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 Stifle (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 11:07, 27 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:ABC Money Matters 2007 08 17.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Dhaluza (notify | contribs).

• Irrelevant non-free image. It's a screenshot of a news broadcast showing some faces just to make the point that the article's subject was covered in the news. Fails WP:NFCC#8 Damiens.rf 00:25, 20 March 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 PhilKnight (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 15:10, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

• Rationale seems to violate the NFCC; it describes the image as "cover art" which it patently isn't. I think it also is replaceable by text which describes the event. We have plenty of free images of Spears and don't need to use a non-free one in this article. (ESkog)^(Talk) 02:57, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  The rationale was originally the boilerplate album cover art rationale, which was then partially addressed by Alecsdaniel, and then reverted by another user to the "cover art" version. In either case, I believe the replaceability of the image is the more significant concern. (ESkog)^(Talk) 14:25, 21 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. No encyclopedic purpose. Also, per pd_THOR.
• Keep. The event is one of the most talked about in the history of today's music, VMA's and Britney performances. It was ranked my MTV as the most memorable opening of the VMA's. Maybe there should be given a better explanation, but it's notable enough for the singer's career. Alecsdaniel (talk) 15:33, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - Yes, the event is notable and should be covered in the article, but we don't need to see this image to understand what happened. --Damiens.rf 16:07, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per Alecsdaniel. Stifle (talk) 16:47, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Event is already sufficiently covered by libre text (WP:NFCC#1), and the article makes no discussion of this image itself (WP:NFCC#8). — pd_THOR ^{| =/\=} | 18:03, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete we have tons of images of both individuals; the image was potentially staged for publicity anyway; it's not actually a good shot of either of the two participants. Stuartyeates (talk) 03:18, 21 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Inopropiate and personal.MusicMan4444 (talk) 13:27, 21 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep: Easily fair-use as "Film and television screen shots: For critical commentary and discussion of the cinema and television." Cosmic Latte (talk) 11:19, 22 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • But there is no sourced critical commentary on on the image used, only a description thereof, hence the problem. — pd_THOR ^{| =/\=} | 17:34, 22 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - Per nom. Although, no amount of free text will equal the fascination that creepy guys have with seeing two attention-seeking "bisexual" girls kissing in front of rooms filled with creepy guys. That is a scientific fact. ▫ JohnnyMrNinja 03:03, 23 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• "'Keep'" it's an extremely famous image in her career. that image made front page of many major newspapers. it should stay. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.165.32.11 (talk • contribs) 16:56, 23 March 2009
  • If that's the case, it's exactly the kind of reliably sourced critical commentary the article needs. — pd_THOR ^{| =/\=} | 17:23, 23 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • As said before, the event was notable. The image itself not. Those newspapers were not discussing the image. They were using it as an illustration for the event. --Damiens.rf 18:46, 23 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep The picture serves as useful a purpose as any other picture. It was an important moment and should be shown. It deserves to be used as much as any other picture, just because 2 girls are kissing does not justify recommending or supporting its deletion. I have a feeling if it was a normal picture of Britney kissing some guy, there wouldn't be such a discussion. —Preceding unsigned comment added by SomeGuy11112 (talk • contribs) 21:34, 24 March 2009
  • But "any other picture" which is a free image is available, and we consider such images to be superior. (ESkog)^(Talk) 21:58, 24 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Neither being useful nor the importance of content are our considerations for using copyrighted material. You seem to be under the mistaken impression that the image is nominated for deletion because it's controversial; it's not. — pd_THOR ^{| =/\=} | 22:18, 24 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Well, you could perhaps understand how he would come to that mistaken impression, given MusicMan4444's comment above, which is utterly off-point for this deletion discussion. SS451 (talk) 06:52, 26 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, the photo is not needed to describe the subjects Madonna, Britney Spears or women kissing. It is used as an eyecatcher without educational background and thats not what fair use is good for. --Martin H. (talk) 15:05, 25 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. As said above, it is not a generic image that can be replaced. It illustrates an event that was highly publicized and was (arguably) one of the more memorable events of Spears' career. As far as I know, there's no free picture of that even available. I also believe that the picture illustrates the controversy of that case much better than it would be possible using only text. The text on the issue needs to be expanded, but the image should be kept. Averell (talk) 16:01, 25 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • There've been no claims that there is a libre picture of this particular event, only that a copyrighted picture of this event isn't necessitated by the article. You mention "controversy" over the image, but the article doesn't support that. This particular image doesn't help readers understand that these two singers kissed, nor does that event become less understandable w/o seeing it (WP:NFCC#8). — pd_THOR ^{| =/\=} | 23:55, 27 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • I've tried to point out why I think this picture meets the non-free guidelines. I did say that the article needs work on the issue; but in my opinion that doesn't make the the image less significant or warrant it's deletion. Plus I do think that the event becomes less understandable without the picture. Feel free to clarify your position here, but note that it's not that I don't understand your arguments given above. I just disagree with them. Averell (talk) 08:53, 28 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Significant. A picture is worth a thousand words, in an encyclopedia or anywhere else. Steve Hyland (talk) 21:57, 26 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • That's not a Wikipedia policy- or guideline-based argument for using this copyrighted image. — pd_THOR ^{| =/\=} | 23:55, 27 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Sorry, but Significance is the only point of the [[non-free content guidelines that is under discussion here. Averell (talk) 08:53, 28 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Very significant photo, widely considered to be a milestone in her career.StradTrumpeter (talk) 23:43, 27 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • If this photo is considered a milestone in either singer's career, the article does not bear this out. — pd_THOR ^{| =/\=} | 23:55, 27 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • We just have to add a sentence or two that bears that out, and it's ok. Alecsdaniel (talk) 10:53, 28 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep- Significant point in the singers career 86.161.254.11 (talk) 18:22, 28 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Per Alecsdaniel. Although someone should add the properly information regarding the importance of this performance - since we've established it is important. Lucian C. (talk) 19:37, 28 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep- Complements the section in the article that discusses it (which it clearly has to because of how popular the issue became) Fatla00 (talk) 20:29, 28 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Discusses it?? Its one line, and this line perfectly describes what the image shows: They locked lips. Btw: neither the creator nor the holder of copyrights is mentioned in the image description. --Martin H. (talk) 16:18, 29 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The media didn't think it was "just" some locked lips. Alecsdaniel (talk) 12:51, 30 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• An update: the article still has no corroboration for necessity of this image, noting only that Spears "was later joined by American pop singer Madonna, with whom Spears and Aguilera both locked lips; the incident was highly publicized." This image is not discussed, only the event. — pd_THOR ^{| =/\=} | 02:28, 4 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Sorry, but the guidelines do not require that the text discusses the image itself (if the image is used illustrate an event). However it is necessary that the event itself is significant and that the event is somewhat harder to understand without the image. You're right though, that the text is still somewhat thin. Averell (talk) 11:17, 4 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• The Non-free content acceptable use guidelines say that "television screen shots" may be used "[f]or critical commentary and discussion of the cinema and television." The event warrants sourced description with prose, but there is no evidence of any sourced critical commentary on the depiction of said event. — pd_THOR ^{| =/\=} | 13:59, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Non-free image used to show information that can be adequately conveyed with (free) text alone. We don't need to see either performer or the act of kissing to understand that they kissed. Fails WP:NFCC#1 and #8. Jay32183 (talk) 03:11, 4 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• And #10a!! If you go to gettyimages.com and enter britney madonna kiss you will find a possible source. The lack of sourcing shows me the purpose of this upload. --Martin H. (talk) 09:16, 4 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• What has the lack of sourcing to do with the purpose? In any case, that point could easily be remedied. Also #1 is only violated if you assume that the image is used to illustrate "Britney Spears", in which case it would be easily replaceable. If you assume that it illustrate the event, it isn't. Still, #8 is under discussion. Averell (talk) 11:17, 4 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• No, I'm saying it violates #1 because the event can be explained entirely with text. "Britney Spears and Madonna kissed." There, you have a full understanding of the incident and there's no picture. Jay32183 (talk) 05:57, 5 April 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 Stifle (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 11:07, 27 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:Wikiepediamanilamural copy.png (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Truflip99 (notify | contribs).

• This collage contains images with conflicting licenses, one image from flickr that is NC, and a deleted image because of lacking sources. Bluemask (talk) 09:52, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• The sole image that I merely added was of Quiapo church. It was already uploaded and posted in the article linked in the previous sentence. Truflip99 (talk) 17:10, 20 March 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. Fails WP:NFCC 10a. Improper attribution of copyright holder. -Nv8200p talk 02:24, 4 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:John-Serry-Sr.gif (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Pjs012915 (notify | contribs).

• Non-free image where "The original photographer is unknown". Also, since the uploader is son of the subject, he should be able to provide a free alternative. Damiens.rf 16:05, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. I've updated the photograph's description. Sorry that a free use alternative is not available. --96.57.34.146 (talk) 15:30, 30 March 2009 (UTC)pjs012915Thanks --Pjs012915 (talk) 15:02, 30 March 2009 (UTC)pjs012915[reply]

• Delete. The non-free content criteria specifically require the copyright holder to be attributed. If it isn't attributed, the image simply can't be used. Stifle (talk) 12:26, 24 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Agree with Stifle. (ESkog)^(Talk) 22:00, 24 March 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 Stifle (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 11:07, 27 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:Second Lancy wedding.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Spanish lullaby (notify | contribs).

• The extra screenshot is not necessary. The characters are already portrayed in their articles by other screenshots. There's no need to use so many non-free images. Damiens.rf 16:10, 20 March 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 Stifle (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 11:07, 27 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:Foah tsunami.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Spanish lullaby (notify | contribs).

• This extra screenshot is not necessary. The characters are already portrayed in their articles by other screenshots. There's no need to use so many non-free images. Damiens.rf 16:11, 20 March 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 Stifle (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 11:07, 27 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:Lancy wedding.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Spanish lullaby (notify | contribs).

• This extra screenshot is not necessary. The characters are already portrayed in their articles by other screenshots. There's no need to use so many non-free images. Damiens.rf 16:11, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Extra screenshot, the woman looks like shes gonna die, and the child at the bottom is also unnesessary. MusicMan4444 (talk) 13:38, 21 March 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 Stifle (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 11:07, 27 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:Fancy with eyepatch.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Spanish lullaby (notify | contribs).

• This extra screenshot is not necessary. The characters are already portrayed in their articles by other screenshots. There's no need to use so many non-free images. Damiens.rf 16:11, 20 March 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 Stifle (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 11:07, 27 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:Fancy in Crane Couture.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Spanish lullaby (notify | contribs).

• This extra screenshot is not necessary. The characters are already portrayed in their articles by other screenshots. There's no need to use so many non-free images. Damiens.rf 16:11, 20 March 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 Stifle (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 11:07, 27 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:Lancy motorcycle.jpeg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Spanish lullaby (notify | contribs).

• This extra screenshot is not necessary. The characters are already portrayed in their articles by other screenshots. There's no need to use so many non-free images. Also, images from nbc.com are not to be copied to webpages about their series (see their EULA). Damiens.rf 16:23, 20 March 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. Fails WP:NFCC #8. There is nothing significant about this screenshot. -Nv8200p talk 02:21, 4 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:Olbermann First Commentary.PNG (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by ParkingStones (notify | contribs).

• Fails WP:NFCC#8. We don't need to see the guy "commenting" to read an article about his comments. Damiens.rf 16:25, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, used for decoration only. Should have been tagged ((subst:nrd)) though. Stifle (talk) 16:48, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - this file is a screen shot of Olbermann's first "Special Comment", a series that has been noted in plenty of third-party reliable sources and has become a significant hallmark of Olbermann and Countdown. The file is being used to give visual representation to List of Keith Olbermann's Special Comments, and falls under FU guidelines. //Blaxthos ( t / c ) 17:47, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Handily fails WP:NFCC#1 & #8. — pd_THOR ^{| =/\=} | 20:48, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Replaceable by a link back to the parent article on the guy, along with some explanatory text. (ESkog)^(Talk) 14:27, 21 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per Blaxthos. Cosmic Latte (talk) 11:23, 22 March 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, 26 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:Forgate street staff.JPG (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Jetwag (notify | contribs).

• There is no possible encyclopedic use for this image, except possibly in an article demonstrating how to take poor-quality photos. roux   19:21, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete very very quickly. Useless. Jenuk1985 | Talk 19:22, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per Hippocrates. May cause dangerous spells of dizziness, and does not appear to have any other function. Cosmic Latte (talk) 11:29, 22 March 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, 26 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:CAS-KITP.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by KavliFoundation (notify | contribs).

• Copyright violation - Content may be re-posted later if all parties agree to terms KavliFoundation (talk) 20:35, 20 March 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, 26 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:Kirby bauer disk diffusion test.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Notindustry (notify | contribs).

• Appears to be a printout of commons:File:Staphylococcus aureus drug sensitivity.jpg (now uploaded) but with numbers taped to the image. Can be easily recreated in any image editor with newly uploaded file, but the image is currently unused. Optigan13 (talk) 20:55, 20 March 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.