< August 3	August 5 >

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 now subject of sourced content Nthep (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA)

I replaced this image with File:Pilot Cosby Show tv guide 1984.jpg. The promo image is more significant to the episode than the screenshot of the father-son monopoly thing itself. ~~The article Pilot (The Cosby Show) does not mention critics' reviews on the monopoly money,~~ and the text about the scene is already understood when reading it. George Ho (talk) 01:09, 4 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I have restored the image, which depicts the theme of the show. The replaced image is merely a TV Guide ad. It is not the promotional poster of the series premier and it is a shoddy version of the ad. If we had a quality version of the series premier poster that would be a consideration for an image of the theme of the show. File:Pilot Cosby Show tv guide 1984.jpg is not really preferable to the screencapture of the theme of the episode.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/WP:FOUR/WP:CHICAGO/WP:WAWARD) 01:32, 4 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I already added ads in Give Me a Ring Sometime and Hill Street Station. Also, the monopoly money thing is a subplot, as the whole episode itself introduces the father, the mother, the son, and two daughters. Another daughter is added in the middle of the first season. And other characters are added later then. --George Ho (talk) 01:35, 4 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

By the way, poor quality is not sufficient reason to remove the image. I learned in the past that improvement of the image can be made if not now. Nevertheless, I prefer the ad over the scene of the subplot/subtheme. --George Ho (talk) 01:36, 4 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Ads are better than nothing in the two cases presented. This article has a thematic depcition as an image already.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/WP:FOUR/WP:CHICAGO/WP:WAWARD) 01:38, 4 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The text is already understood without the image. Well, you can call it an add; First Person Shooter (The X-Files) calls its own image a poster. --George Ho (talk) 01:40, 4 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe you can use a free image of Monopoly money in the body text, not the infobox. In the prior discussion, which closed as "no consensus", proponents pointed out the image's insignificance and ineffective attempts to improve reader's understanding of the episode. Supporters of the image say the same reason you are saying, but I don't know why it leaned to "no consensus". In fact, "delete" should have been done. --George Ho (talk) 01:49, 4 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

(ec)The screencap depicts the theme of the show. That is what NFCC is for. Unless we have a better image, stay with the screen cap, IMO. I am open to third party opinions on this. Whatever other people say is fine by me.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/WP:FOUR/WP:CHICAGO/WP:WAWARD) 01:51, 4 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Question: Is there a way to add sourced commentary about the Monopoly money exchange in the "production" or "reception" sections? You would think some critic would mention it. The results of the RFC on TV-episode screenshots indicated that a screenshot was most likely to pass NFCC#8 if the content in the image is mentioned in sourced statements outside the "plot" section. The Monopoly-money exchange is mentioned in the lede and plot section, but these aren't sourced. Is there a reliable source that mentions it? – Quadell ^(talk) 17:59, 7 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Ref 6 discusses the monopoly money. I just don't know how to present this in the text. Where would it fit.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/WP:FOUR/WP:CHICAGO/WP:WAWARD) 23:47, 8 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  - Hm. I would think that in either the "production" or "reception" sections, you could say something about how columnist Mike Boone noted that "understanding the special world of children" has always been a part of Cosby's comedy, and that this was present in the comical scene where Cliff and Theo discuss serious matters using play money. Something like that, sourced, would (in my opinion) justify the use of the non-free image depicting the scene. (Good find, btw) – Quadell ^(talk) 11:55, 9 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    - I have made this revision.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/WP:FOUR/WP:CHICAGO/WP:WAWARD) 15:47, 9 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      - Hmm... is one critic enough, Quadell? --George Ho (talk) 16:22, 9 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
        I would say so, yes, since it's not a contested statement. – Quadell ^(talk) 17:57, 9 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Both images seem to violate WP:NFCC#8 as neither image is critical to understanding the article, so delete both. --Stefan2 (talk) 13:22, 8 August 2013 (UTC) Copied and pasted by George Ho (talk) 19:07, 8 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, since the content of the screenshot is now the subject of sourced commentary. – Quadell ^(talk) 17:59, 9 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, when used in article failed NFCC#8, subsequently orphaned and doesn't appear to be any justification for 2 non free images in the article. Nthep (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA)

Not in use. There is disagreement as to which picture belongs in the article among two editors. Whichever is less desirable should be deleted. TonyTheTiger (T/C/WP:FOUR/WP:CHICAGO/WP:WAWARD) 01:42, 4 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

P.S. The effort to find the premier ad is appreciated. I welcome third party opinions on which image is preferable.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/WP:FOUR/WP:CHICAGO/WP:WAWARD) 01:51, 4 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - not a very desirable picture. Monterey Bay (talk) 03:48, 4 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- The fact that the ad is not very desirable does not justify a reason to keep the other image. Can you vote on the other image, the screenshot? --George Ho (talk) 05:32, 4 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
(Weak) Keep - Although "not very desirable" and not a screenshot, an ad is better than either nothing or a meaningless identifiable screenshot. I don't know how the screenshot that barely shows the Monopoly money passes WP:NFCC, including "contextual significance". Per WT:FFD, a screenshot must be more than an identifiable image. Frankly, the article doesn't mention critics' comments on the Monopoly money; just brief father-son moments. --George Ho (talk) 05:52, 4 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Violates WP:NFCC#7. --Stefan2 (talk) 20:38, 4 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Yes, the image is not used yet. However, I can assure you that the image is more useful than the screenshot. Why else should it be deleted? --George Ho (talk) 23:16, 4 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Since the question is which (if either) image is acceptable to use in the article, I think it's safe to act as if it's in use for the purpose of this discussion. – Quadell ^(talk) 18:01, 7 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  - I should have checked this more carefully before writing the above. Both images seem to violate WP:NFCC#8 as neither image is critical to understanding the article, so delete both. --Stefan2 (talk) 13:22, 8 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, this fails NFCC#8. The TV Guide promotional poster is not mentioned in sourced commentary in the body of the article itself. – Quadell ^(talk) 18:01, 7 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- In other words, a film article is allowed to have a very old theatrical poster, while the TV episode is not allowed to have a promo ad? --George Ho (talk) 03:57, 8 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  - A film's official poster is the primary way a film is visually identified, in the same way that a CD cover is the primary way an album is identified. An ad in a TV guide is just one of many advertisements. There is no universally-accepted primary way of identifying a single episode of a TV show. Regardless, I don't see how one could claim this passes NFCC#8 when it's not discussed at all. – Quadell ^(talk) 11:53, 8 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - This'd be like using Kurt's Rolling Stone cover to illustrate Kurt Cobain. Can't do that. Tarc (talk) 12:30, 8 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I brought up usage of magazine ads of TV episodes in WP:NFCR. --George Ho (talk) 20:13, 10 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 - the majority of editors have said they think the image should be kept. But more importantly, the WP:NOTCENSORED and WP:RISK provisions apply here. The NOTCENSORED policy demonstrates that we value knowledge, and that we are unworried if it should cause you emotional harm. By extension, it seems that the spirit of the policy would apply to physical harm, when the person knows what they are pulling up (unlike potentially pornographic images, which the user can see quite by accident). For a similar case (as stated below), we have articles on date rape drugs and suicide methods, none of which are censored. But unlike the date rape article, the victim in this situation knows exactly what he or she is clicking on, and knows the risks and rewards. Even the suicide article involves the perverse incentives that depression causes (people do things they wish they didn't do) - whereas the person who clicks on this video is able to make a logical decision, not besieged by such desires. That a child, unable to make a decision, might click on the link and suffer harm is simply part of the risk of life. By similar logic, we don't ban automobiles because they occasionally strike and harm children.

If we were to censor this video, I think this would lead to a lot of problems where we are censoring all knowledge that might cause problems. Do we remove the child pornography article because it describes methods by which a person can access it? How about ecoterrorism? How about we censor every article about pseudoscience (e.g., MMR vaccine controversy) under the idea that some person might pull it and use it when deciding matters of health? Do we remove Shooting of Trayvon Martin because it might exacerbates the riots? As you can see, this soon strikes the very heart of Wikipedia. I think you will find this reasoning is not a form of reductio ad absurdum either, as the risk/reward ratio is very comparable in each situation.

In short, we do not censor facts (in video or textual form) because they have the potential to cause harm, especially when the reader knows exactly the risk when reading. Magog the Ogre (t • c) 16:23, 18 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Health concern. The information for this says "and the low resolution and quality of the clip reduces the risk of seizures." Reduces but does not eliminate. On the talk page someone said you still have a one in four thousand chance. Well, more than four thousand people view the article it is in every month, so that is a legitimate threat. And you won't know if you are vulnerable to seizures until it happens. Dream Focus 11:03, 4 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - As this video may potentially be harmful to your health I feel that it outweighs any encyclopedic value. Peter.C • talk • contribs 14:00, 4 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
~~Delete~~ I watched the video and nothing happened. But, even with the health issue, this is a clear failure of WP:NFCC#8. How hard is it to visualize "rapidly blinking blue and red strobe lights"? Beerest355 Talk 21:06, 4 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- I have crossed out my vote. Now I'm on the fence. Beerest355 Talk 00:44, 6 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep historic non-free content. WP:NOTCENSORED . Linking to it, but not embedding it, can be used to reduce the chance of people pressing play, unless they are adamant they want to risk it. -- 76.65.128.222 (talk) 04:33, 5 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Alter - It seems more likely that slowing it by a factor of 4 would be the mitigating factor which prevents the seizure possibility. I've seen this unaltered and I've seen it slowed down and I greatly prefer the slowed down version for medical reasons. This would result in stripping some aspect of the scene out and focusing on the original flashing red and blue which was so jarring that it is surprising animators actually let it pass. This file serves a purpose and the seizure case was well-documented, I'm surprised it hasn't been slowed already. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 04:47, 5 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: The image caption is enough to warn people of potential risk of seizures. We should not censor something simply because that there is a risk of someone being complacent. Motor vehicles are not banned from roads because people die in them. It is the responsibility of the reader, not us, to ensure the reader's own safety. We have articles such as exit bag and images such as File:Hangmans Noose Howto.jpg that teach readers how to commit suicide; we do not delete such content because it may be objectionable. Wikipedia has no legal obligation to ensure the safety of its readers, in regards to this particular situation. -- 李博杰 | —Talk contribs email 04:55, 5 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Part of a notable event. The fact that it may pose a health threat does not outweigh its utility in describing what has happened. Although, it would be better not to have a fansub version.—Ryulong (琉竜) 06:01, 5 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep It would be different if it was a gif that was always blinking, but this is a video, so unless clicked, it poses no threat, and as Belinsquare pointed out, the caption warns anyone first.--十八 07:28, 5 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Not this again. The video has been already discussed to death in the Dennō Senshi Porygon talk page, and elsewhere, and consensus has always been for the image to be included. First of all, as anyone can see by reading the article, it is not that likely that the video itself caused the seizure -it is more akin to a case of mass hysteria. Second, there is plenty of warning in the caption. Third, we do not censor information because this can be harmful to readers. We're not the readers' nannies. We're here to provide information. If this information is dangerous to them, or if they abuse it, that's not our concern at all. Fourth, despite the nominator handwaving about the number of readers accessing the article every day, I've yet to know a case of someone getting a seizure from the low-resolution, tiny video hosted here. Fifth, it is clearly essential to understand the topic -most of the article talks about that video section and its (alleged) consequences, and as such the article would suffer massively without it. -- cyclopia^speak! 11:57, 5 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The keep comments pre-suppose that users are literate-enough and sensible enough not to click the video. But for children googling for Pokemon/porygon (or whatever) who are smart enough to start the video but not smart enough to know what "may cause seizures" means, this would be a hazard. If there is a risk of this video having an adverse health effect, it is just common sense and decency not to include it here. Alexbrn ^{talk|contribs|COI} 12:02, 5 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

All of this is covered by our standard disclaimer, which even includes the possibility of media-induced seizures explicitly. -- cyclopia^speak! 12:07, 5 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Which bit do you think applies to the case of a minor who watches a potentially seizure-inducing video after having started it inadvertently? By my reading this is not a case covered by the disclaimer. Alexbrn ^{talk|contribs|COI} 12:12, 5 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Just like a minor who finds images depicting a sexual act? I believe the foundation has dealt with that topic plenty of times. And if push comes to shove, slowing the video to meet the medical standards would be the best option instead of deletion. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 12:39, 5 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, and there can be any number of spurious "think of the children!" type arguments that might unduly censor content. But in this case we are dealing with a children's topic which shows up on page 1 of a google search for "porygon" and which apparently carries a serious physical risk. Alexbrn ^{talk|contribs|COI} 12:49, 5 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

There is no proof whatsoever that the video clip herein discussed, at this size and resolution, carries any health risk. And there are medical papers that show it is dubious that the original, full-resolution one carried a significant risk as well. -- cyclopia^speak! 12:52, 5 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

There is obvious proof that the original caused people to be hospitalized from it. Whether the number of injured children are considered "significant" or not to some, isn't relevant, some were still harmed. There is no proof that reducing the size and resolution will 100% eliminate that threat, otherwise we wouldn't have the warning at all. Some have stated some are still affected. Need someone with medical knowledge to verify this one way or the other. Dream Focus 13:48, 5 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The numbers are very relevant instead -this discussion would be very different if 90% of kids were clearly affected by the video and we had dozens of cases triggered by this version of it. Instead, we do not have a single report of this version of the video causing any harm, despite it being on WP since 2009. But even if it could be shown to cause some harm in a tiny minority of the population, this wouldn't change the thing much. We have a List of suicide methods that I am almost sure it inspired people in terminating their own life. Yet we do not censor information because it may have some inconvenient consequence. -- cyclopia^speak! 13:54, 5 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Please note there are related discussions at Talk:Dennō_Senshi_Porygon#seizure_video_up_for_deletion, Wikipedia_talk:MEDICINE#Denn.C5.8D_Senshi_Porygon_seizure_video. -- cyclopia^speak! 12:44, 5 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -- Just because there are legal disclaimers, does not mean we should deliberately set out to post a video that could induce seizures. I wonder if the other articles about this series have videos. Per Alexbrn's comment above, delete. Still frame is an appropriate and harmless substitution. There is no reason to include the video that is not also provided by the still frame, and per WAID's comment above it has other advantages over the video in terms of accessibility and copyright.. (Comment copied from WT:MED#Dennō Senshi Porygon seizure video, Lesion (talk) 13:15, 5 August 2013 (UTC))[reply]
Keep WP:disclaimer, WP:notcensored, besides, it says, in the caption that it may cause seizures. this is like saying that we should delete every image on commons that one might find objectionable. -- Aunva6^{talk - contribs} 13:20, 5 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:COMMONSENSE, WP:Disclaimer & WP:Notcensored, "One of the infamous scenes that caused the seizures",

The caption makes it clear that it does cause seizures so it's common sense not to click it .... -

→Davey2010→→Talk to me!→ 13:31, 5 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. In moral terms, the good we do by teaching people about what sets off these outbreaks should clearly outweigh the very small chance someone goes past the warnings. Optionally you could add a few seconds of block lettering to the front of the video clip "EPILEPTICS DO NOT WATCH" etc. but it seems overwrought. Legally, well, the Internet offers amusing, educational, and artistic content like encyclopediadramatica.se/Epilepsy . And practically ... surely there is a way to write a browser plug-in that checks animated images/video for problematic flashing before it is displayed! Lock your own front door to keep people from coming in, not every neighbor's door to keep them from going out. Wnt (talk) 13:37, 5 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
If some kid clicks on the image and has a seizure, they having no way of knowing they were vulnerable until they clicked it to see, would that bother any of you that want to keep this at all, or would you convince yourself it wasn't your fault? Do you think the disclaimer will honestly keep Wikipedia from being held accountable? In America, it is illegal to broadcast things like this on television or in films. Is there a law against it being on the internet? Dream Focus 13:45, 5 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- would that bother any of you that want to keep this at all - Speaking for myself no, it wouldn't bother me at all. It's not my fault that a tiny minority of the populations happens to get health problems from educational video, and there were warnings. If that is your reasoning, you should also ask people selling peanuts if they feel guilty because, you know, an allergic kid could eat one despite warnings. -- cyclopia^speak! 13:50, 5 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- "If some kid clicks on the image and has a seizure" - Children should not be unsupervised on the internet. If a child comes across hardcore tentacle rape porn on the internet, who is at fault? The online file host, or the parent? Goddamn, back when I was a kid, at a time when I spent my childhood using Internet Explorer 4.0 on a 56k modem instead of kicking a soccer ball, I had a responsible parent watch over me. Are people really that complacent nowadays? "Is there a law against it being on the internet?" - Better go contact your local congress representative and inform them of this pressing issue, because as of present there are naught. -- 李博杰 | —Talk contribs email 14:36, 5 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep, but but a warning directly underneath, or — better yet — put the video in a collapsible box with a warning, as such:

Warning: May cause seizures
File:Denno.ogg

— Richard BB 14:20, 5 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

We already have text right under the video stating that the video has been reported to trigger seizures. Since we already have have a warning that clearly identifies the issue I see no reason to add something like the collapsible box.--70.49.82.207 (talk) 00:23, 6 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: I'm open about reducing the strobing, but the content and medical disclaimers do put ourselves in a better position. More so than Channel 4, whose premiere of the film Kick Ass on Saturday came without any disclaimer of strobing, when that film, at the climax of the second act, does have a rather well-known example of it. Beyond that, my arguments in 2010 carry on to here. Sceptre ^(talk) 14:45, 5 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per reasonings by Ryulong and Juhachi. Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 15:13, 5 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Potential health risks outweigh any slight encyclopedic value of the file. Carrite (talk) 15:20, 5 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and close per WP:NOTCENSORED, WP:COMMONSENSE, and most important our Wikipedia:Content disclaimer. If someone is prone to seizures then they should know to read the Wikipedia disclaimers first just like they would any other website. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 15:29, 5 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I'm primarily concerned about WP:NFCC#8, "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." Compared to a still image from that scene, the video just doesn't add anything significant. As someone said above, How hard is it to visualize "rapidly blinking blue and red strobe lights"? This will not significantly increase readers' understanding of the topic (italicized words being mandatory requirements under our policy, not just optional suggestions). WhatamIdoing (talk) 15:30, 5 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry if my WP:AGF is shaking but: Is this a serious comment? The article discusses a dynamical feature of the episode, that is the fast red/blue light flickering. And well, yes, it is quite hard to understand how fast and strong is the flickering there by simply reading it or viewing a still image. I'm still not able to tune my imagination on a written frequency in Hertz and recreate the correct sensorial impression in my head -nor, I suspect, can most readers. The video obviously conveys essential dynamical visual information that no description or still image could even remotely substitute.-- cyclopia^speak! 15:37, 5 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I have to agree with Cyclopia 100% here. I'd say that there are few things where the inclusion of a non-free image/video are more justified than here. — Richard BB 15:51, 5 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep If someone decides to click on the video to watch it even after being repeatedly told that it can cause seizures then we can't consider ourselves responsible. This is a famous incident and it is best understood by seeing the video. Stills and text can't convey the issue as well as the video.--The Devil's Advocate _{tlk. cntrb.} 15:42, 5 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - This has been nominated before for the same reason: File:Denno.ogg at Wikipedia:Files for discussion/2012 October 31#File:Denno.ogg (31 October 2012 – 7 November 2012) with a keep result. WP:RISK also applies. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 15:46, 5 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for obvious health reasons. No other seizure-related articles contain videos known to or capable of causing seizures, neither should Dennō Senshi Porygon. Content of the video is already described in detail in the article, so visual representation in the form of a video is not needed. ComfyKem (talk) 16:06, 5 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - You can't stupid-proof everything in the universe, y'know. There has to be a line in the sand where if something is labeled (and if we need to make the label bigger/prominent, fine) "Warning, X is unsafe" and someone does X anyways, the responsibility transfers to them. Not us. WP:NFCC concerns are an irrelevant distraction, as the article clearly discusses the content in question. Tarc (talk) 16:43, 5 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I don't think this is necessary. First, a person who sees the video would clearly see the text on the bottom (which I mentioned in a earlier comment) and then decided to play the video. This is not something that a person would simply stumbled upon. It should also be noticed (as mentioned in the talkpage) that the video is in a lower resolution than the original and takes up less of the screen meaning that the risk of seizures is lower to begin with. Finally, the fact that there have been no reports of seizures for anyone watching the Wikipedia video strongly indicates that the measures already in place have greatly reduced the seizure problem. For those reasons I don't think this needs to be deleted.--70.49.82.207 (talk) 17:19, 5 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - It's clearly the responsibility of the person to know what they do on the Internet. If it hurts their health, they should be at fault, since they clicked on it in the first place. They also should've read the caption then, and figured out it could hurt them if they're epileptic. Zappa O Mati 22:13, 5 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment If health issues are the main concern here, then maybe a slower version of the video could be added, unless there is a guideline that says modifying fair-use files isn't allowed. This discussion is obviously leaning toward a sure-fire keep, so I have to wonder if there's a happy medium here. Beerest355 Talk 00:44, 6 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Slowing the video down is a valid method of "minimising potential risk" without decreasing the file's ability to demonstrate the topic, and there aren't any policies which specifically prohibit such a thing, so I am quite certain that doing so is perfectly fine. I also read a comment above about preferring a version without fansubs: On the Russian Wikipedia at ru:Dennou Senshi Porygon, there is a version of the video file without the fansubs and the watermark (it appears to be vertically cropped from the file we have here). We can crop out the watermark and subtitles, and then reduce the speed of the video. -- 李博杰 | —Talk contribs email 04:40, 6 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
So, what I'm seeing is, everyone who has seizure problems will someone magically be born with that knowledge, and it is therefore their fault when they click on the clip to something that may cause them problems. Also, text alone can't describe things properly, you have to show people the flashing lights so they can experience it themselves. For those that want to change it, well, if you alter it so it is no longer flashing seizure lights, then you aren't showing them anything at all. You can just say flashes of light happened, show a screenshot, and that explains things perfectly. Nothing gained by having this video clip on Wikipedia. Dream Focus 01:40, 6 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

No, we are not saying that. Don't synth the arguments to arrive at a conclusion unsupported by any comments here. Yes, there is a risk - I probably should not be watching the video - but we are not doctors, we are not advocating any disruptive layout or usage. The arguments presenting for deletion are "health reasons" and the rest being plain keeps. It will be kept - but I am proposing an alteration to mitigate the risk. When the flashing is under 5 frames a second the risk is all but negated. Full screen effects pose a bigger risk, the surrounding page elements also help to mitigate the problem. We could slow it by 10x if you want to be absolutely safe. I ran the clip in PEAT (the program window actually uses Pokemon as the video tester, lol) and found that it has 4 warnings with the red flash being maximum during the missile explosion scene. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 05:53, 6 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think replacing it with a slowed down version makes sense: yes, still better than a screenshot, but it wouldn't be helpful in letting people understand what the article is talking about. However it could be uploaded along with the original version, as a "safe" video for whoever doesn't feel clicking the original one. About the health issue, again, Dream Focus: people allergic to peanuts are not magically born with that knowledge, and it is a much higher health risk than the completely theoretical possibility that this video induces seizures. Yet AFAIK we still haven't outlawed peanuts, and kids still eat peanut butter. Why should this video be different? -- cyclopia^speak! 09:41, 6 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

We aren't giving out peanuts to people's children, and then claiming its not our fault if some stop breathing. Totally unrelated issue here. You have something you know people will click on just to see what it is, without reading the warning, or if they do read it, not knowing they are vulnerable. Dream Focus 10:43, 6 August 2013 (UTC)'[reply]

We aren't giving out peanuts to people's children, and then claiming its not our fault if some stop breathing. - Uh, so now it's the supermarket fault if a kid who doesn't know to be allergic buys peanuts and chokes? -- cyclopia^speak! 10:50, 6 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

So we should remove all information on target shooting, because someone could use that to shoot people? Or any sexual content, because some deranged person could be set off and go out on a rape spree? Or all information, because anything could be interpreted by some ill person to be something that could be harmful or used in a harmful manner? Afterall, how would someone with a mental derangement know, until they encounter information on how the robbers in LA used body armor to avoid being shot by SWAT, and then go on a shooting spree? Or how or information on human anatomy set off some other person with a medical condition who contact with reality is brittle, into thinking they could operate on people? Hell, we shouldn't have any sexual explicit information because men are animals and a certain percentage of them will go out and rape someone because the encyclopedia impure and given Satan a way into their souls. -- 76.65.128.222 (talk) 12:19, 6 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The article on date rape drugs doesn't tell people how they are made. Some things are just common sense. The peanut article states many schools ban using peanuts in their school lunches. But this is totally unrelated. This is about seizure videos being hosted on Wikipedia, just to demonstrate to people how flashing lights could cause children watching a cartoon to have seizures themselves. There is no possible reason people would need to see it for themselves. I've already said everything I could previously, so its unlikely either side will convince the other. Dream Focus 15:05, 6 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The article on date rape drugs lists a lot of possible date rape drugs, however, which is pretty useful if you want to engage in such an act. And since "some things are just common sense", it is considered "common sense" that we do not ban everything which is vaguely potentially harmful. It is considered "common sense" that do not ban bicycles because people can die in accidents. We do not ban peanuts or shellfish because someone can be allergic. For the same reason -and that's why such analogies are far from irrelevant- we do not remove information that can potentially (and unprovingly) be harmful for a tiny minority of people, especially when it stayed here for four full years and nobody got hurt yet. -- cyclopia^speak! 15:23, 6 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed, it is common sense not to describe how the drugs are made in date rape drugs; there are too many to go through there. Instead you follow the link to gamma-hydroxybutyrate to find out how to make it from gamma-butyrolactone, which tells how to make that, etc.

There are good reasons to host such information, just as there are good reasons to host seizure videos - of course we want to see these videos, to know for example how much flashing it really did. So we can spot problematic sequences in our own videos and animated gifs, so we can think about how to write software to protect epileptics, so we can wonder what it is that triggers the incident, etc. Wnt (talk) 21:23, 6 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: It's a small, non-autoplay video labeled "One of the scenes reported to trigger epileptic seizures." I don't see the issue here. --Carnildo (talk) 03:24, 6 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep greatly improves understanding of the subject of the article; its presence is even nearly necessary for the reader to grasp what it's talking about, and those readers who are vulnerable to epileptic seizures will know from the context that they shouldn't click on the video. darkweasel94 (talk) 16:57, 6 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, it passes all of our non-free content criteria. There is no policy or guideline that I know of that requires or even recommends that this sort of file be deleted. So it's just up to the judgment of the community, and in my view, it's better to have this image than not have it. I know of no cases where a person was actually inadvertently harmed by watching this video on Wikipedia, nor do I believe it is likely to ever happen. – Quadell ^(talk) 18:10, 7 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This wouldn't be justified to illustrate anything about Pokemon, but it is justified to illustrate a factual event involving epilepsy. Warnings advised, but we seem to be handling that appropriately already. Andy Dingley (talk) 18:28, 8 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and Alter Slowing down would allow me to better observe the problem. I don't have seizures and I also feel we cannot be concerned with the health risks of our content. However the animation is too fast for me to observe the quick change in colors so a slow down would allow me to observe it. So... only the frame rate would be slower. -- A Certain White Cat ^chi? 23:31, 8 August 2013 (UTC)
Delete I agree there's some educational value above a flat pic + text description, but feel this is outweighed by the potential to cause harm to our readers. FeydHuxtable (talk) 11:01, 10 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep only if Altered I watched the video several times. I am over 30 years of age. Following a head injury as an adult, I was subject to losing consciousness-and-collapsing seizures, successfully treated with med's. I no longer have seizures nor take med's for them (YAY!) I watched the video three times in a row, without expanding it to full size. No seizure, but I felt a tiny bit of nausea, shook a little, and have a headache now. It is insignificant, and was due to my decision to play it three times in a row, despite warnings! Even a child who knows that he is seizure-prone might play, and re-play the video, for the same reason I did (whatever it was...). I strongly recommend the measure suggested by A Certain White Cat and ChrisGualtieri and 李博杰 | earlier in this discussion, of slowing the frame rate. It is truly so fast, AND the clip is so short, that it elicits replays...and so forth.--FeralOink (talk) 18:23, 10 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. No policy-based reason for deletion. Stifle (talk) 19:08, 10 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Alter per ChrisGualtieri and FeralOink. Especially since this video is on an article of interest to children. Rapunzel-bellflower (talk) 22:32, 12 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 as F1 by Diannaa (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 17:59, 9 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Replaced by File:Salvioniedalla.JPG. (ESkog)^(Talk) 20:29, 4 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 – Quadell ^(talk) 17:19, 12 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Replaced by File:Salvioniedalla.JPG. (ESkog)^(Talk) 20:29, 4 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 – Quadell ^(talk) 17:19, 12 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Violates WP:NFCC#8, see MOS:FILM#Soundtrack. Stefan2 (talk) 20:37, 4 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete While the soundtrack cover is different from the film poster, the soundtrack is not notable and the section could not have its own article. Aspects (talk) 17:17, 9 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 – Quadell ^(talk) 17:19, 12 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Violates WP:NFCC#8, see MOS:FILM#Soundtrack. Stefan2 (talk) 20:39, 4 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete While the soundtrack cover is different from the film poster, the soundtrack is not notable and the section could not have its own article. Aspects (talk) 17:19, 9 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 – Quadell ^(talk) 17:19, 12 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Violates WP:NFCC#8, see MOS:FILM#Soundtrack. Stefan2 (talk) 20:40, 4 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The soundtrack cover is similar to the film poster, the soundtrack is not notable and the section could not have its own article. Aspects (talk) 17:34, 9 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 – Quadell ^(talk) 17:19, 12 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Violates WP:NFCC#8, see MOS:FILM#Soundtrack. Also violates WP:NFCC#3a as it is very similar to the poster at the top of the article. Stefan2 (talk) 20:41, 4 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The soundtrack cover is the same as the film poster, the soundtrack is not notable and the section could not have its own article. Aspects (talk) 18:00, 9 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 – Quadell ^(talk) 17:19, 12 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Violates WP:NFCC#8, see MOS:FILM#Soundtrack. Stefan2 (talk) 20:44, 4 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete While the soundtrack cover is different from the film poster, the soundtrack is not notable and the section could not have its own article. Aspects (talk) 18:01, 9 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 – Quadell ^(talk) 17:27, 12 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Violates WP:NFCC#8, see MOS:FILM#Soundtrack. Stefan2 (talk) 20:44, 4 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete While the soundtrack cover is different from the film poster, the soundtrack is not notable and the section could not have its own article. Aspects (talk) 18:02, 9 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 – Quadell ^(talk) 17:27, 12 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Violates WP:NFCC#8, see MOS:FILM#Soundtrack. Stefan2 (talk) 20:45, 4 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The soundtrack cover is similar to the film poster, the soundtrack is not notable and the section could not have its own article. Aspects (talk) 18:03, 9 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 – Quadell ^(talk) 17:27, 12 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Violates WP:NFCC#8, see MOS:FILM#Soundtrack. Stefan2 (talk) 20:46, 4 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete While the soundtrack cover is different from the film poster, the soundtrack is not notable and the section could not have its own article. Aspects (talk) 18:04, 9 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 – Quadell ^(talk) 17:27, 12 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Violates WP:NFCC#8, see MOS:FILM#Soundtrack. Stefan2 (talk) 20:47, 4 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The soundtrack cover is the same as the film poster, the soundtrack is not notable and the section could not have its own article. Aspects (talk) 18:06, 9 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 – Quadell ^(talk) 17:27, 12 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Violates WP:NFCC#8, see MOS:FILM#Soundtrack. Stefan2 (talk) 20:48, 4 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete While the soundtrack cover is different from the film poster, the soundtrack is not notable and the section could not have its own article. Aspects (talk) 19:51, 10 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 – Quadell ^(talk) 17:27, 12 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Violates WP:NFCC#8, see MOS:FILM#Soundtrack. Also violates WP:NFCC#3a as it is substantially similar to the poster in the main infobox. Stefan2 (talk) 20:53, 4 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The soundtrack cover is the same as the film poster, the soundtrack is not notable and the section could not have its own article. Aspects (talk) 18:09, 9 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 – Quadell ^(talk) 17:27, 12 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Violates WP:NFCC#8, see MOS:FILM#Soundtrack. Stefan2 (talk) 20:53, 4 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete While the soundtrack cover is different from the film poster, the soundtrack is not notable and the section could not have its own article. Aspects (talk) 18:09, 9 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 – Quadell ^(talk) 17:27, 12 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Violates WP:NFCC#8, see MOS:FILM#Soundtrack. Stefan2 (talk) 20:54, 4 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete While the soundtrack cover is different from the film poster, the soundtrack is not notable and the section could not have its own article. Aspects (talk) 18:10, 9 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 – Quadell ^(talk) 17:27, 12 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Violates WP:NFCC#8, see MOS:FILM#Soundtrack. Also violates WP:NFCC#3a as it is substantially similar to the image in the main infobox. Stefan2 (talk) 20:54, 4 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The soundtrack cover is similar to the film poster, the soundtrack is not notable and the section could not have its own article. Aspects (talk) 18:11, 9 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 – Quadell ^(talk) 17:27, 12 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Violates WP:NFCC#8, see MOS:FILM#Soundtrack. Stefan2 (talk) 20:55, 4 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete While the soundtrack cover is different from the film poster, the soundtrack is not notable and the section could not have its own article. Aspects (talk) 18:12, 9 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 – Quadell ^(talk) 17:27, 12 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Violates WP:NFCC#8, see MOS:FILM#Soundtrack. Stefan2 (talk) 20:58, 4 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The soundtrack cover is similar to the film poster, the soundtrack is not notable and the section could not have its own article. Aspects (talk) 18:13, 9 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 – Quadell ^(talk) 17:27, 12 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Violates WP:NFCC#8, see MOS:FILM#Soundtrack. Stefan2 (talk) 20:58, 4 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The soundtrack cover is the same as the film poster, the soundtrack is not notable and the section could not have its own article. Aspects (talk) 18:14, 9 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 – Quadell ^(talk) 17:27, 12 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Violates WP:NFCC#8, see MOS:FILM#Soundtrack. Stefan2 (talk) 20:58, 4 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete While the soundtrack cover is different from the film poster, the soundtrack is not notable and the section could not have its own article. Aspects (talk) 18:15, 9 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 – Quadell ^(talk) 17:27, 12 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Violates WP:NFCC#8, see MOS:FILM#Soundtrack. Stefan2 (talk) 20:59, 4 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The soundtrack cover is similar to the film poster, the soundtrack is not notable and the section could not have its own article. Aspects (talk) 18:17, 9 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 – Quadell ^(talk) 17:27, 12 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Violates WP:NFCC#8, see MOS:FILM#Soundtrack. Although the FUR claims to be for an article about the soundtrack, that page name redirects to the article about the film. Stefan2 (talk) 21:02, 4 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The soundtrack cover is the same as the film poster, the soundtrack is not notable and the section could not have its own article. Aspects (talk) 18:18, 9 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 – Quadell ^(talk) 17:27, 12 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Violates WP:NFCC#8, see MOS:FILM#Soundtrack. Stefan2 (talk) 21:03, 4 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The soundtrack cover is the same as the film poster, the soundtrack is not notable and the section could not have its own article. Aspects (talk) 18:19, 9 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 – Quadell ^(talk) 17:27, 12 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Violates WP:NFCC#8, see MOS:FILM#Soundtrack. Stefan2 (talk) 21:06, 4 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The soundtrack cover is similar to the film poster, the soundtrack is not notable and the section could not have its own article. Aspects (talk) 18:20, 9 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 – Quadell ^(talk) 17:27, 12 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Violates WP:NFCC#8, see MOS:FILM#Soundtrack. Stefan2 (talk) 21:07, 4 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete While the soundtrack cover is different from the film poster, the soundtrack is not notable and the section could not have its own article. Aspects (talk) 18:21, 9 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 – Quadell ^(talk) 17:27, 12 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Violates WP:NFCC#8, see MOS:FILM#Soundtrack. Stefan2 (talk) 21:09, 4 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete While the soundtrack cover is different from the film poster, the soundtrack is not notable and the section could not have its own article. Aspects (talk) 18:22, 9 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 – Quadell ^(talk) 17:32, 12 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Violates WP:NFCC#8: not needed for understanding the article. Violates WP:NFCC#10: not an audio soundtrack and not used to "illustrate the article on the movie" as claimed in the FUR as the image isn't used in an article about a movie in the first place. Stefan2 (talk) 21:16, 4 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 – Quadell ^(talk) 17:32, 12 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Violates WP:NFCC#8, see MOS:FILM#Soundtrack. Stefan2 (talk) 21:17, 4 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete While the soundtrack cover is different from the film poster, the soundtrack is not notable and the section could not have its own article. Aspects (talk) 18:24, 9 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 – Quadell ^(talk) 17:32, 12 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Violates WP:NFCC#8, see MOS:FILM#Soundtrack. Stefan2 (talk) 21:17, 4 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete While the soundtrack cover is different from the film poster, the soundtrack is not notable and the section could not have its own article. Aspects (talk) 18:25, 9 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 – Quadell ^(talk) 17:32, 12 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Violates WP:NFCC#8, see MOS:FILM#Soundtrack. Stefan2 (talk) 21:18, 4 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The soundtrack cover is similar to the film poster, the soundtrack is not notable and the section could not have its own article. Aspects (talk) 18:27, 9 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 – Quadell ^(talk) 17:32, 12 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Violates WP:NFCC#8, see MOS:FILM#Soundtrack. Stefan2 (talk) 21:19, 4 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete While the soundtrack cover is different from the film poster, the soundtrack is not notable and the section could not have its own article. Aspects (talk) 18:27, 9 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 – Quadell ^(talk) 17:32, 12 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Violates WP:NFCC#8, see MOS:FILM#Soundtrack. Stefan2 (talk) 21:19, 4 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The single cover is similar to the film poster, the single is not notable and the section could not have its own article. Aspects (talk) 18:28, 9 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 – Quadell ^(talk) 17:32, 12 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Violates WP:NFCC#3a, see File:Power Rangers The Movie Cover US.PNG. Stefan2 (talk) 21:25, 4 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The alternate image is almost exactly the same as the main image, failing WP:NFCC#3a. Aspects (talk) 18:30, 9 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 – Quadell ^(talk) 17:32, 12 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Violates WP:NFCC#8, see MOS:FILM#Soundtrack. Stefan2 (talk) 21:27, 4 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete While the soundtrack cover is different from the film poster, the soundtrack is not notable and the section could not have its own article. Aspects (talk) 18:32, 9 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 ⚡ 00:02, 10 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Violates WP:NFCC#8, see MOS:FILM#Soundtrack. Stefan2 (talk) 21:28, 4 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This is the one circumstance that the consensus at Wikipedia talk:Non-free content/Archive 57#RFC: Soundtrack covers in articles about other media (films, video games, etc.) that a soundtrack image could be kept in the film article. The soundtrack cover is substantially different than the poster image passing WP:NFCC#3, is notable and could have its own article (reaching number one on the Billboard 200 charts in the United States) and since it is being used for identification purposed its removal would be detrimental to the understanding of the soundtrack thereby passing WP:NFCC#8. Aspects (talk) 18:39, 9 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - The soundtrack cover is unnecessary, as the soundtrack article is not yet created. And I don't see people researching stand-alone notability of the soundtrack. --George Ho (talk) 17:38, 12 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 – Quadell ^(talk) 18:47, 12 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Violates WP:NFCC#8, see MOS:FILM#Soundtrack. Stefan2 (talk) 21:28, 4 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete While the soundtrack cover is different from the film poster, the soundtrack is not notable and the section could not have its own article. Aspects (talk) 18:40, 9 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 – Quadell ^(talk) 18:47, 12 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Violates WP:NFCC#3a, see File:TSWLM77.jpg. Stefan2 (talk) 21:29, 4 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The alternate image is almost exactly the same as the main image, failing WP:NFCC#3a. Aspects (talk) 18:41, 9 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 as F7 by Mattgirling (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 22:52, 4 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This is an image of Peter Capaldi, the actor who has been cast as the Twelfth Doctor but does not show him in character, and is not therefore valid fair use for the Twelfth Doctor article. January (talk) 21:30, 4 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. This should be speedily removed. We have a free image of Capaldi already File:Peter_Capaldi.jpg --LukeSurl^{t c} 21:34, 4 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Tagged as replaceable fair use as File:Peter_Capaldi.jpg would give the same understanding. An image of him in character would be acceptable, though. --Stefan2 (talk) 21:40, 4 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 – Quadell ^(talk) 18:52, 12 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Violates WP:NFCC#8, see MOS:FILM#Soundtrack. The article title in the FUR is a redirect to the article about the film and the FUR claims that the image is used in the article's main infobox, but the main infobox contains a different image instead, so the image seems to violate WP:NFCC#10c. Stefan2 (talk) 21:31, 4 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The soundtrack cover is the same as the film poster, the soundtrack is not notable and the section could not have its own article. Aspects (talk) 19:53, 10 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 – Quadell ^(talk) 18:52, 12 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Violates WP:NFCC#3a, see File:StrangerThanFiction(soundtrack)1.jpg. Stefan2 (talk) 21:32, 4 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete There is no information about where this "alternate" cover was distributed and no commentary on the cover image is located in the article. Aspects (talk) 19:55, 10 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 – Quadell ^(talk) 18:52, 12 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Violates WP:NFCC#8, see MOS:FILM#Soundtrack. Stefan2 (talk) 21:38, 4 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete While the soundtrack cover is different from the film poster, the soundtrack is not notable and the section could not have its own article. Aspects (talk) 19:56, 10 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 – Quadell ^(talk) 18:52, 12 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Violates WP:NFCC#8, see MOS:FILM#Soundtrack. Also violates WP:NFCC#3a as it is substantially similar to the infobox image. Stefan2 (talk) 21:41, 4 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The soundtrack cover is similar to the film poster, the soundtrack is not notable and the section could not have its own article. Aspects (talk) 19:57, 10 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 – Quadell ^(talk) 18:52, 12 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Violation of WP:NFCC#8. The image File:Princess bride.jpg is sufficient for understanding the article. Stefan2 (talk) 22:43, 4 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The film article already has a film poster used for identification and while there is commentary on the DVD cover, the image is not needed to understand the DVD release. Aspects (talk) 20:00, 10 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 – Quadell ^(talk) 18:52, 12 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Violates WP:NFCC#8, see MOS:FILM#Soundtrack. Stefan2 (talk) 22:45, 4 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete While the soundtrack cover is different from the film poster, the soundtrack is not notable and the section could not have its own article. Aspects (talk) 20:01, 10 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 ⚡ 00:02, 10 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Redundant to File:Iron Man 3 soundtrack.jpg, see WP:NFCC#3a. Stefan2 (talk) 22:46, 4 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - The film has two separate and distinct soundtracks. See Tron: Legacy (soundtrack), The Avengers (soundtrack), Frankenweenie (soundtrack), and The Lone Ranger (soundtrack) for comparison. ~ Jedi94 (talk) 00:09, 5 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The problem is that you can't include more than one image unless the article contains sourced critical commentary about all of the covers. See for example the recent discussion at User talk:Werieth#Notable cover version single covers that pass WP:NFCC (there are better examples but they take more time to find). --Stefan2 (talk) 13:19, 8 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. We do not use multiple non-free images when one would suffice. Stifle (talk) 19:10, 10 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - At least the soundtrack has stand-alone notability. Usage of cover art helps illustrate the product in question. Not to mention other soundtracks of the film. --George Ho (talk) 22:33, 12 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 – Quadell ^(talk) 18:52, 12 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Violates WP:NFCC#8, see MOS:FILM#Soundtrack. Stefan2 (talk) 22:49, 4 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The soundtrack cover is the same as the film poster, the soundtrack is not notable and the section could not have its own article. Aspects (talk) 20:03, 10 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 – Quadell ^(talk) 18:52, 12 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Violates WP:NFCC#8, see MOS:FILM#Soundtrack. Stefan2 (talk) 22:50, 4 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete While the soundtrack cover is different from the film poster, the soundtrack is not notable and the section could not have its own article. Aspects (talk) 20:04, 10 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: Kept (with improved sourcing) as fair use for one article. Diannaa (talk) 21:21, 9 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Unencyclopedic. I think the "portrait" isn't adequate, especially because the person is "grimacing" in the photo. Sorry for the bad English. Malconfort (talk) 22:50, 4 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

We don't usually delete images for being unflattering. Is there a better image you would like to replace this one with? – Quadell ^(talk) 18:13, 7 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Yeah, thanks for the suggestion / explanation. I've used https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:G._Samuelson.jpg to replace the previous one. No need to delete this file (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Gar_Samuelson.jpg). --Malconfort (talk) 20:34, 3 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, but remove from List of Megadeth band members as failing NFCC#8. Stifle (talk) 19:10, 10 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Removed. Thanks for reminding me.--Malconfort (talk) 20:38, 3 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 – Quadell ^(talk) 18:52, 12 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Violates WP:NFCC#8, see MOS:FILM#Soundtrack. Stefan2 (talk) 22:50, 4 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete While the soundtrack cover is different from the film poster, the soundtrack is not notable and the section could not have its own article. Aspects (talk) 20:05, 10 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 – Quadell ^(talk) 18:52, 12 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Violates WP:NFCC#8, see MOS:FILM#Soundtrack. Stefan2 (talk) 22:52, 4 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete While the soundtrack cover is different from the film poster, the soundtrack is not notable and the section could not have its own article. Aspects (talk) 20:06, 10 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 – Quadell ^(talk) 18:52, 12 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Violates WP:NFCC#8, see MOS:FILM#Soundtrack. Stefan2 (talk) 22:53, 4 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete While the soundtrack cover is different from the film poster, the soundtrack is not notable and the section could not have its own article. Aspects (talk) 20:07, 10 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 – Quadell ^(talk) 18:52, 12 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Violates WP:NFCC#8, see MOS:FILM#Soundtrack. The FUR claims that the article about the TV series is specifically dedicated to the soundtrack CD cover which is obviously incorrect. Stefan2 (talk) 22:55, 4 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete While the soundtrack cover is different from the film poster, the soundtrack is not notable and the section could not have its own article. Aspects (talk) 20:09, 10 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 – Quadell ^(talk) 18:52, 12 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Violates WP:NFCC#8, see MOS:FILM#Soundtrack. Stefan2 (talk) 22:55, 4 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete While the soundtrack cover is different from the film poster, the soundtrack is not notable and the section could not have its own article. Aspects (talk) 20:10, 10 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 – Quadell ^(talk) 18:52, 12 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Violates WP:NFCC#8, see MOS:FILM#Soundtrack. Stefan2 (talk) 22:56, 4 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete While the soundtrack cover is different from the film poster, the soundtrack is not notable and the section could not have its own article. Aspects (talk) 20:11, 10 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, 9 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Violates WP:NFCC#8, see MOS:FILM#Soundtrack. Stefan2 (talk) 22:56, 4 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This is the one circumstance that the consensus at Wikipedia talk:Non-free content/Archive 57#RFC: Soundtrack covers in articles about other media (films, video games, etc.) that a soundtrack image could be kept in the film article. The soundtrack cover is substantially different than the poster image passing WP:NFCC#3, is notable and could have its own article (reaching number ten on the Billboard country chart and number 102 on the Billboard 200 chart in the United States) and since it is being used for identification purposed its removal would be detrimental to the understanding of the soundtrack thereby passing WP:NFCC#8.

Delete - The soundtrack is the subtopic of the film, so cover art is unnecessary. --George Ho (talk) 22:27, 12 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 – Quadell ^(talk) 18:55, 12 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Violates WP:NFCC#8, see MOS:FILM#Soundtrack. Stefan2 (talk) 22:57, 4 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Had no idea about that MOS at the time, and I see nothing out there to support a standalone article that could justify image retention, so delete away. Tarc (talk) 15:11, 5 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The soundtrack cover is similar to the film poster, the soundtrack is not notable and the section could not have its own article. Aspects (talk) 20:18, 10 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 – Quadell ^(talk) 18:52, 12 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Violates WP:NFCC#8, see MOS:FILM#Soundtrack. Stefan2 (talk) 22:59, 4 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete While the soundtrack cover is different from the film poster, the soundtrack is not notable and the section could not have its own article. Aspects (talk) 20:19, 10 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 – Quadell ^(talk) 18:52, 12 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Violates WP:NFCC#8, see MOS:FILM#Soundtrack. Stefan2 (talk) 23:00, 4 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete While the soundtrack cover is different from the film poster, the soundtrack is not notable and the section could not have its own article. Aspects (talk) 20:20, 10 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.

August 4

File:Pilot (The Cosby Show) monopoly lesson.png

File:Pilot Cosby Show tv guide 1984.jpg

File:Denno.ogg

File:Lucio Dalla (Taken in 2011).jpg

File:Lucio Dalla In 2010.jpg

File:Snow Prince Movie soundtrack.jpg

File:Heer Raanjha, 1970 film soundtrack album cover.jpg

File:Jetsons Movie Soundtrack.png

File:Ali G movie Soundtrack.jpg

File:Chillerama Zom-B-Movie Soundtrack.jpg

File:Caillou's Holiday Movie Soundtrack Cover.jpg

File:Hanamizuki Original Movie Soundtrack Cover.jpg

File:Wigstcd.jpeg

File:Gracesounds.jpg

File:Trailerparkboysmoviesoundtrack.jpg

File:Scary Movie 5 Soundtrack.jpg

File:Scary Movie 5 Score.jpg

File:Moshidora movie original soundtrack.jpg

File:To Save A Life Official Movie Soundtrack.jpg

File:Il ritorno di Ringomusic.jpg

File:Chaar Din Ki Chandni Album Cover.jpg

File:Gali Gali Chor Hai Album Cover.jpg

File:Housefull 2 Album Cover.jpg

File:Mengunssounds.jpg

File:London soundtrack.jpg

File:TheWildThornberrys-Soundtrack.jpg

File:Digimon soundtrack.jpg

File:Adventuresofthegreatmousedetective-soundtrack.jpg

File:Tere Naal Love Ho Gaya Album Cover.jpg

File:Head Cleaning Cartridge Tape1.jpg

File:Kaadhal Solla Vanthaen - 00 - Front.jpg

File:Zindagi Tere Naam Album Cover.jpg

File:Ecstasyost.jpg

File:Ecstasysoundtrack3.jpg

File:Beautiful World Ecstasy Remixes cover art.jpg

File:Power Rangers The Movie Cover.PNG

File:Pokémon The Movie 2000 Original Motion Picture Score (Italian).jpg

File:Armageddon - The Album (CD Cover).jpg

File:Amgsoundtrack.jpg

File:007TSWLMsoundtrack.jpg

File:Twelfth Doctor.jpg

File:Scary Movie OST.jpg

File:StrangerThanFiction(soundtrack)2.jpg

File:Holud Pakhir Dana poster2.jpg

File:Series7OST.gif

File:The princess bride 20th anniversary edition dvd.jpg

File:Boy Pick Up album cover.jpg

File:Heroes Fall - Music Inspired By The Motion Picture.jpg

File:RugratsInParis-Soundtrack.jpg

File:ScorpionKing.jpg

File:Gar Samuelson.jpg

File:Dekha Na Dekhay album.jpg

File:Man Who Wasn't There soundtrack.jpg

File:Four Rooms soundtrack album.jpg

File:Ninjascroll.jpg

File:Easysound101.jpg

File:Tum Mile Music Album.JPG

File:Downfromthemountaincdcover.jpg

File:Lastactionherocd.jpg

File:Raaz 3D (soundtrack).jpg

File:Prince soundtrack.jpg