< August 30	September 1 >

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 —David Eppstein (talk) 17:42, 7 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Fails WP:NFCC#8. Taylor Trescott - ^{my talk} + _{my edits} 00:21, 31 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as significantly increasing readers understanding of a seminal moment in the history of LGBT representation on American television. Jerry Pepsi (talk) 06:18, 26 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I previously nominated this image because I believe that this image is decorative, irrelevant and misleading. Without the image caption in the infobox, this image is useless. As I said before, video and/or audio can enhance readers' understanding of the episode. --George Ho (talk) 22:08, 3 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I have to agree with Jerry Pepsi and the many keep comments at the previous diiscussion where consensus was clearly "keep". Despite the implication in George Ho's post, the image isn't only used in an infobox. In Lesbian the episode is the subject of commentary and the caption is quite detailed and cited. The same caption is used in Coming out but the image is not the subject of commentary. Although Ellen Degeneres is a notable gay individual the use in that article may not meet WP:NFCC#8 but it's use in The Puppy Episode is significant to that episode. Time and again we've permitted the use of such images in episode infoboxes so there appears to be community support for such uses. While it may (I only say "may", not "should") be appropriate to remove it from Coming out, it should not be deleted as it is appropriately used in the other two articles. --AussieLegend (✉) 13:57, 4 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note - This image was not appropriately tagged in Coming out or Lesbian, despite having been nominated for over a month. --AussieLegend (✉) 14:04, 4 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. As noted above, we went over this in a previous discussion in January 2013; I certainly do not feel like repeating what I stated in that discussion but here goes: Per Wikipedia:Non-free content#Images; the image passes "Film and television screenshots: For critical commentary and discussion of the work in question." and "Images with iconic status or historical importance: Iconic or historical images that are themselves the subject of sourced commentary in the article are generally appropriate. Iconic and historical images which are not subject of commentary themselves but significantly aid in illustrating historical events may be used judiciously, but they must meet all aspects of the non-free content criteria, particularly no free alternatives, respect for commercial opportunity, and contextual significance." It does not fail WP:NFCC#8 whatsoever (well, at least in the cases of two of the articles it's used for; in the previous discussion, I argued against its inclusion in the Coming out article, and I still feel that way). Flyer22 (talk) 15:05, 4 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. This image shows Ellen, and the back of a woman's head. There's nothing in this image that can't be replaced by text. – Quadell ^(talk) 17:54, 29 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

All images can be replaced (as in described) by text; that is not the point. What has been stated above with regard to keeping the image is. Flyer22 (talk) 18:11, 29 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

No, not all images can be replaced by text. The non-free images we use on Wikipedia have to show something that words alone cannot convey. You could not fully understand how Leonidas and Xerxes are portrayed in 300 (film) without seeing a screenshot; no text description would be adequate. But if you already have a free photo of Ellen, and you read the text description "Ellen looks intently at Susan and speaks to her", there is no further information provided by this photo. – Quadell ^(talk) 18:46, 29 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

All images can indeed be replaced by text, and I have not seen a case in which an image cannot; it's a matter of how well the text can convey the material vs. the image. The main point of non-free images is that they are supposed to enhance the reader's understanding of the subject in one or more ways noted by the keep arguments (both in this discussion and in the previous discussion where the File:Ellengay.jpg was deemed suitable for keeping), not simply or always to express what words alone cannot express. No one arguing delete in this case has been convincing as to why an exception should made for this image -- why, for example, this image should not be used in the infobox of the The Puppy Episode article...when using an image in the infobox of articles about episodes is standard Wikipedia practice. Flyer22 (talk) 19:50, 29 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete There is nothing remotely helpful or informative about this picture. So delete the picture, as it is non-free and doesn't help anything. I fail to see why we have a picture that as it fails to explain anything in the context it's used on. --Pretty les♀, Dark Mistress, talk, 12:06, 30 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: I am certain that Dark Mistress's comment is more about me than the matter at hand (relevancy of my statement on that: I believe that her participation here is a bad-faith one). Also, I alerted WP:LGBT to this discussion; as shown in the previous deletion discussion about this image, I alerted them to that discussion as well. Flyer22 (talk) 13:51, 30 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  - Note - There does indeed seem to be some conflict at Lesbian where a minor edit war, with some discussion on the talk page, erupted at the article earlier in October. Dark Mistress has now taken to deleting the image that is the subject of this discussion, without any discussion on the talk page. In any case, Dark Mistress' claim that "fails to explain anything in the context it's used on" is false. The image includes a detailed caption in both Lesbian and Coming out. In the latter article it is the subject of commentary. It's only in The Puppy Episode where it is not the subject of commentary, but it is a significant (probably the most significant) image from that episode. --AussieLegend (✉) 03:00, 31 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per explanation of use on Coming Out. "Ellen DeGeneres' coming out in the media as well as her sitcom, "ranks, hands down, as the single most public exit in gay history", changing media portrayals of lesbians in Western culture." Modern gay culture is measured by before and after Ellen coming out. An entire Wikipedia article could be written about her coming out.Saltybone (talk) 02:27, 31 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep image for use within The Puppy Episode. To my mind, use of the image within Lesbian and Coming out fails NFCC#8, because its omission would not be detrimental to understanding those topics. -- Trevj (talk) 13:35, 2 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the media's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the media below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the media's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was: delete -Nv8200p talk 02:19, 30 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I uploaded to just inform readers about this image, which was the original cover of In My Tribe. I nominate this image for deletion because I want a consensus. I couldn't request speedy deletion to make administrators assume that I want it deleted. I don't, but the article should have one cover art. According to someone, having two images of slightly similar information is too extraneous. Either this or the other image should be kept, so the second image will be gone. TO ADMIN: Do not assume that I want it deleted. In other words, do not delete this image until the consensus wants it deleted. George Ho (talk) 00:30, 31 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Only one cover image should be kept and used. I have no preference which it should be. – Quadell ^(talk) 17:56, 29 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the media's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the media below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the media's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was: Delete; deleted by Diannaa (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 23:01, 3 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This image is similar to current main infobox image. I am afraid that removal of this image is ineffective to this article's quality. George Ho (talk) 04:08, 31 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the media's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the media below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the media's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was: Delete; deleted by Diannaa (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 23:01, 3 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think WP:NFCC#8 and WP:NFCC#1 apply here. There's no critical commentary as far as I can see, and the argument that the article top image of the article subject is irreplaceable feels awfully specious, especially with the claim that the photograph was the subject's favorite photo. Mosmof (talk) 05:28, 31 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the media's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the media below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the media's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was: Wrong forum. The file is on Commons. Please nominate it for deletion there if you still feel it should be deleted. AnomieBOT ⚡ 10:07, 31 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Marko Kantaneva is not the proven creator of nordic walking. His work is under going investigation to find evidence of a plagiarism claim. Apparently his work was stolen off of a little known Finnish coach named Mauri Repo. An article about him is up in the English Wikipedia. The english nordic walking article has also been edited already. KMuuli (talk) 09:18, 31 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the media's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the media below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the media's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was: Delete; deleted by Diannaa (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 23:01, 3 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

No evidence of prior publication. See WP:NFCC#4. Stefan2 (talk) 13:11, 31 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the media's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the media below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the media's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was: Delete; deleted by Diannaa (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 23:01, 3 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I, uploader, nominate this image for deletion because I want a consensus, not because I want it deleted. In fact, I uploaded it to help readers identify the item. However, someone said that it is not a "radical departure from the original cover". TO ADMIN: Please do not delete the image until the consensus says so. In other words, I don't want it deleted right away. George Ho (talk) 14:23, 31 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No sourced commentary regarding this alternative cover, appears to not be notable, hence fails WP:NFCC#3a. -- Trevj (talk) 10:23, 24 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the media's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the media below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the media's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was: Delete; deleted by Diannaa (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 23:01, 3 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This image is essentially similar to the vinyl image, but this image came first to Wikipedia. I nominate this image for deletion because using two images of essentially similar info (same man, same words, same font) would violate "minimal use" criterion. Also, I can't tell whether vinyl, cassette tape, or CD was the most popular format at the time of the single's release. The CDs weren't as good as today's. Cassette was a growing format, but the covers have been more narrow as ever. I nominate it for deletion also because of preference concerns; which image should be kept: the vinyl or CD image? George Ho (talk) 15:53, 31 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Deleting admin comment: normally we keep the original image, in this case that means the vinyl. -- Diannaa (talk) 21:48, 3 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the media's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the media below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the media's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was: Delete; deleted by Diannaa (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 23:01, 3 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Obsolete; replaced by a vector version that is in Commons (File:Fred Meyer logo.svg). --Bloonstdfan360 / talk / contribs 15:54, 31 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the media's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the media below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the media's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was: Delete; deleted by Diannaa (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 23:01, 3 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Slightly similar to File:Prettyflycover.jpg, violating "Minimal use" criterion, despite major alterations of drawing. Also, does not pass "contextual significance" because sources discussing artwork are not found. George Ho (talk) 19:34, 31 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No sourced commentary regarding this alternative cover, appears to not be notable, hence fails WP:NFCC#3a. -- Trevj (talk) 10:21, 24 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the media's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the media below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the media's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was: Delete; deleted as F5 by Diannaa (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 23:01, 3 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

unused unfree logo Fiddle Faddle 20:54, 31 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the media's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the media below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the media's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was: Keep; by CaffeinAddict (talk) 19:24, 3 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

EXIF suggests WP:NFCC#2 violation per WP:NFC#UUI §7. Stefan2 (talk) 21:15, 31 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I have uploaded another version from a different news outlet, that does not contain the proviso. Alaney2k (talk) 02:08, 1 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- I have uploaded a scaled (to 25% of original) version from The Star; Metadata apparently says "Subject: Ford.jpeg On 2013-05-16, at 11:09 PM, Doolittle, Robyn wrote: Ford.jpg Sent from my Android Phone, and my iPhone." -- Limulus (talk) 10:38, 3 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep commercial opportunities accrue to the crack dealer, not the news agencies, since none of them bought the film, therefore it's not their commercial opportunities being contravened. As the crack dealer is selling the video and not stills, it's not contravening the crack dealer's commercial opportunities either, and is indeed advertising for the video. -- 76.65.131.217 (talk) 22:56, 10 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Unless there is evidence that a news agency holds the copyright (which I doubt), the deletion nomination reason is invalid. – Quadell ^(talk) 17:58, 29 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. There is nothing to indicate that the original image was a WP:NFCC#2 violation. The Toronto Star clearly stated that the photo belonged to an unnamed individual who also provided them with the video. The image was not labelled as being nominated for deletion at the article where it is being used. Another version of the image was also uploaded, making the original nomination moot. Gobōnobō ⁺ ^c 18:45, 31 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Neither of these cases apply to this photo. EncyclopediaUpdaticus (talk) 03:06, 1 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment the police have confiscated the deleted video, so no commercial opportunity was contravened, since the drug dealer declined to sell the video at the stated price of $100,000 to Gawker.com when Gawker raised the money, and subsequently deleted it. The police recovered the video from the media it was deleted off of. No news agency bought the video, and the photos were samples from the drug dealer, so it wasn't their property anyways, it's always been the drug dealer's. As no commercial opportunities result from a deleted video, there is no contravention of such opportunities here. -- 70.49.124.77 (talk) 08:11, 1 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Snowball Keep This photo is now evidence in a police investigation, it is certainly in the public domain. CaffeinAddict (talk) 19:18, 3 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

August 31

File:Ellengay.jpg

File:In my tribe original cover 10000 maniacs.jpg

File:The Madding Crowd Demos.jpg

File:AVachss honey.jpg

File:Marko Kantaneva, the creator of nordic walking.jpg

File:Malcolm, 2nd Baron Shepherd of Spalding (1980s).jpg

File:Tron soundtrack cd reissue.jpg

File:Withorwithoutyoucover.jpg

File:Fred meyer logopng.PNG

File:Theoffspringprettyflycover2.jpg

File:Speedy Interview Logo.jpg

File:RobFordCrackHouse.jpg