29, 31 August 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 Skier Dude (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 06:04, 8 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:Kamala Sankrityayan.JPG (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Anoop8725 (notify | contribs).

• Image not being used to identify the subject of the article. If the wife were notable enough for her own article, it could be used there, but she isn't so it shouldn't be. The actual article subject is already identified. (ESkog)^(Talk) 02:30, 31 August 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. Image fails WP:NFCC #8. The image is not necessary to understand the article. It just shows what the actors looked like. -Nv8200p talk 12:59, 19 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:ETKidcast.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Alientraveller (notify | contribs).

• Unjustifiable FU image; not necessary for subject understanding. ÷seresin 02:47, 31 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • What, you mean it's not justified to show the main characters? Alientraveller (talk) 09:14, 31 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. The article isn't about the characters, it's about the movie, and there's not much particularly noteworthy about this scene. (ESkog)^(Talk) 03:42, 2 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. The image had an incorrect rationale. It's used to illustrate the major members of the cast, in a section about the cast of ET. I've updated the rationale to reflect this. — PyTom (talk) 16:56, 5 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - I believe the only reasonable reason to delete this would be WP:NFCC#8, we don't need to have this image for the readers to understand, however, the image is extremely useful for those of us who don't always remember what the characters look like. It is actually a very well chosen still that captures just the characters. — sligocki (talk) 21:00, 8 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, not required for readers to understand this article about the movie. Stifle (talk) 11:13, 19 September 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: keep Skier Dude (talk) 04:24, 8 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:ET1982.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Alientraveller (notify | contribs).

• Unjustifiable FU image; not required for understanding of the subject. ÷seresin 02:48, 31 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • How is showing a major difference between the two versions not required to understand the subject. Alientraveller (talk) 09:14, 31 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. This is a situation where the image is able to communicate something the text could not effectively show, the controversial changes made in the new edition. (ESkog)^(Talk) 03:42, 2 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. If it's ridiculed on South Park it is important. Seriously, it is indeed not required to understand what's written in plain words. But NFCC does not claim absolute "must-be-required or delete"; current policy requires that "its presence would significantly increase readers' understanding of the topic, and its omission would be detrimental to that understanding". Here is the case where image provides significant clues to the scope and appearance of changes made to original film that are not evident from the text and, IMO, satisfies NFCC:8. NVO (talk) 20:32, 6 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. The image clearly illustrates an important point in the article. If you believe that change made betweens the two versions of the movie the isn't a major enough issue to warrant a mention(I disagree though) then the image wouldn't really be justified but as long as that point remains in the article the image remains useful.--Danie Tei (talk) 06:14, 7 September 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 per consensus that image fails WP:NFCC #8. -Nv8200p talk 13:09, 19 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:Saw Videogame Screen 18.jpeg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by GroundZ3R0 002 (notify | contribs).

• Unjustifiable FU image. Seeing a person play the game is not at all necessary to understand the subject. ÷seresin 03:11, 31 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep as it displays the first and primary marketing solution from Konami on the game. It shows the booth from E3 which gives readers a perspective on the scope and possible impact from a movie-based game which is typically not marketed at all but simply overshadowed by the film. This important picture displays the change in tradition on movie-game development cycles and if successful, would revolutionize the reputation and methods involving other movie games. This picture is essential to readers understanding the evolution of this game as compared to other games. See Halo 3#Marketing and release for a similar picture of game marketing. In addition, the booth image of Billy the Puppet, a staple for the Saw series, who has also been shown prominently in the games, and other Saw films, marketing methods. Seeing his immense pop culture impact (Scary Movie 4, etc.), it would further detriment readers knowledge of the game and its universe by removing the only picture of the icon on this article. Basically, this image has a plethora of use in this article in many different aspects and it would severely dampen the article if it were deleted. Maybe this same image, if it wasn't uploaded correctly, can be re-uploaded by an Wiki administrator to fit Wiki policies. GroundZ3R0 002 (talk) 07:00, 3 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. This doesn't add enough to the article to be worth the copyright taking. If the article discussed the event, then maybe... but even there, this image doesn't really add that much. I'll note that the image in Halo 3 is a free image. — PyTom (talk) 16:59, 5 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• I just added a thorough mention of the image and its relevance to the topic on the article (SEE HERE) GroundZ3R0 002 (talk) 07:47, 6 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete; in so far as the image is necessary for readers to understand the article, it is replaceable by a free image that could be taken of someone playing the game. Stifle (talk) 11:14, 19 September 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 Rettetast (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 10:43, 13 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:Plrid.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Irlp (notify | contribs).

• Claimed GFDL-self. While it is possible that the person writing the article on the company (see their contributions) also wrote the diagram, it is unlikely. It is also unlikely that if the diagram is copyrightable, they intend to release it into PD. Going here instead of PUF because there are more than a few problems. Protonk (talk) 06:55, 31 August 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 Skier Dude (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 06:04, 8 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:Crude NGPL IEAtotal 1960-2004.png (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by AndrasCz (notify | contribs).

• OB, replaced by vector versionFile:Crude NGPL IEAtotal 1960-2008.svg Iorsh (talk) 08:31, 31 August 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 Rettetast (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 10:43, 13 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:Milo-Packet.JPG (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Waycool27 (notify | contribs).

• Milo drinks carton contains derivative works. Bidgee (talk) 10:06, 31 August 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 as failing NFCC#8. As for the image below, neither keep argument shows how the image significantly adds to reader's understanding - Peripitus (Talk) 07:41, 15 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:ROL3Cast.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by ElPilotoDi (notify | contribs).

• This image fails WP:NFCC#8 as non-essential to understanding of the subject, and also WP:NFCC#1 as it only depicts people who are still alive. Stifle (talk) 10:41, 31 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep as it is an image of a large group of people and is therefore extremely unlike that the photo could be reproduced. It does, weakly, satisfy NFCC#8 as it helps the reader understand the diversity of the women appearing on the show. Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 03:34, 2 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  The diversity could easily be explained using text. Stifle (talk) 12:02, 2 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. We don't need a non-free image depicting the diversity of the women. That doesn't add anything to the understanding of the readers that text can't do alone. — Σxplicit 21:10, 14 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  This was an interesting read. Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 23:44, 14 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. Accompanying photos in articles is S.O.P., and the purpose of doing so is self-evident. Illustrating the diversity is not the issue, IMO, but illustrating the article is. "Understanding" can be a subjective thing, but knowing what something looks like indeed counts as "more understanding". It's the whole point of images. Nightscream (talk) 00:15, 15 September 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 - as failing NFCC#8. Non-free images must do more that simply illustrate - as this is what all images do whether they are decorative or not. It must be shown how they significantly add to reader's understanding and the arguments below do not demonstrate this - Peripitus (Talk) 07:39, 15 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:FOL3Cast.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by ElPilotoDi (notify | contribs).

• This image fails WP:NFCC#8 as it does not significantly increase readers' understanding of the subject, and its omission would not be detrimental to that understanding. Stifle (talk) 10:42, 31 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep as it is an image of a large group of people and is therefore extremely unlike that the photo could be reproduced. It does, weakly, satisfy NFCC#8 as it helps the reader understand the diversity of the women appearing on the show. Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 03:35, 2 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  That diversity could be successfully understood using text. Stifle (talk) 10:04, 4 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Bollocks, a picture is worth a *thousand* words. In the case of a moving-picture or televisual presentation of human behaviour & interaction, 'text' is so incredibly pale a shadow of what the work presents, as to be worthless. How are you going to even start to recognise, assess and understand the discussed characters -- without a picture?

Stupid editorial is *so* the rage on Wikipedia. Keep it. 202.37.64.48 (talk) 02:43, 13 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. We don't need a non-free image depicting the diversity of the women. That doesn't add anything to the understanding of the readers that text can't do alone. — Σxplicit 21:10, 14 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  If an image adds nothing, why do we have images at all? This was an interesting read. Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 23:45, 14 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. Accompanying photos in articles is S.O.P., and the purpose of doing so is self-evident. Illustrating the diversity is not the issue, IMO, but illustrating the article is. "Understanding" can be a subjective thing, but knowing what something looks like indeed counts as "more understanding". It's the whole point of images. Nightscream (talk) 00:15, 15 September 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 Peripitus (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 09:03, 15 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:American-Commune-Bedtime-Story.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Double.reed (notify | contribs).

• This non-free image doesn't seem to be serving any particular critical function in Commune (intentional community). There's no discussion of the book it's taken from, or the significance of the people in the photograph, or anything. It's just a random picture of people in a commune, and I don't think that's the way non-free images ares supposed to be used. Pais (talk) 13:39, 31 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - Agreed, This could easily be replaced by a free image WP:NFCC#1 and isn't even important to the article (let alone necessary) WP:NFCC#8. — sligocki (talk) 21:12, 8 September 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 Skier Dude (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 06:04, 8 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:Linomalogo.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by [[User talk:#File:Linomalogo.jpg listed for deletion|]] ([ notify] | contribs).

• replaced with linomalogo.gif Dirkzwart (talk) 16:55, 31 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

((duplicate|Dozor-600_Maks2009.jpg)) 92.46.145.13 (talk) 22:12, 31 August 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.