Wikipedia:Files for deletion/2010 April 11

< April 10	April 12 >

April 11

File:236585 95e5cd47 MdHous.jpg

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 RHaworth (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 03:02, 18 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No source (could possibly be found through [1]), no description of location, low quality, and unused. Blurpeace 00:57, 11 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The 236585 was the clue. Speedily deleted - pointless cut-down version of File:Madehurst Lodge - geograph.org.uk - 236585.jpg. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 01:51, 18 April 2010 (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.

File:Fischer-Z - Marliese excerpt.ogg

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 Explicit (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 03:02, 19 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Content of song not discussed in article WP:NFC Dawnseeker2000 02:12, 11 April 2010 (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.

File:Fixx - Shuttered Room excerpt.ogg

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 Explicit (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 03:02, 19 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Content of song not discussed in article. WP:NFC Dawnseeker2000 02:14, 11 April 2010 (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.

File:Abakanowicz at the Hirshhorn.jpg

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 Fastily (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 06:04, 19 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Photo was taken in the United States; country lacks freedom of panorama law regarding sculptures (this one, according to the article, was erected in 1990). Fair use cannot be claimed as it is used in the lead of the creator's article (could be easily replaced by the FOP compliant sculpture in Poland; i.e., superfluous). Blurpeace 02:20, 11 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It's part of the Smithsonian collection; might not an argument be made that it's therefore federal property, or on federal property (museum grounds), and therefore passes muster? I believe I've seen the argument made elsewhere before. --Ser Amantio di Nicolao^{Che dicono a Signa?}_{Lo dicono a Signa.} 02:22, 11 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

According to this caption, the sculpture was on display during a showing. As for its current whereabouts, I am not sure. Regardless, being located on federal grounds does not transfer the work's copyright from Magdalena to the Smithsonian (e.g. art museums do not hold the copyright on their collections). Although they might physically own the sculpture, as stated, the rights remain with the author. Apologies, Blurpeace 02:36, 11 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. We already have a free image (from Poland) to represent her work. howcheng {chat} 23:56, 13 April 2010 (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.

File:Howard Jones - New Song.ogg

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 Explicit (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 03:02, 19 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Content of song not discussed in article WP:NFC Dawnseeker2000 02:20, 11 April 2010 (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.

File:Abanarcade.jpg

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 Explicit (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 03:02, 19 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Unused, and without a description, useless. Blurpeace 02:25, 11 April 2010 (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.

File:Canadageeselake3.jpg

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 Explicit (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) A file with this name on Commons is now visible. AnomieBOT ⚡ 03:02, 19 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned, Low Quality, no foreseeable use. FASTILY_sock^(TALK) 07:34, 11 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 06:21, 11 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Admin comment: Due to what seems to be a bug in Twinkle, this listing had been removed from its proper place. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 06:21, 11 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Move to Commons, cf page commons:Branta canadensis Jheald (talk) 08:45, 16 April 2010 (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.

File:CreightonCartoonVanityFairA.jpg

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 Fastily (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) A file with this name on Commons is now visible. AnomieBOT ⚡ 06:04, 19 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This is a low quality monochrome reproduction of orignal colour illustration. Better colour version is now available on Commons as File:Mandell Creighton Vanity Fair 22 April 1897.jpg. Rcbutcher (talk) 07:18, 11 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The colour version is of horrible quality with significant JPEG artifacts. I'd say the monochrome version is rather noisy but at the same time quite detailed. There is room for additional retouching as well. The colour version should be clearly superior to consider deleting this image. —Quibik (talk) 15:17, 11 April 2010 (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.

File:22Scars.jpg

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 Fastily (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 06:04, 19 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Low Quality + Image duplicated at [[File:Cutting words in self-harm.jpg]] + only used at archived discussion as to authenticity User_talk:Malleus_Fatuorum/Archives/2010/January#self injury Haruth (talk) 09:26, 11 April 2010 (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.

File:Cutting words in self-harm.jpg

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 Fastily (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 06:04, 19 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Low Quality + Image duplicated at [[File:22scars.jpg]] ( See Ffd discussion above ) Haruth (talk) 09:30, 11 April 2010 (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.

File:1957 ANZ newspaper ad.JPG

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 Fastily (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 06:04, 19 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This ad is still copyrighted nor does the uploader have any rights to the image as it is copyrighted to the Australia and New Zealand Banking Group.

Also since this ad wasn't published before 1 January 1955 {{PD-Australia}} can't be used and since the Copyright Act was amended in 2006 (with the protection was raised from 50 to 70 years) this file is now copyrighted until 2027. Bidgee (talk) 10:09, 11 April 2010 (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.

File:The Last Argus.JPG

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 Fastily (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 06:04, 19 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This ad is still copyrighted nor does the uploader have any rights to the image as it is copyrighted since this ad wasn't published before 1 January 1955 {{PD-Australia}} can't be used and since the Copyright Act was amended in 2006 (with the protection was raised from 50 to 70 years) this file is now copyrighted until 2027. Bidgee (talk) 10:16, 11 April 2010 (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.

File:Littlepurpleplanet.png

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 Explicit (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 03:02, 19 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

orphaned userbox image Skier Dude (talk) 07:24, 31 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 10:47, 11 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Admin comment: Due to what seems to be a bug in Twinkle, this listing had been removed from its proper place. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 10:47, 11 April 2010 (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.

File:Ratingbar50.png

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 Explicit (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 03:02, 19 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

orphaned, target article/encyc. use unclear Skier Dude (talk) 05:26, 1 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 10:58, 11 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Admin comment: Due to what seems to be a bug in Twinkle, this listing had been removed from its proper place. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 10:58, 11 April 2010 (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.

File:Alan-headshot.jpg

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 Explicit (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 03:02, 19 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Poor quality. No description to confirm notability of individual in the image. Haruth (talk) 12:18, 11 April 2010 (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.

File:Flag13.png

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 Explicit (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 03:02, 19 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

User created "flag". Can foresee no use for it. Haruth (talk) 12:42, 11 April 2010 (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.

File:Barry-guerin-greco.jpg

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 Explicit (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 03:02, 19 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Very poor quality image of martial artist who is already represented on 4 better quality images. Haruth (talk) 12:46, 11 April 2010 (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.

File:Bens is china.JPG

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 Explicit (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 03:02, 19 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Orphan image, with little foreseen use. Haruth (talk) 13:02, 11 April 2010 (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.

File:Booksasblacks.jpg

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 Explicit (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 03:02, 19 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Poor quality orphan with no foreseen usage. Haruth (talk) 13:23, 11 April 2010 (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.

File:Canker sore tongue.JPG

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 Howcheng (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 05:03, 19 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

2 year old orphan with no detailed description to confirm potential usefullness. Haruth (talk) 13:49, 11 April 2010 (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.

File:Career.JPG

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 Explicit (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 03:02, 19 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Poor quality orphan. No foreseen encyclopedic value. Haruth (talk) 15:06, 11 April 2010 (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.

File:Cat gun.jpg

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 Explicit (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 03:02, 19 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Orphan with no encyclopedic value. Haruth (talk) 15:10, 11 April 2010 (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.

File:Claude2.jpg

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 Explicit (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 03:02, 19 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Poor quality orphan with no foreseeable encyclopedic value. Haruth (talk) 15:30, 11 April 2010 (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.

File:Computers trailer.jpg

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 Explicit (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 03:02, 19 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Orphan with no foreseeable encyclopedic value. Haruth (talk) 15:45, 11 April 2010 (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.

File:BBC TV Centre IRA Bomb Damage.jpg

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 Fastily (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 03:02, 24 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Non-free photo from BBC news. The photograph itself is not the subject of sourced commentary in the article 4 March 2001 BBC bombing as requested by WP fair use, point 6. The image also could fail NFCC#8. No source provided (dead link to image). Jimbo W junior (talk) 15:46, 11 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The image is a screenshot taken from a BBC television news bulletin, not a photograph. A source link to the site the image was used from has been provided, though an exact link to the page is no longer available following a relaunch of that site. The image clearly illustrates the effect of the subject and a freely available image is extremely unlikely to be available owing to the nature of the event. Cloudbound (talk) 16:34, 11 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The screenshot, however, was originally uploaded by a tv news service as a photograph, it's not exactly a screen capture from a third part. The main issue here is NFCC#2 (respect of commercial opportunities of the copyright holder). On the other hand, the lack of a direct link to the original source is not a minor issue.--Jimbo W junior (talk) 17:25, 11 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I don't see where this image will impact on the commercial opportunities of the BBC. There are other images showing similar effects to this one in the media. Cloudbound (talk) 12:50, 12 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I don't see how it is necessary to see an image of the bomb damage to understand that the building was damaged. Is there something we're supposed to notice here that cannot be adequately described by text? howcheng {chat} 23:54, 13 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Adds to user understanding by showing exactly how the building was damaged (ie relatively little), much more directly than text. NFCC#2 is really directed at high-value photo agency pictures -- this is not such a pic. Jheald (talk) 08:57, 16 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The problem is that it's not particularly germane to the article because there is no need for the reader to see what was actually damaged. The fact that letters from the "BBC Television Centre" sign fell off the wall is trivial at best. howcheng {chat} 03:56, 18 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Looking at the image shows that there was more damage then just a few of the letters falling from the wall. Lights and material from the walls are hanging down, and the damage done to the bomb-proof glass is also obvious. I wouldn't describe an IRA bomb exploding in West London outside the BBC as trivial, whether the effects were thankfully much less than they could have been. Cloudbound (talk) 13:50, 20 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Like Howcheng, I don't see how this meets NFCC #1 and #8. Delete. Angus McLellan (Talk) 10:09, 20 April 2010 (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.

File:Cooltext454622457.gif

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 Explicit (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 03:02, 19 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Orphan with no apparent encyclopedic value, and no description to indicate otherwise. Haruth (talk) 15:54, 11 April 2010 (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.

File:Cover tj 269.pdf

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 Explicit (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 03:02, 19 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned duplicate of Cover_tj_268.jpg Haruth (talk) 16:18, 11 April 2010 (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.

File:TakeMyBreathAwaySample.ogg

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 Explicit (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 03:02, 19 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Content of song not discussed in article WP:NFC Dawnseeker2000 16:38, 11 April 2010 (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.

File:Takemeaway.ogg

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 Explicit (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 03:02, 19 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Content of song not discussed in article WP:NFC Dawnseeker2000 16:41, 11 April 2010 (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.

File:Taste the Secret - Ugly Duckling.ogg

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 Howcheng (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 05:03, 19 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Content of song not discussed in article WP:NFC Dawnseeker2000 16:43, 11 April 2010 (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.

File:Motion4.jpg

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 Explicit (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 03:02, 19 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Unused, unlikely to be of encyclopedic use. —Bkell (talk) 18:12, 11 April 2010 (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.

File:Mayhem You must fall.ogg

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 Explicit (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 03:02, 19 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Content of song not discussed in article. WP:NFC Dawnseeker2000 19:38, 11 April 2010 (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.

File:Mental As Anything - Live It Up excerpt.ogg

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 Explicit (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 03:02, 19 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Content of song not discussed in article WP:NFC Dawnseeker2000 19:41, 11 April 2010 (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.

File:ABMiller.jpg

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 Explicit (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 03:02, 19 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This user has a history of uploading this exact same copyrighted photograph of Alan B. Miller Hall and claiming that he took it himself, which is completely untrue and directly ignoring of copyright law. Jrcla2 (talk) 19:43, 11 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
No attempt has been made to ASK if i took the photo. He's just trolling. —Preceding unsigned comment added by AtlanticVerde (talk • contribs) 22:44, 11 April 2010 (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.

File:Mina Nessuno.ogg

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 Explicit (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 03:02, 19 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Corrupt file Dawnseeker2000 20:24, 11 April 2010 (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.

File:Mcbridenapoleon45.jpg

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: No Consensus. -FASTILY ^(TALK) 04:44, 19 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Contextually unnecessary for understanding the subject, which is the artist. ÷seresin 20:41, 11 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - This book shows the level of Clifford McBride's success during the WWII years. It offers representative samples of his artwork demonstrating his superior drawing talent. Pepso2 (talk) 20:52, 11 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and replace with a smaller image of the just the two characters, since they are his most famous creations. I wonder if there are still frames from those two short films... if you're lucky they might be out of copyright. howcheng {chat} 23:24, 12 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep It's reasonable to show an example of an artist's work -- it's central to what makes him notable, so directly adds to the understanding of the artist that readers gain from the article. On the grounds of reducing the impact of our copyright taking, it's long been held that it's preferable to reproduce a book cover, rather than interior matter, (see for example the long-standing and respected advice on fair use at WP:COMICS), since the book cover is what was created deliberately to be promotional and widely visible. Jheald (talk) 09:08, 16 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I agree with that sentiment, but the book is not under discussion here, so we can't have the cover. I'm not opposed to just having images of the main characters. howcheng {chat} 23:07, 16 April 2010 (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.

File:Billhoesttor90.jpg

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 Explicit (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 07:04, 19 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Cover of collection contextually unnecessary for understanding of the subject, which is the artist. Fails NFCC.8 ÷seresin 20:43, 11 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - These characters have had an immense popularity for over 40 years and should be visually represented as the best known work of cartoonist Bill Hoest. Also, it's important to make a visual distinction between the art of the deceased creator and the cartoons as they are currently drawn and syndicated. Pepso2 (talk) 20:57, 11 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as unnecessary since we already have images for readers to see in The Lockhorns. howcheng {chat} 22:21, 12 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Per above. Fails WP:NFCC#8. -FASTILY ^(TALK) 04:46, 19 April 2010 (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.

File:Bumpersnickers.jpg

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 Explicit (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 07:04, 19 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Cover of collection contextually unnecessary for understanding of the subject, which is the artist. Fails NFCC.8 ÷seresin 20:43, 11 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - This book shows the artist's versatility. Visuals of his many different features amplifies his reputation as a prolific workaholic (which could be expanded in text to come). Pepso2 (talk) 21:00, 11 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Could be kept if there is more written about this book in particular. howcheng {chat} 22:25, 12 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I have added Bumper Snickers to The National Enquirer page. Pepso2 (talk) 01:45, 13 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That's not really enough. It only gets a passing mention there. You'd really need a good section of Hoest's article devoted to it, or have enough to warrant its own article for that image to be used well. howcheng {chat} 04:54, 13 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Per above. Fails WP:NFCC#8. -FASTILY ^(TALK) 04:46, 19 April 2010 (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.

File:Williamhoest.jpg

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 Explicit (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 07:04, 19 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Minor strip is contextually unnecessary for understanding of the subject, which is the artist. Fails NFCC.8 The photograph may be justifiable for identification, as subject is deceased, but it cannot be attached to a comic. ÷seresin 20:44, 11 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - This is given the top right slot because it indicates an apogee in the artist's career curve, since only the leading cartoonists were selected by Volkswagen for this book. It is "attached" in order to remain faithful to the original book design. Also this is a perfect example of Bill Hoest at his best, since the situation illustrated is a unique and difficult drawing problem which Hoest solved with relative ease, indicating his skill as a professional cartoonist. Pepso2 (talk) 21:14, 11 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. It could be included in an article about Think Small, if that ad campaign by itself is notable (or a List of Volkswagen ad campaigns article in which "Think Small" is included). Pepso2: I appreciate what you are trying to do here but the use of non-free images is strictly controlled here on Wikipedia. Non-free images can be used to expand upon specific points made in the text. Here, I can understand that Hoest was selected to work on the ad campaign without actually having to see the cartoon itself. If you can expand the article to specifically discuss his cartoon, then you have a case for keeping it. For example, you say it's a "unique and difficult drawing problem". How so? And how was it done "with relative ease"? You don't have to explain it here -- put it in the article, with sources, and by doing so, you will make the VW cartoon indispensable. howcheng {chat} 22:43, 12 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Per above. Fails WP:NFCC#8. -FASTILY ^(TALK) 04:46, 19 April 2010 (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.

File:Ithejurysignet699.jpg

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 Explicit (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 07:04, 19 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Cover of story contextually unnecessary for understanding of the subject, which is the artist. Fails NFCC.8 ÷seresin 20:45, 11 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - This is a replacement image, one that is far superior in image resolution and subject matter to the image it replaced (a different cover of the same book). The suggestive nature of this particular cover is used here in an informational capacity, explaining the type of novels Mickey Spillane wrote and how his books were packaged and marketed. It thus contributes to the article as a whole. Pepso2 (talk) 21:21, 11 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. We already have File:Jury small.JPG in I, the Jury. However, as in Bill Hoest article, if you can expand the article to discuss the marketing of his novels (which isn't touched at all) and back it up with sources that point to the covers of the early Signet versions of Spillane's novels, then you've made a case to keep the book cover. howcheng {chat} 22:48, 12 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Per above. Fails WP:NFCC#8. -FASTILY ^(TALK) 04:46, 19 April 2010 (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.

File:Benchleydrucker.jpg

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 Explicit (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 07:04, 19 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Minor comic contextually unnecessary for understanding of the subject, which is the artist. Fails NFCC.8 ÷seresin 20:49, 11 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - This strip was an important stepping stone in John Reiner's career. I have just added it to the Mort Drucker page to further indicate its importance. Pepso2 (talk) 21:40, 11 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Not enough context. Certainly for John Reiner -- there's no explanation of what his contribution was. Even for Mort Drucker, there's no reason to include this strip right now. Maybe if Donald Regan was a frequent subject of the strip, or if this strip in particular made Regan upset. Even if we had an article about Benchley you'd only want to have specific images of the main characters (similar to Bloom County). howcheng {chat} 23:17, 12 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Per above. Fails WP:NFCC#8. -FASTILY ^(TALK) 04:47, 19 April 2010 (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.

File:Lockhornshoestreiner2310.gif

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 Explicit (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 07:04, 19 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Contextually unnecessary for understanding the subject, which is the author. Fails NFCC.8 The Lockhorns does not need an illustrative image, so there is no place for this image. ÷seresin 20:51, 11 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - This does not illustrate The Lockhorns. The significance of this image lies in the signature, the art and the date, as great care has been taken to contrast the difference between Bill Hoest's creations and the work of his widow, Bunny Hoest. Many readers may not even be aware that Bill Hoest is no longer alive. However, this becomes evident with a comparison of subtle differences in the artwork then and now. So the image has an informational capacity that contributes to the article as a whole, and it's necessary to see the work of both Bill Hoest and John Reiner to make the comparison. Pepso2 (talk) 21:51, 11 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete unless article is expanded to discuss these subtle differences in artwork, and in that case you'd probably want a portion of artwork by Bill Hoest and a similar piece by Bunny Hoest side-by-side to highlight the differences (for example, just the head of one character). To contrast changes in the signature, you can do this by showing the two signatures side-by-side. In both cases, you need to cite sources that discuss the changes as well, otherwise it's original research. howcheng {chat} 23:21, 12 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Per above. Fails WP:NFCC#8. -FASTILY ^(TALK) 04:47, 19 April 2010 (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.

File:Benhahn53.jpg

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 Explicit (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 07:04, 19 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Wholly unnecessary for understanding the subject article, which is paperback books. Patently fails NFCC.8 ÷seresin 20:54, 11 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - The encyclopedic article traces the history of paperback books, and this image shows the look of a paperback rack with numerous examples of paperback covers from the boom period of the early 1950s. Another illustrator might have just sketched in interpretations of covers, but Shahn pasted in the actual covers which makes this image valuable in conveying relevant information. Pepso2 (talk) 21:57, 11 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. This image can only be used in an article or section thereof discussing this specific image. It is certainly replaceable by a photo of a variety of paperback books. howcheng {chat} 23:35, 12 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Per above. Fails WP:NFCC#8. -FASTILY ^(TALK) 04:47, 19 April 2010 (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.

File:Newsstandzines1935.jpg

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 Explicit (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 07:04, 19 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Image imparts no contextually important information, and so fails NFCC.8 Also copyright holder is not identified. ÷seresin 21:09, 11 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - This photograph conveys important historical information of how pulp magazines were displayed and sold during their peak period during the 1930s. It shows how the pulps were positioned at the most accessible area of the newsstand. Pepso2 (talk) 21:59, 11 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. First of all, there's no source. The blog where you downloaded it from is not the source -- who took the photo, and who owns the copyright? If you're lucky, this one might even be public domain, but without the provenance there's no way of knowing. Besides, how can you even tell these are pulps in the photo? howcheng {chat} 23:37, 12 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Per above. Fails WP:NFCC#8. -FASTILY ^(TALK) 04:47, 19 April 2010 (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.

File:Capeasy.jpg

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 Explicit (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 07:04, 19 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Cover contextually unnecessary for understanding of the article subject, which is the artist. Fails NFCC.8 ÷seresin 21:11, 11 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Roy Crane is widely regarded as the innovator of the adventure continuity strip, and this image shows his famed character as an adventure hero. Pepso2 (talk) 22:05, 11 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as not necessary because we already have File:Captain Easy first Sunday 1933.jpg in Captain Easy. howcheng {chat} 21:26, 13 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Per above. Fails WP:NFCC#8. -FASTILY ^(TALK) 04:47, 19 April 2010 (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.

File:Roycranebuzsawyer.png

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. -FASTILY ^(TALK) 04:49, 19 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Contextually unnecessary for understanding of the article subject, which is the artist. Fails NFCC.8 Not needed in Buz Sawyer, as that article already has an illustrative image. ÷seresin 21:13, 11 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - As noted in Artofmine's rationale, this is an example of the artist's skill at handling chemicals on duotone paper to put painterly effects in b/w comic strips. Further, since Artofmine owns the original art, his image of this is superior to a newspaper clipping. Pepso2 (talk) 22:11, 11 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Conditional keep -- can be kept only if sources are added to the article that describe Roy Crane's style. Also, if the point is to show the "painterly effects" then you only need the right panel of the strip. howcheng {chat} 21:39, 13 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Image corresponds to text on art technique - The technique itself is obscure and complicated and requires illustration. The artist is noted for that specific craftint technique.--Scott Free (talk) 20:40, 16 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

As I said above, I'd support that only if sources can be added to back up that section. If there are no sources, then delete (just to make myself clear on this). howcheng {chat} 23:04, 16 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Actually I think I have stuff on this - it shouldn't be a problem - I'll get on it.--Scott Free (talk) 20:12, 17 April 2010 (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.

File:Washtubbs8.jpg

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 Explicit (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 06:04, 19 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Image contextually unnecessary for understanding of the article subject, which is the artist. Fails NFCC.8 ÷seresin 21:14, 11 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - This was a major publishing project, showing Crane as an influential artist, and this is only one book in a series of 18 volumes that reprinted the entirity of Crane's work on this strip. Further, the name Bill Blackbeard on the cover indicates the historical notability here. Pepso2 (talk) 22:15, 11 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Not necessary since we have File:Washtubbscolor.jpg. Also, having Blackbeard's name is immaterial -- that fact can be easily replaced by text describing the situation. howcheng {chat} 21:47, 13 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Per above. Fails WP:NFCC#8. -FASTILY ^(TALK) 04:51, 19 April 2010 (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.

File:Rcrane.gif

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: No Consensus. -FASTILY ^(TALK) 04:50, 19 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Contextually unnecessary for understanding of the article subject, which is the artist. Seems to be used for identification, and can be replaced by an actual photograph (Likely to be FU, but it will better serve us than a sketch.) Fails NFCC.8 ÷seresin 21:15, 11 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Historically, self-portraits have always been regarded as displaying the inner state of an artist and psychological insights, plus aspects of narrative. Pepso2 (talk) 22:18, 11 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete unless there is something special to this self-portrait, in which case details need to be added to the article. howcheng {chat} 21:59, 13 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep What's special about is that it was originally created for a special presentation book of the creators by the syndicate - and has been subsequently frequently used in books and articles and has become somewhat of a standard image, as have many other of the self-portraits created for that project.--Scott Free (talk) 18:45, 18 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

All right, so add that information to the article with sources, including the fact that it's become a "standard image", and that can justify its inclusion. Otherwise, it's just sitting there as decoration. howcheng {chat} 00:21, 19 April 2010 (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.

File:1951 Christmas Card Buz.jpg

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 Explicit (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 06:04, 19 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Contextually unnecessary for understanding of the article subject. Adds nothing substantive to understanding of the comic strip. Fails NFCC.8 ÷seresin 21:16, 11 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - This conveys the married life and domestic side of Crane's adventure character, not evident in the other images. Pepso2 (talk) 22:23, 11 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Not the subject of any commentary whatsoever. howcheng {chat} 00:23, 19 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Per above. Fails WP:NFCC#8. -FASTILY ^(TALK) 04:52, 19 April 2010 (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.

File:Buzjune44.jpg

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. -FASTILY ^(TALK) 04:53, 19 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Fails NFCC.3a; another image already exists in the article that serves the same purpose. ÷seresin 21:17, 11 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - This does not serve the same purpose. The Sunday strip was titled Buz Sawyer, but as explained in the text, it was not about Buz. Thus, b/w daily strips are necessary to see the true Buz. Further, this was a carefully chosen sequence because it shows the bond between Buz and sidekick Sweeney as he saves Sweeney's life. This example displays Crane's masterful blending of art and dialogue to present a narrative flow over several days. Pepso2 (talk) 22:33, 11 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If this is the "real" Buz Sawyer, then Keep this one and delete File:Buzsawyer112843.jpg. howcheng {chat} 21:57, 13 April 2010 (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.

File:Flapperfannysays.jpg

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 Explicit (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 06:04, 19 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Cover contextually unnecessary for understanding of the article subject, which is the artist. Fails NFCC.8 ÷seresin 21:24, 11 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - The art and the artist are synonymous. This is the feature for which Ethel Hays was known. And once again, Artofmine is providing an original which is quite different from a scanned newspaper clip. Pepso2 (talk) 22:38, 11 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as unnecessary because we already have File:Ethel Hays Flapper Fanny Says.jpg in Flapper Fanny Says. Alternatively, if you like this one better because it's an original, then delete the other one and move this image to the right location. howcheng {chat} 22:01, 13 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This might be public domain. The copyright date is 1926, so it would have had to have been renewed in 1954 or so, but I didn't see any entries in Google's Catalog of Copyright Entries database for "NEA Service" related to Flapper Fanny. Here's a search for "Ethel Hays" if you want try and trawl through those. If you can't find anything, we may be to mark this one as {{PD-US-not renewed}} (please be more thorough than I have been, however). howcheng {chat} 23:31, 13 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Per above. Fails WP:NFCC#8. -FASTILY ^(TALK) 04:52, 19 April 2010 (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.

File:EtheHaysABC.JPG

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 Explicit (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 06:04, 19 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Cover contextually unnecessary for understanding of the article subject, which is the artist. Fails NFCC.8 ÷seresin 21:24, 11 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - This shows Ethel Hays' heightened artistic ability at children's book illustration as seen in her original art, rather than a printed reproduction, and thus adds to the information of the text. Pepso2 (talk) 23:52, 11 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as the article lacks any context about this image. However, there is enough context in the "Transition to children's book illustration" section to support an Ethel Hays Raggedy Ann image. howcheng {chat} 23:17, 13 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Per above. Fails WP:NFCC#8. -FASTILY ^(TALK) 04:52, 19 April 2010 (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.

File:Romantic Picture Novelettes 1946.jpg

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. -FASTILY ^(TALK) 04:54, 19 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Cover contextually unnecessary for understanding of either article subject, which is the artist and an article about Romance Comics. Fails NFCC.8 ÷seresin 21:26, 11 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - This is of historical importance and should be visually represented as it is regarded as the first romance comic book. Pepso2 (talk) 21:30, 11 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The designation of this as the first romance comic is supported by an external source, but it's pretty borderline. Romance comics could use some more info about this book. Probably best removed from Mary Worth, however. howcheng {chat} 23:38, 13 April 2010 (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.

File:Simonkirbyphoto.jpg

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: No Consensus. -FASTILY ^(TALK) 04:55, 19 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Cover contextually unnecessary for understanding of either article subject, which is an article about romance comics in general and then a specific comic strip. Fails NFCC.8 ÷seresin 21:27, 11 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Poor resolution, but the importance of this creative team should be acknowledged visually. Pepso2 (talk) 22:56, 11 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry, that isn't supportable by NFC policy unless we have an article specifically on the Simon-Kirby studio. That may be the only place this image wold be useful. - J Greb (talk) 22:51, 14 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep- Please see FUR, and both GARs for Boys' Ranch--Scott Free (talk) 16:43, 12 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. It is not necessary to see a picture of Simon and Kirby together to undersetand that they worked together. howcheng {chat} 23:38, 13 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The article text delves into the creation period of the title and this photo specifically illustrates creators in studio during period of creation and shows them using western documentational illustrations. The process of creating a new comic book feature is complicated and not widely documented, therefore this image helps clarify the actual creative process of the series. --Scott Free (talk) 22:23, 14 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately that is something that can be covered adequately within the text. And that is if it is even broached in the articles where the image is used, which it isn't. Best I can find amounts to "the creative team of Simon and Kirby worked on these comics". Not illustrating that does not hamper a reader's understanding of the passage. Because of this, where the image is used, it's contrary to WP:NFCC#8. Without those uses the image is essentially orphaned. With that in mind, as nice an image as it is, it's deletable. - J Greb (talk) 22:51, 14 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

There are other passages mentioning the studio and their research on the series. The photo helps explains a little-known aspect of comic book creation from the 50s, that not everyone is familiar with. Basically the section deals with the creation of the series, so a photo from that specific period showing the creators at work on the specific series seems like a fairly straightforward illustration to use; it seems a fairly basic case of image use for that context, taken from an article that deals precisely with the creation of the series. I think it's clear that the use is for pragmatic encyclopedic and informative purposes.--Scott Free (talk) 20:56, 16 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No. The image is "nice" and if this were a fanzine article, maybe even justified. But the text does the job fine and we are constrained by policy. If lack of the image does not make it harder for a reader to under stand the passage, then the image is an "extra". In this case it a reader's understanding isn't hindered.

Something else to think on: The same image is used in two dissimilar articles - one is on a genera (Romance comics) the other a specific title (Boys' Ranch which is a Western) - for the same reason - see the "creators" at work on this topic. - J Greb (talk) 21:36, 16 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I agree that the image is not necessary for Romance comics - were they the most notable creators in the genre? If not, why have a picture of them and no one else? As for having them on Boys' Ranch, that's another story as I have seen images of creators before on GAs and FAs; see Planescape: Torment, Expedition to the Barrier Peaks, and Ravenloft (module). Although is the difference here the fact that the image is non-free as opposed to free use? BOZ (talk) 22:25, 16 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Yes, that is precisely the difference. howcheng {chat} 23:02, 16 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: The Simon and Kirby team was quite influential during the Golden Age, so I have no problems with the image itself. If it's a good illustration for the article Romance Comics is however doubtful. 惑乱 Wakuran (talk) 12:25, 17 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed - I'm sure it belongs very well somewhere, maybe just not where it is currently in use. BOZ (talk) 17:13, 17 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

3 places I can think of:

Simon-Kirby Studio - as mentioned above, an article on that collaeration/work arrangement would be the best fit for this image.
Within the Kirby article discussing his work relationships. Though that may become problematic given the number of notable pairing there.
Similarly within the Simon article, with the same issue.

- J Greb (talk) 17:19, 17 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No, sorry. In order to use this photo anywhere, you'd have to prove that you need it in order to understand the article text. In each of the proposed usages above, it's mere decoration. Showing the two individuals together, no matter how influential or important they were, gives us no particular understanding of their relationship, personal or professional. When the non-free image is used in an editorial context (as opposed to identification like book covers, or as the topic of an article itself), you need to make it so that by looking at the picture, the reader will be thinking something like, "Oh, THAT'S what that part meant". howcheng {chat} 18:53, 17 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Well, just looking at the policy, it would seem to be OK -

Contextual significance. Non-free content is used only if its presence would significantly increase readers' understanding of the topic,

- That's the reason I put it there.

and its omission would be detrimental to that understanding.

Indeed it would. I'm assuming here that the article is aimed also for a general audience. Say someone with no knowledge of comics of Wikipedia policy saw the Boy's Ranch movie and stumbled onto the Wikipedia article and wanted to read it. In that case, the photo would almost certainly be considered perfectly valid. Even one person commented that they didn't understand that the 'Publication History' section pertains mainly to the creation process of said title. "Oh, THAT'S what that research process for creating a comic title meant".Presumably, it was the photo that brought their attention to that fact. --Scott Free (talk) 20:04, 17 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry, but how does a photo of two people together help anyone understand that these two people worked together? Let's look at this from a different angle: Suppose that Simon and Kirby lived across the country from each other and communicated by phone and mail. I highly doubt that having photos of them talking on the telephone or stuffing artwork/scripts into envelopes would help you understand this. Even in the context of Boys' Ranch, I don't see how anyone would be hard-pressed to figure out that people who work on Westerns refer to previous Westerns for inspiration. In that article, there's also the sentence, "Simon and Kirby claimed they had spent ten years researching what became Boys Ranch, traveling to Texas, Wyoming, and Arkansas". Do you honestly believe someone might need a photo of them standing next to a Texas landmark (say, the Alamo) to be able to understand that sentence? howcheng {chat} 02:01, 18 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

What if, say an 11-year old girl from Norway, were to read the article? It may not be necesary to explain WHAT they were doing, but more HOW they did it.--Scott Free (talk) 18:40, 18 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Not to sound flippant, but that's what is for. howcheng {chat} 00:18, 19 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, and the source of the confusion about "publication history" is more likely because that term usually refers to the actual publishing, such as "Book X was originally issued by Publisher Y, but Publisher Y went out of business and its assets were purchased by Publisher Z. The contract with the author then had to be renegotiated and it was three more years before Book X finally made it to bookstore shelves." That's what *I* think of when someone says "publication history". howcheng {chat} 04:00, 18 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The original section title was actually 'Creation' - it was changed by community consensus. But the text is clearly mainly about the creation. Looking at it another way - If a text on the Citizen Kane article said that Orson Welles worked closely with cameraman Gregg Toland during the filming - I think it would be perfectly acceptable to have a FU photo of Welles on the set with Toland - and it would add a greater dimension to the text. Or if Picasso worked on his Guernica in his Paris studio in the 1930s, I think it would be perfectly acceptable to have a FU photo of Picasso in his studio with an unfinished study of the Guernica in the background.--Scott Free (talk) 18:40, 18 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No, in either of those cases, such photos would be just as unacceptable. howcheng {chat} 00:18, 19 April 2010 (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.

File:Mary Worth.jpg

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 Explicit (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 06:04, 19 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Contextually unnecessary for understanding of the article subject; it is not so unique an example of the strip that it merits FU. Fails NFCC.8 ÷seresin 21:29, 11 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - This is the only strip on the page showing interaction and dialogue of the Mary Worth characters, enabling reader to see how Ken Ernst illustrated Allen Saunders' script.. Pepso2 (talk) 00:11, 12 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Ken Ernst's art is already represented in the cover. howcheng {chat} 23:50, 13 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Per above. Fails WP:NFCC#8. -FASTILY ^(TALK) 04:52, 19 April 2010 (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.

File:Applemary400204.jpg

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 Explicit (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 06:04, 19 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Fails NFCC.3a ÷seresin 21:29, 11 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Note the subtitle Mary Worth's Family. This image is critical in showing the evolution from Apple Mary to Mary Worth. Pepso2 (talk) 23:15, 11 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. We don't need to see the subtitle to know that it was subtitled. You already have an Apple Mary image in here already. howcheng {chat} 23:51, 13 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Per above. Fails WP:NFCC#8. -FASTILY ^(TALK) 04:52, 19 April 2010 (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.