Wikipedia:Files for deletion/2009 May 18

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

The result of the discussion was: Wrong forum. The file is on Commons, please nominate it for deletion there if you still feel it should be deleted. AnomieBOT⚡ 06:03, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

::File:{{ucfirst:Brockett-1968.jpg}} ([{{fullurl:File:Brockett-1968.jpg|action=delete&wpReason={{urlencode:Wikipedia:Files for deletion/2009 May 18}}}} delete] | talk | [{{fullurl:File:{{ucfirst:Brockett-1968.jpg}}|action=history}} history] | [{{fullurl:Special:Log|page={{urlencode:File:{{ucfirst:Brockett-1968.jpg}}}}}} logs]) - uploaded by ([ notify] | contribs).

• Not a picture of Brockett. 38.100.141.142 (talk) 05:52, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

: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 {{admin|Stifle}} AnomieBOT⚡ 12:08, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

::File:{{ucfirst:Greg&jenny.jpg}} ([{{fullurl:File:Greg&jenny.jpg|action=delete&wpReason={{urlencode:Wikipedia:Files for deletion/2009 May 18}}}} delete] | talk | [{{fullurl:File:{{ucfirst:Greg&jenny.jpg}}|action=history}} history] | [{{fullurl:Special:Log|page={{urlencode:File:{{ucfirst:Greg&jenny.jpg}}}}}} logs]) - uploaded by Jeffpw ([{{fullurl:User_talk:Jeffpw|action=edit&preload=Template:idw_preload&editintro=Template:idw_editintro§ion=new&create=Post+a+comment}} notify] | contribs).

• Decorative non-free image. Unverifiable source. Damiens.rf 12:52, 18 May 2009 (UTC)
• Keep. Source is American Broadcasting Company. Image is of this fictional couple at their wedding, noted within the article. Flyer22 (talk) 22:49, 18 May 2009 (UTC)
• Furthermore, it currently has the wrong licensing. It is a simple screenshot of two fictional characters, and therefore should have a screenshot license. Flyer22 (talk) 22:52, 18 May 2009
• Went ahead and changed it to appropriate license. Flyer22 (talk) 22:56, 18 May 2009 (UTC)
• Keep The source is now clear and the picture is illustrative of a defining moment in their story. AniMate^draw 01:52, 19 May 2009 (UTC)
• Delete Non-free image that does not significantly increase the readers' understanding. We don't need an image to understand that two characters got married. Jay32183 (talk) 05:44, 20 May 2009 (UTC)
• Keep Per AniMate. - ALLST✰R▼^echo _{wuz here @} 06:01, 20 May 2009 (UTC)
• Delete either this one or the other one in the article. We don't need both. — BQZip01 — ^talk 01:38, 24 May 2009 (UTC)
• Delete - The picture shows nothing of great significance and appears to be not discussed with sourced commentary in the article. As a casual reader I got no additional understanding of the subject due to this image. Its inclusion is decorative and it fails WP:NFCC#8 - Peripitus (Talk) 12:26, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

: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 Graeme Bartlett (talk) 11:32, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

::File:{{ucfirst:Analysis Tianenmen False Fire GIF.gif}} ([{{fullurl:File:Analysis Tianenmen False Fire GIF.gif|action=delete&wpReason={{urlencode:Wikipedia:Files for deletion/2009 May 18}}}} delete] | talk | [{{fullurl:File:{{ucfirst:Analysis Tianenmen False Fire GIF.gif}}|action=history}} history] | [{{fullurl:Special:Log|page={{urlencode:File:{{ucfirst:Analysis Tianenmen False Fire GIF.gif}}}}}} logs]) - uploaded by Dilip rajeev ([{{fullurl:User_talk:Dilip rajeev|action=edit&preload=Template:idw_preload&editintro=Template:idw_editintro§ion=new&create=Post+a+comment}} notify] | contribs).

• Animated gif that is a severe violation of the minimal use element of the NFCC. A long animation is absolutely not needed- if anything is required, it is a single frame. J Milburn (talk) 18:28, 18 May 2009 (UTC)
• Keep A still frame can not capture the dynamic of the hit. The propaganda said that one of the immolators has died on the scene because of the flames. One death was required to make the whole story believable as being serious. This short animation, contains the most minimum of frames, where it shows how the victim actually falls from being hit. It also shows how heavily the alleged self immolators where dressed up. These kind of heavy gears are used for fire protection, see [http://deep6-publishing.org/poisonous_deceit.pdf]. --HappyInGeneral (talk) 23:01, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

:Keep. A still absolutely cannot convey the information currently conveyed by the clip. The gif contains the absolute minimum number of frames needed to convey that. Kindly see the fair use rationale.

:Dilip rajeev (talk) 05:46, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

:WP:OI? Stifle (talk) 10:18, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

:::Nope. The clip is a capture from the "False Fire" documentary[http://www.falsefire.com/].

:::Dilip rajeev (talk) 19:52, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

:Keep on the condition that the caption for the image is composed of cited material. The length is not sufficient to exceed fair use. — Hex (❝?!❞) 12:58, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

Delete unnecessary animation--PCPP (talk) 05:52, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

• Keep per Dilip rajeev and HappyInGeneral - ALLST✰R▼^echo _{wuz here @} 06:43, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

• Keep -- the reasoning has been given: still frame obviously can't capture the movement of the event, which is necessary for understanding the text in the article, the material is cited, doesn't exceed fair use, doesn't infringe on copyright holder.--Asdfg12345 08:29, 21 May 2009 (UTC)
• Keep per all the "keeps" above. — BQZip01 — ^talk 01:41, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

: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. According to WP:Non-free content criteria#Enforcement, it is the responsibility of "users seeking to include or retain content to provide a valid rationale, not for those seeking to remove or delete it to show that one cannot be created. A rationale for why these images are irreplaceable has not been successfully made.--Aervanath (talk) 09:27, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

::File:{{ucfirst:ImmolaterStillfromFalseFire.jpg}} ([{{fullurl:File:ImmolaterStillfromFalseFire.jpg|action=delete&wpReason={{urlencode:Wikipedia:Files for deletion/2009 May 18}}}} delete] | talk | [{{fullurl:File:{{ucfirst:ImmolaterStillfromFalseFire.jpg}}|action=history}} history] | [{{fullurl:Special:Log|page={{urlencode:File:{{ucfirst:ImmolaterStillfromFalseFire.jpg}}}}}} logs]) - uploaded by Dilip rajeev ([{{fullurl:User_talk:Dilip rajeev|action=edit&preload=Template:idw_preload&editintro=Template:idw_editintro§ion=new&create=Post+a+comment}} notify] | contribs).

• Very high resolution, shows a large number of non-free elements, many of which are clearly replaceable. J Milburn (talk) 18:30, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

:*Individual images are of a low resolution and are non-replaceable. Some images are of a historic incident, which happened in 2001. The rest are also taken from the same documentary whose analysis on the particular matter, the image outlines. They are of central relevance in the article as well. Please see my comments below.

::Dilip rajeev (talk) 17:22, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

• Keep 3 of the 4 pictures presented are screen captures, of low resolution, fair use rationale is presented for these. The 4th picture is a text book presentation of the correct hand gesture, there is no copyright on that part of the image. --HappyInGeneral (talk) 23:04, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

• Keep. These are screen captures - and the captures were not done from a high resolution video. 796 × 1,200 is just the size or dimension of the composite image - not the resolution of original images. Six images together being just 796 × 1,200 implies individual resolution is very low.

Dilip rajeev (talk) 11:41, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

:Delete. The composition and labelling of the image are original research. — Hex (❝?!❞) 12:59, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

::Kindly note that the 'statements in the image are not original research. The stills are from the "False Fire" documentary. The statements as well as the composition is bsed on and can be sourced to the same documentary. The context in which the image is used and its caption make the sourcing clear. There is nothing of an OR nature in the labels/comments.

::Dilip rajeev (talk) 19:48, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

:Delete require better sourcing and rewrite of added captions.--PCPP (talk) 05:50, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

:I have made clear the source and that the info can be directly sourced to the documentary. Could you please be a little less vague and specify what exact info you are looking for? It could as well be added now to the image description page.

:Dilip rajeev (talk) 06:45, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

• Keep per Dilip rajeev and HappyInGeneral - ALLST✰R▼^echo _{wuz here @} 06:46, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

• Keep -- no clear violation of policy here. The individual image resolution is quite low; the screen captures are not replaceable; there is no infringement on the ability of the copyright holders to make money from their copyright. Definitely within fair use.--Asdfg12345 08:29, 21 May 2009 (UTC)
• Delete per WP:NFCC#3a. Stifle (talk) 13:28, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

• Comment. WP:NFCC#3a states: "Multiple items of non-free content are not used if one item can convey equivalent significant information.". One item certainly cannot convey the information carried by the composite image. None of the images in it are redundant. Even if a single image were removed from it, the composite would fail to convey the information it currently does.Dilip rajeev (talk) 18:43, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

• Delete per Stifle. Too many images are in use on this article. — BQZip01 — ^talk 03:53, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

:Comment. Wanted to add that the images support central commentary in the article and contribute a lot in terms of conveying information. The article would be much poorer without them and there are no copyright violations in using them either.Dilip rajeev (talk) 18:34, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

::I understand they contribute a lot, but several photos appear to be screenshots. While they are certainly illustrative, they aren't anything that could be replaced by you walking outside and taking photos to illustrate without using copyrighted materials. — BQZip01 — ^talk 19:24, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

:::They are screenshots from the documentary titled False Fire[http://www.falsefire.com]. The purpose is to convey a central piece of information from the documentary. Some of the stills are from the original footage of the staged self-immolation incident which happened in 2001( the footage is part of the false fire documentary ) - and clearly are not replaceable. Others are also stills from the same documentary, used for the purpose of presenting information conveyed by the documentary. Further, I really cannot make up my own set of images and use them to present the perspective of this particular documentary/source - I'll have to draw from the same source if I am to accurately do that - or it would amount to WP:OR. Also these are just a few stills from a 45 min documentary - and clearly fair-use. See image description as well.

:::Dilip rajeev (talk) 20:33, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

• Keep The picture has a good source. This is the most important evidence that CCTV tries to hide. I heard that CCTV even tried to delete this from their original video later. If you are not afraid of seeing the evidence, there is no excuse to delete this image. Let the fact stay. (We may consider deleting other images if you think there are too many images. ) Fnhddzs (talk) 01:54, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

: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 Graeme Bartlett (talk) 11:40, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

::File:{{ucfirst:Wjd3photos.jpg}} ([{{fullurl:File:Wjd3photos.jpg|action=delete&wpReason={{urlencode:Wikipedia:Files for deletion/2009 May 18}}}} delete] | talk | [{{fullurl:File:{{ucfirst:Wjd3photos.jpg}}|action=history}} history] | [{{fullurl:Special:Log|page={{urlencode:File:{{ucfirst:Wjd3photos.jpg}}}}}} logs]) - uploaded by Asdfg12345 ([{{fullurl:User_talk:Asdfg12345|action=edit&preload=Template:idw_preload&editintro=Template:idw_editintro§ion=new&create=Post+a+comment}} notify] | contribs).

• Image is simply not required. It adds little to the article, and the use of a non-free image in this instance is not justified. J Milburn (talk) 18:31, 18 May 2009 (UTC)
• Keep This image shows yet another inconsistency in the story presented by the Chinese government. This image shows head to head, the person who was claimed by the government to have been identified and the self imolator. This way the difference is obvious. So in my opinion this image is needed. --HappyInGeneral (talk) 22:52, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

:Keep. Please note that it supports commentary in the section it is used.

:Dilip rajeev (talk) 19:56, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

:Delete image should be written in English.--PCPP (talk) 05:49, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

• Keep per Dilip rajeev and HappyInGeneral. Also, English is not a requirement for images. - ALLST✰R▼^echo _{wuz here @} 06:47, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

• Keep -- not as strong a keep as the other two, but there's still no clear infringement of fair use policy here, is there? The image provides a visual illustration of parts of the text of the article, is of low resolution, and does not infringe on the copyright holder.--Asdfg12345 08:29, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

• Keep adequate illustration of the issues described in the article. A translation of the Chinese in the image should be provided to help us understand the image better. For all most of us know it could be cursing our ancestors, threatening to make a bowl of oatmeal, or other nonsense. — BQZip01 — ^talk 03:55, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

: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 {{admin|Drilnoth}} AnomieBOT⚡ 03:02, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

::File:{{ucfirst:Raiders SFCH.jpg}} ([{{fullurl:File:Raiders SFCH.jpg|action=delete&wpReason={{urlencode:Wikipedia:Files for deletion/2009 May 18}}}} delete] | talk | [{{fullurl:File:{{ucfirst:Raiders SFCH.jpg}}|action=history}} history] | [{{fullurl:Special:Log|page={{urlencode:File:{{ucfirst:Raiders SFCH.jpg}}}}}} logs]) - uploaded by Mdiamante ([{{fullurl:User_talk:Mdiamante|action=edit&preload=Template:idw_preload&editintro=Template:idw_editintro§ion=new&create=Post+a+comment}} notify] | contribs).

• Copyrighted image used without adequate nonfree use rationale: image is from the film Raiders of the Lost Ark, but used to illustrate the San Francisco City Hall article. Building was constructed in 1915; free licensed images of the structure should be available. Its use as a film location carries slight importance within the article. Durova^Charge! 19:16, 18 May 2009 (UTC)
• Delete This should have been tagged with {{tls|nrd}}. -FASTILY ^(TALK) 05:56, 21 May 2009 (UTC)
• Delete ASAP. — BQZip01 — ^talk 01:47, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the discussion was: - Delete - image fails NFCC#8 in not significantly increasing reader's understanding - Peripitus (Talk) 12:42, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

::File:{{ucfirst:Larryking.jpg}} ([{{fullurl:File:Larryking.jpg|action=delete&wpReason={{urlencode:Wikipedia:Files for deletion/2009 May 18}}}} delete] | talk | [{{fullurl:File:{{ucfirst:Larryking.jpg}}|action=history}} history] | [{{fullurl:Special:Log|page={{urlencode:File:{{ucfirst:Larryking.jpg}}}}}} logs]) - uploaded by David Foster ([{{fullurl:User_talk:David Foster|action=edit&preload=Template:idw_preload&editintro=Template:idw_editintro§ion=new&create=Post+a+comment}} notify] | contribs).

• What his mugshot looked like is not important to the article. There are free images of the subject, this non-free one is not required. J Milburn (talk) 19:24, 18 May 2009 (UTC)
• Keep Sumanch (talk) 04:10, 20 May 2009 (UTC)
• Keep There is nothing wrong with keeping this image. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.105.39.146 (talk) 17:18, 20 May 2009 (UTC)
• Delete - seeing the screenshot doesn't help to understand the article. --Damiens.rf 04:50, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

:How he looked in the mugshot is not essential information, but just a decoration for the text about his problems with the justice. --Damiens.rf 18:02, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

• Delete The mugshot doesn't improve the readers' understanding of the topic. Text alone can make the point. Jay32183 (talk) 07:57, 21 May 2009 (UTC)
• Delete, decorative, no source. Stifle (talk) 13:28, 21 May 2009 (UTC)
• Keep . illustrates his problems with the law and supports the attached text thus useful to the article, if pictures are available, they should be used to support important subject matter. Revrant (talk) 13:40, 22 May 2009 (UTC)
• Keep . In the same way the picture at the top of the page adds colour, this picture, despite being a mugshot, shows a younger larry, and does add depth to the discussion of his earlier troubles. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.197.203.84 (talk) 18:50, 22 May 2009 (UTC)
• Delete Nothing is particularly notable about this photograph. While his arrest is notable, this photo isn't. I have no problem with the article linking to such an image on the Smoking Gun though. — BQZip01 — ^talk 03:51, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

: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 Graeme Bartlett (talk) 11:45, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

::File:{{ucfirst:PCT - IHTP.ogg}} ([{{fullurl:File:PCT - IHTP.ogg|action=delete&wpReason={{urlencode:Wikipedia:Files for deletion/2009 May 18}}}} delete] | talk | [{{fullurl:File:{{ucfirst:PCT - IHTP.ogg}}|action=history}} history] | [{{fullurl:Special:Log|page={{urlencode:File:{{ucfirst:PCT - IHTP.ogg}}}}}} logs]) - uploaded by Alecsdaniel ([{{fullurl:User_talk:Alecsdaniel|action=edit&preload=Template:idw_preload&editintro=Template:idw_editintro§ion=new&create=Post+a+comment}} notify] | contribs).

• I know I7 but I'm not sure whether to delete this file. It's longer than is generally allowed and is usage looks purely illustrative [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=I_Hate_This_Part&oldid=290251844 here], but I think we should have some discussion in case someone can justify its usage. Ricky81682 (talk) 19:38, 18 May 2009 (UTC)
• Delete Nothing particularly notable and we don't need to have this to understand the impact of the music. More specifically, it does not meet the minimum criteria in Wikipedia:Music samples — BQZip01 — ^talk 03:39, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

: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 {{admin|Peripitus}} AnomieBOT⚡ 13:57, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

::File:{{ucfirst:Cliff and Nina.jpg}} ([{{fullurl:File:Cliff and Nina.jpg|action=delete&wpReason={{urlencode:Wikipedia:Files for deletion/2009 May 18}}}} delete] | talk | [{{fullurl:File:{{ucfirst:Cliff and Nina.jpg}}|action=history}} history] | [{{fullurl:Special:Log|page={{urlencode:File:{{ucfirst:Cliff and Nina.jpg}}}}}} logs]) - uploaded by Flyer22 ([{{fullurl:User_talk:Flyer22|action=edit&preload=Template:idw_preload&editintro=Template:idw_editintro§ion=new&create=Post+a+comment}} notify] | contribs).

• Decorative non-free poster. Helps nothing in understanding the article. Damiens.rf 20:11, 18 May 2009 (UTC)
• Delete The article already has one fair use image, :File:CliffNina.jpg, which already serves the purpose of illustrating the couple. There is no commentary in the article explaining why this specific image is important to the subject or relevant to illustrate some specific point or other. --Enric Naval (talk) 15:18, 19 May 2009 (UTC)
• Keep. --Silvestris (talk) 00:04, 20 May 2009 (UTC)
• Do you have a reason for that? The essay at WP:JUSTAVOTE suggests that giving no reason for your opinion at a deletion discussion is poor form. Stifle (talk) 13:30, 21 May 2009 (UTC)
• This editor just [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Files_for_deletion/2009_May_18&diff=prev&oldid=291064976 blindly voted keep] in tens of images after [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Silvestris&diff=290826934&oldid=277744184 being canvassed to do so]. The admin closing the nominations on this page will have to take an extra care to consider policy-based arguments over "votes". --Damiens.rf 17:17, 21 May 2009 (UTC)
• I did not canvass Silvestris whatsoever. Silvestris is directly connected to most of these images through WP:SOAPS. And as the link Damiens.rf displays, I suggested to Silvestris that he or she "vote" and explain the reasons for that vote regarding the Famous Luke and Noah kiss.jpg. Furthermore, Silvestris contacted me first about Damiens.rf's deletion nominations. None of this fits WP:CANVASS. It is not at all as though I told or suggested to Silvestris to blindly "vote" Keep on all these images. I certainly never "vote" Keep without giving an explanation for voting that way. Oh, yes, the closing administrator will most definitely have to put forth extra care to consider policy-based arguments over "votes." Flyer22 (talk) 23:32, 21 May 2009 (UTC)
• So much for WP:AGF, huh?
• And several of the images you put up for deletion were on my watchlist. --Silvestris (talk) 03:30, 22 May 2009 (UTC)
• Delete, fails WP:NFCC#3a. Stifle (talk) 13:30, 21 May 2009 (UTC)
• Delete per Enric. — BQZip01 — ^talk 03:29, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the discussion was: - Delete - as failing NFCC#3a and probably NFCC#8 - Peripitus (Talk) 12:31, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

::File:{{ucfirst:A young Tad and Dixie kiss.jpg}} ([{{fullurl:File:A young Tad and Dixie kiss.jpg|action=delete&wpReason={{urlencode:Wikipedia:Files for deletion/2009 May 18}}}} delete] | talk | [{{fullurl:File:{{ucfirst:A young Tad and Dixie kiss.jpg}}|action=history}} history] | [{{fullurl:Special:Log|page={{urlencode:File:{{ucfirst:A young Tad and Dixie kiss.jpg}}}}}} logs]) - uploaded by Flyer22 ([{{fullurl:User_talk:Flyer22|action=edit&preload=Template:idw_preload&editintro=Template:idw_editintro§ion=new&create=Post+a+comment}} notify] | contribs).

• Decorative non-free screenshot. Helps nothing in understanding the article. Damiens.rf 20:12, 18 May 2009 (UTC)
• Not decorative. Kiss between two fictional characters. Unless the reader knows what a young Tad and Dixie looked like, it does add to the article in a way that helps the reader understand that point in time.
• Note: This user is on a crusade against almost any image I have uploaded, when most are perfectly valid within the realm of fictional characters. Flyer22 (talk) 22:46, 18 May 2009 (UTC)
• Note: The above note violates WP:AGF and offers no actual justification to keep. --Hammersoft (talk) 15:03, 19 May 2009 (UTC)
• Note: I explained at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding Damiens.rf as to why I could not assume good faith in this case. I also feel that I offered actual justification above for why this image should stay. Flyer22 (talk) 18:45, 19 May 2009 (UTC)
• Rather than re-copying my response again, I'll note that I was responding to your note, and that the note has nothing to do with whether to keep the image or not. Further, assuming bad-faith does not bring anything to the table that is useful to the debate. If you have issue with Damiens, take it up elsewhere. Here is not the place. --Hammersoft (talk) 19:53, 19 May 2009 (UTC)
• I disagree. Flyer22 (talk) 23:16, 19 May 2009 (UTC)
• Delete redundant with fair use :File:TadandDixieMartin.jpg which is already at the top of the article and illustrates the same topic a bit better. --Enric Naval (talk) 15:23, 19 May 2009 (UTC)
• Keep - Good image, gives commentary to article, no reason for deletion. - NeutralHomer • Talk • 20:10, 19 May 2009 (UTC)
• Keep. --Silvestris (talk) 00:04, 20 May 2009 (UTC)
• Keep per NeutralHomer - ALLST✰R▼^echo _{wuz here @} 06:04, 20 May 2009 (UTC)
• Delete Does not improve the readers' understanding. We don't need to see the characters kissing to understand that they kissed. Jay32183 (talk) 08:00, 21 May 2009 (UTC)
• Delete, fails WP:NFCC#3a. Stifle (talk) 13:56, 21 May 2009 (UTC)
• Delete per Stifle and Enric. — BQZip01 — ^talk 03:27, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

: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 - Note that those seeking to keep the image have not offered any policy basis for the image's inclusion. - Peripitus (Talk) 12:36, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

::File:{{ucfirst:Dixie is back.jpg}} ([{{fullurl:File:Dixie is back.jpg|action=delete&wpReason={{urlencode:Wikipedia:Files for deletion/2009 May 18}}}} delete] | talk | [{{fullurl:File:{{ucfirst:Dixie is back.jpg}}|action=history}} history] | [{{fullurl:Special:Log|page={{urlencode:File:{{ucfirst:Dixie is back.jpg}}}}}} logs]) - uploaded by Flyer22 ([{{fullurl:User_talk:Flyer22|action=edit&preload=Template:idw_preload&editintro=Template:idw_editintro§ion=new&create=Post+a+comment}} notify] | contribs).

• Decorative non-free banner. Helps nothing in understanding the article. Damiens.rf 20:13, 18 May 2009 (UTC)
• Delete This fair use advertisment has no commentary on the article Tad Martin and Dixie Cooney that justifies why it is needed there. If there is something special to it, then explain it on the article and add a note here so it can be looked at. (It's also placed in the middle of the storyline section for no apparent reason, as if it was a decoration, so it should be moved to a relevant section when an explanation is added). --Enric Naval (talk) 15:27, 19 May 2009 (UTC)
• Keep - Good image, no reason for deletion. - NeutralHomer • Talk • 20:10, 19 May 2009 (UTC)
• Keep. --Silvestris (talk) 00:04, 20 May 2009 (UTC)
• Keep per NeutralHomer - ALLST✰R▼^echo _{wuz here @} 06:05, 20 May 2009 (UTC)
• Delete Non-free image that doesn't really show anything. Text alone can explain that there were advertisements. Jay32183 (talk) 08:02, 21 May 2009 (UTC)
• Delete, decorative fair use (fails WP:NFCC#8). Closing admin is requested to consider arguments based in policy ahead of those with no such base. Stifle (talk) 13:56, 21 May 2009 (UTC)
• Delete This image is one of a few copyrighted images on the article violating WP:NFCC#3. Specifically, we don't need an additional non-free image when one does the trick. — BQZip01 — ^talk 03:26, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

: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: Deleted. Fails NFCC#8. – Quadell ^(talk) 13:55, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

::File:{{ucfirst:A Wedding For Tad & Dixie!.jpg}} ([{{fullurl:File:A Wedding For Tad & Dixie!.jpg|action=delete&wpReason={{urlencode:Wikipedia:Files for deletion/2009 May 18}}}} delete] | talk | [{{fullurl:File:{{ucfirst:A Wedding For Tad & Dixie!.jpg}}|action=history}} history] | [{{fullurl:Special:Log|page={{urlencode:File:{{ucfirst:A Wedding For Tad & Dixie!.jpg}}}}}} logs]) - uploaded by Flyer22 ([{{fullurl:User_talk:Flyer22|action=edit&preload=Template:idw_preload&editintro=Template:idw_editintro§ion=new&create=Post+a+comment}} notify] | contribs).

• We don't need to see this non-free magazine cover to understand the long-and-unnecessary non-free magazine quotations it's being used to decorate. Damiens.rf 20:14, 18 May 2009 (UTC)
• Keep It illustrates how the wedding was notable enough to be covered by those magazines in their front cover. The article does have too many fair use images, but this one should be ok. --Enric Naval (talk) 15:22, 19 May 2009 (UTC)
• Keep. I agree with Enric for the same reasons he noted. Flyer22 (talk) 18:47, 19 May 2009 (UTC)
• Keep - Per Above. - NeutralHomer • Talk • 20:10, 19 May 2009 (UTC)
• Keep. --Silvestris (talk) 00:04, 20 May 2009 (UTC)
• Delete Non-free image that does not significantly increase the readers' understanding. This issue of Soap Opera Digest can be cited as a source without actually uploading any of the content. Do that and we've achieved the same understanding without any non-free content. Jay32183 (talk) 05:53, 20 May 2009 (UTC)
• Keep per Enric Naval - ALLST✰R▼^echo _{wuz here @} 06:05, 20 May 2009 (UTC)
• Delete, fails WP:NFCC#3a and/or WP:NFCC#8. Stifle (talk) 11:08, 22 May 2009 (UTC)
• Delete This image is one of a few copyrighted images on the article, violating WP:NFCC#3. Specifically, we don't need an additional non-free image when one does the trick. — BQZip01 — ^talk 03:26, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the discussion was: - Delete - fails NFCC#8 at least and probably 3a - Peripitus (Talk) 12:45, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

::File:{{ucfirst:Jesse and Angie deeply in love.jpg}} ([{{fullurl:File:Jesse and Angie deeply in love.jpg|action=delete&wpReason={{urlencode:Wikipedia:Files for deletion/2009 May 18}}}} delete] | talk | [{{fullurl:File:{{ucfirst:Jesse and Angie deeply in love.jpg}}|action=history}} history] | [{{fullurl:Special:Log|page={{urlencode:File:{{ucfirst:Jesse and Angie deeply in love.jpg}}}}}} logs]) - uploaded by Flyer22 ([{{fullurl:User_talk:Flyer22|action=edit&preload=Template:idw_preload&editintro=Template:idw_editintro§ion=new&create=Post+a+comment}} notify] | contribs).

• Decorative non-free screenshot. Helps nothing in understanding the article. Damiens.rf 20:15, 18 May 2009 (UTC)
• Delete decorative purpose.... seems to be there just to illustrate the storyline :P There is already a better fair use image illustrating the topic at the top of the article. --Enric Naval (talk) 15:29, 19 May 2009 (UTC)
• Keep - No reson for deletion. - NeutralHomer • Talk • 20:10, 19 May 2009 (UTC)
• Keep. --Silvestris (talk) 00:04, 20 May 2009 (UTC)
• Keep per NeutralHomer - ALLST✰R▼^echo _{wuz here @} 06:06, 20 May 2009 (UTC)
• Delete, fails WP:NFCC#3a and/or WP:NFCC#8. Stifle (talk) 11:08, 22 May 2009 (UTC)
• Delete I can see why this could be considered a key plot point, but, nothing in our WP:NFCC states that "key plot points" are a reason for inclusion. This image is one of a few copyrighted images on the article violating WP:NFCC#3. Specifically, we don't need an additional non-free image when one does the trick. — BQZip01 — ^talk 03:25, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

: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: Not deleted. Apparently this passes NFCC#8, since the image itself is notable and subject to sourced commentary, and the image is used in that section. – Quadell ^(talk) 17:29, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

::File:{{ucfirst:Angie crying on Jesse's chest upon his death.jpg}} ([{{fullurl:File:Angie crying on Jesse's chest upon his death.jpg|action=delete&wpReason={{urlencode:Wikipedia:Files for deletion/2009 May 18}}}} delete] | talk | [{{fullurl:File:{{ucfirst:Angie crying on Jesse's chest upon his death.jpg}}|action=history}} history] | [{{fullurl:Special:Log|page={{urlencode:File:{{ucfirst:Angie crying on Jesse's chest upon his death.jpg}}}}}} logs]) - uploaded by Flyer22 ([{{fullurl:User_talk:Flyer22|action=edit&preload=Template:idw_preload&editintro=Template:idw_editintro§ion=new&create=Post+a+comment}} notify] | contribs).

• Decorative non-free screenshot. Helps nothing in understanding the article. Damiens.rf 20:15, 18 May 2009 (UTC)
• Keep. Not decorative. Image depicts a significant moment between two fictional characters, backed up by critical commentary in the Cultural impact section.
• Note: This user is on a crusade against almost any image I have uploaded, when most are perfectly valid within the realm of fictional characters. Flyer22 (talk) 22:43, 18 May 2009 (UTC)
• Note: The above note violates WP:AGF and offers no actual justification to keep. --Hammersoft (talk) 15:05, 19 May 2009 (UTC)
• Note: I explained at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding Damiens.rf as to why I could not assume good faith in this case. Flyer22 (talk) 18:48, 19 May 2009
• Keep I moved it to the part of the article where the critical commentary and I made clear in the caption that the commentary exists.

:Some advice: for the people placing the pictures, please don't place them where they will look pretty, place them right next to the place where their importance is commented with sources, add a summary of the commentary in the caption so people will see more easily that the commentary exists. Reuse the relevant sources if necessary.

:For the people nominating, please don't put a "|" character between the caption and the deletion template because then the caption does not appear on the page, I had to look at the source code to read it. --Enric Naval (talk) 15:39, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

• Keep - No Reason for deletion. - NeutralHomer • Talk • 20:11, 19 May 2009 (UTC)
• Keep. --Silvestris (talk) 00:04, 20 May 2009 (UTC)
• Keep per Enric Naval and NeutralHomer - ALLST✰R▼^echo _{wuz here @} 06:10, 20 May 2009 (UTC)
• Delete, fails WP:NFCC#3a and/or WP:NFCC#8. Stifle (talk) 11:08, 22 May 2009 (UTC)
• Delete I can see why this could be considered a key plot point, but, nothing in our WP:NFCC states that "key plot points" are a reason for inclusion. This image is one of a few copyrighted images on the article violating WP:NFCC#3. Specifically, we don't need an additional non-free image when one does the trick. — BQZip01 — ^talk 03:24, 24 May 2009 (UTC)
• Comment. To Stifle and BQZip01, I cannot see how this image fails at all. And it is not about it simply being a key plot point. Jesse's death at the time and the imagery of that death was almost as big as the famous Luke Snyder and Noah Mayer kiss (if not just as big). His death was heavily commented on and significantly impacted viewers, which I can add more to within the article. It was a key plot point, yes, but it was also one that deeply affected viewers due to the imagery of Jesse dying and Angie crying on his chest. It is this very imagery, not just the moment, that made this scene legendary. It is also why his being "brought back to life" was such a big deal and reported on by several valid sources, as shown in the Rewrite and return subsection on the Background section of the article. One image of this kind would do the trick, and this is the only one of that kind within the article. Flyer22 (talk) 18:34, 25 May 2009 (UTC)
• Delete Non-free image that does not significantly increase the readers' understanding. We don't need an image to understand that one character was sad when another died. The image doesn't help in understanding how fans felt about the scene either. Jay32183 (talk) 19:42, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

: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: Deleted, fails NFCC#8. – Quadell ^(talk) 14:05, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

::File:{{ucfirst:Jesse and Angie, Soap Opera Digest magazine, January 3, 1984.jpg}} ([{{fullurl:File:Jesse and Angie, Soap Opera Digest magazine, January 3, 1984.jpg|action=delete&wpReason={{urlencode:Wikipedia:Files for deletion/2009 May 18}}}} delete] | talk | [{{fullurl:File:{{ucfirst:Jesse and Angie, Soap Opera Digest magazine, January 3, 1984.jpg}}|action=history}} history] | [{{fullurl:Special:Log|page={{urlencode:File:{{ucfirst:Jesse and Angie, Soap Opera Digest magazine, January 3, 1984.jpg}}}}}} logs]) - uploaded by Flyer22 ([{{fullurl:User_talk:Flyer22|action=edit&preload=Template:idw_preload&editintro=Template:idw_editintro§ion=new&create=Post+a+comment}} notify] | contribs).

• Decorative non-free magazine cover. Helps nothing in understanding the article. Damiens.rf 20:16, 18 May 2009 (UTC)
• Delete There is a similar image where I !voted Keep because it illustrated how the wedding moment had been illustrated in the front covers. However, this one cover does not seem to illustrate anything specific, it just illustrate that the series reached the front cover, but all soap operas with a certain audience level will eventually be covered in the front cover of these magazines. This should be replaced with an image of a cover calling them "first black supercouple", which would actually be relevant for the text in the article. --Enric Naval (talk) 15:47, 19 May 2009 (UTC)
• Keep - Good image, no reason for deletion. - NeutralHomer • Talk • 20:11, 19 May 2009 (UTC)
• Keep. --Silvestris (talk) 00:04, 20 May 2009 (UTC)
• Keep per NeutralHomer - ALLST✰R▼^echo _{wuz here @} 06:10, 20 May 2009 (UTC)
• Delete, fails WP:NFCC#3a and/or WP:NFCC#8. Stifle (talk) 11:08, 22 May 2009 (UTC)
• Delete This image is one of a few copyrighted images on the article violating WP:NFCC#3. Specifically, we don't need an additional non-free image when one does the trick. — BQZip01 — ^talk 03:23, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

: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: Deleted, fails WP:NFCC#8. – Quadell ^(talk) 02:07, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

::File:{{ucfirst:Maria's tombstone.jpg}} ([{{fullurl:File:Maria's tombstone.jpg|action=delete&wpReason={{urlencode:Wikipedia:Files for deletion/2009 May 18}}}} delete] | talk | [{{fullurl:File:{{ucfirst:Maria's tombstone.jpg}}|action=history}} history] | [{{fullurl:Special:Log|page={{urlencode:File:{{ucfirst:Maria's tombstone.jpg}}}}}} logs]) - uploaded by Flyer22 ([{{fullurl:User_talk:Flyer22|action=edit&preload=Template:idw_preload&editintro=Template:idw_editintro§ion=new&create=Post+a+comment}} notify] | contribs).

• Decorative non-free screenshot. Helps nothing in understanding the article. Damiens.rf 20:16, 18 May 2009 (UTC)
• Not decorative. Image is used as a reference for the dates of the birth and death of a fictional character.
• Note: This user is on a crusade against almost any image I have uploaded, when most are perfectly valid within the realm of fictional characters. Flyer22 (talk) 22:40, 18 May 2009 (UTC)
• Note: The above note violates WP:AGF and offers no actual justification to keep. --Hammersoft (talk) 15:05, 19 May 2009 (UTC)
• Note: I explained at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding Damiens.rf as to why I could not assume good faith in this case. Flyer22 (talk) 18:53, 19 May 2009 (UTC)
• Keep - Good image, no reason for deletion. - NeutralHomer • Talk • 20:12, 19 May 2009 (UTC)
• Keep. --Silvestris (talk) 00:04, 20 May 2009 (UTC)
• Keep per Flyer22 and NeutralHomer - ALLST✰R▼^echo _{wuz here @} 06:11, 20 May 2009 (UTC)
• Delete Non-free image that does not significantly improve the readers' understanding. Text actually explains this point far better. Jay32183 (talk) 08:05, 21 May 2009 (UTC)
• Delete Nothing in this image can't be replaced by text. — BQZip01 — ^talk 03:23, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

: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: Deleted, fails NFCC#3 and #8

::File:{{ucfirst:DEtriangle1.jpg}} ([{{fullurl:File:DEtriangle1.jpg|action=delete&wpReason={{urlencode:Wikipedia:Files for deletion/2009 May 18}}}} delete] | talk | [{{fullurl:File:{{ucfirst:DEtriangle1.jpg}}|action=history}} history] | [{{fullurl:Special:Log|page={{urlencode:File:{{ucfirst:DEtriangle1.jpg}}}}}} logs]) - uploaded by Rocksey ([{{fullurl:User_talk:Rocksey|action=edit&preload=Template:idw_preload&editintro=Template:idw_editintro§ion=new&create=Post+a+comment}} notify] | contribs).

• Decorative non-free poster. Helps nothing in understanding the article. Damiens.rf 20:17, 18 May 2009 (UTC)
• Keep - Good image, no reason for deletion. - NeutralHomer • Talk • 20:13, 19 May 2009 (UTC)
• Keep per NeutralHomer - ALLST✰R▼^echo _{wuz here @} 06:12, 20 May 2009 (UTC)
• Delete This image doesn't show anything. It can't possibly improve the readers' understanding. Jay32183 (talk) 08:07, 21 May 2009 (UTC)
• Delete This image is one of a few copyrighted images on the article violating WP:NFCC#3. Specifically, we don't need an additional non-free image when one does the trick. — BQZip01 — ^talk 03:21, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

: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: Deleted, fails WP:NFCC#8. – Quadell ^(talk) 02:08, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

::File:{{ucfirst:Edwedding3.jpg}} ([{{fullurl:File:Edwedding3.jpg|action=delete&wpReason={{urlencode:Wikipedia:Files for deletion/2009 May 18}}}} delete] | talk | [{{fullurl:File:{{ucfirst:Edwedding3.jpg}}|action=history}} history] | [{{fullurl:Special:Log|page={{urlencode:File:{{ucfirst:Edwedding3.jpg}}}}}} logs]) - uploaded by Rocksey ([{{fullurl:User_talk:Rocksey|action=edit&preload=Template:idw_preload&editintro=Template:idw_editintro§ion=new&create=Post+a+comment}} notify] | contribs).

• Decorative non-free screenshot. Helps nothing in understanding the article. Damiens.rf 20:17, 18 May 2009 (UTC)
• Keep - Good image, no reason for deletion. - NeutralHomer • Talk • 20:13, 19 May 2009 (UTC)
• Keep. --Silvestris (talk) 00:04, 20 May 2009 (UTC)
• Keep per NeutralHomer - ALLST✰R▼^echo _{wuz here @} 06:12, 20 May 2009 (UTC)
• Delete, fails WP:NFCC#3a and/or WP:NFCC#8. Stifle (talk) 11:08, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

• Delete This image is one of a few copyrighted images on the article violating WP:NFCC#3. Specifically, we don't need an additional non-free image when one does the trick. — BQZip01 — ^talk 03:20, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

: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: Deleted, fails WP:NFCC#8. – Quadell ^(talk) 02:08, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

::File:{{ucfirst:Mag8082.jpg}} ([{{fullurl:File:Mag8082.jpg|action=delete&wpReason={{urlencode:Wikipedia:Files for deletion/2009 May 18}}}} delete] | talk | [{{fullurl:File:{{ucfirst:Mag8082.jpg}}|action=history}} history] | [{{fullurl:Special:Log|page={{urlencode:File:{{ucfirst:Mag8082.jpg}}}}}} logs]) - uploaded by Rocksey ([{{fullurl:User_talk:Rocksey|action=edit&preload=Template:idw_preload&editintro=Template:idw_editintro§ion=new&create=Post+a+comment}} notify] | contribs).

• Decorative non-free magazine cover. Helps nothing in understanding the article. Damiens.rf 20:18, 18 May 2009 (UTC)
• Keep - Good image, no reason for deletion. - NeutralHomer • Talk • 20:13, 19 May 2009 (UTC)
• Keep. --Silvestris (talk) 00:04, 20 May 2009 (UTC)
• Keep per NeutralHomer - ALLST✰R▼^echo _{wuz here @} 06:13, 20 May 2009 (UTC)
• Delete, fails WP:NFCC#3a and/or WP:NFCC#8. Stifle (talk) 11:08, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

• Delete I can see why this could be considered a key plot point, but, nothing in our WP:NFCC states that "key plot points" are a reason for inclusion. This image is one of a few copyrighted images on the article violating WP:NFCC#3. Specifically, we don't need an additional non-free image when one does the trick. — BQZip01 — ^talk 03:20, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

: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: Deleted, fails WP:NFCC#8. – Quadell ^(talk) 02:09, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

::File:{{ucfirst:Kendall in a coma (Main).JPG}} ([{{fullurl:File:Kendall in a coma (Main).JPG|action=delete&wpReason={{urlencode:Wikipedia:Files for deletion/2009 May 18}}}} delete] | talk | [{{fullurl:File:{{ucfirst:Kendall in a coma (Main).JPG}}|action=history}} history] | [{{fullurl:Special:Log|page={{urlencode:File:{{ucfirst:Kendall in a coma (Main).JPG}}}}}} logs]) - uploaded by Flyer22 ([{{fullurl:User_talk:Flyer22|action=edit&preload=Template:idw_preload&editintro=Template:idw_editintro§ion=new&create=Post+a+comment}} notify] | contribs).

• Decorative non-free screenshot. Helps nothing in understanding the article. Damiens.rf 20:19, 18 May 2009 (UTC)
• Keep - Good image, no reason for deletion. - NeutralHomer • Talk • 20:13, 19 May 2009 (UTC)
• Keep. --Silvestris (talk) 00:04, 20 May 2009 (UTC)
• Keep per NeutralHomer - ALLST✰R▼^echo _{wuz here @} 06:13, 20 May 2009 (UTC)
• Delete, fails WP:NFCC#3a and/or WP:NFCC#8. Stifle (talk) 11:08, 22 May 2009 (UTC)
• Delete I can see why this could be considered a key plot point, but, nothing in our WP:NFCC states that "key plot points" are a reason for inclusion. This image is one of a few copyrighted images on the article violating WP:NFCC#3. Specifically, we don't need an additional non-free image when one does the trick. — BQZip01 — ^talk 03:19, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

: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: Deleted. Fails NFCC#3 and #8. – Quadell ^(talk) 17:30, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

::File:{{ucfirst:Zach comes to battle his father, The Satin Slayer.jpg}} ([{{fullurl:File:Zach comes to battle his father, The Satin Slayer.jpg|action=delete&wpReason={{urlencode:Wikipedia:Files for deletion/2009 May 18}}}} delete] | talk | [{{fullurl:File:{{ucfirst:Zach comes to battle his father, The Satin Slayer.jpg}}|action=history}} history] | [{{fullurl:Special:Log|page={{urlencode:File:{{ucfirst:Zach comes to battle his father, The Satin Slayer.jpg}}}}}} logs]) - uploaded by Flyer22 ([{{fullurl:User_talk:Flyer22|action=edit&preload=Template:idw_preload&editintro=Template:idw_editintro§ion=new&create=Post+a+comment}} notify] | contribs).

• Decorative non-free screenshot. Helps nothing in understanding the article. Damiens.rf 20:19, 18 May 2009 (UTC)
• Keep - Good image, no reason for deletion. - NeutralHomer • Talk • 20:13, 19 May 2009 (UTC)
• Keep. --Silvestris (talk) 00:04, 20 May 2009 (UTC)
• Keep per NeutralHomer - ALLST✰R▼^echo _{wuz here @} 06:14, 20 May 2009 (UTC)
• Delete, fails WP:NFCC#3a and/or WP:NFCC#8. Stifle (talk) 11:08, 22 May 2009 (UTC)
• Delete I can see why this could be considered a key plot point, but, nothing in our WP:NFCC states that "key plot points" are a reason for inclusion. This image is one of a few copyrighted images on the article violating WP:NFCC#3. Specifically, we don't need an additional non-free image when one does the trick. — BQZip01 — ^talk 03:18, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

: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: Deleted, fails WP:NFCC#8. – Quadell ^(talk) 02:10, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

::File:{{ucfirst:AMC finally gives fans the story that they want. (Main).JPG}} ([{{fullurl:File:AMC finally gives fans the story that they want. (Main).JPG|action=delete&wpReason={{urlencode:Wikipedia:Files for deletion/2009 May 18}}}} delete] | talk | [{{fullurl:File:{{ucfirst:AMC finally gives fans the story that they want. (Main).JPG}}|action=history}} history] | [{{fullurl:Special:Log|page={{urlencode:File:{{ucfirst:AMC finally gives fans the story that they want. (Main).JPG}}}}}} logs]) - uploaded by Flyer22 ([{{fullurl:User_talk:Flyer22|action=edit&preload=Template:idw_preload&editintro=Template:idw_editintro§ion=new&create=Post+a+comment}} notify] | contribs).

• Decorative non-free magazine cover. Helps nothing in understanding the article. Damiens.rf 20:19, 18 May 2009 (UTC)
• Keep - Good image, no reason for deletion. - NeutralHomer • Talk • 20:13, 19 May 2009 (UTC)
• Keep. --Silvestris (talk) 00:04, 20 May 2009 (UTC)
• Keep per NeutralHomer - ALLST✰R▼^echo _{wuz here @} 06:14, 20 May 2009 (UTC)
• Delete Image doesn't help readers' understanding. The magazine can be cited as a source without the image being uploaded. Jay32183 (talk) 08:09, 21 May 2009 (UTC)
• Delete per Jay. — BQZip01 — ^talk 03:18, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

: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: Deleted, fails WP:NFCC#8. – Quadell ^(talk) 02:11, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

::File:{{ucfirst:Bianca first meeting Maggie.jpg}} ([{{fullurl:File:Bianca first meeting Maggie.jpg|action=delete&wpReason={{urlencode:Wikipedia:Files for deletion/2009 May 18}}}} delete] | talk | [{{fullurl:File:{{ucfirst:Bianca first meeting Maggie.jpg}}|action=history}} history] | [{{fullurl:Special:Log|page={{urlencode:File:{{ucfirst:Bianca first meeting Maggie.jpg}}}}}} logs]) - uploaded by Flyer22 ([{{fullurl:User_talk:Flyer22|action=edit&preload=Template:idw_preload&editintro=Template:idw_editintro§ion=new&create=Post+a+comment}} notify] | contribs).

• Decorative non-free screenshot. Helps nothing in understanding the article. Damiens.rf 20:20, 18 May 2009 (UTC)
• Keep. Not decorative. Unless the reader can envision their first meeting, then it does add to the article.
• Note: This user is on a crusade against almost any image I have uploaded, when most are perfectly valid within the realm of fictional characters. Flyer22 (talk) 22:30, 18 May 2009 (UTC)
• Note: The above note violates WP:AGF and offers no actual justification to keep. --Hammersoft (talk) 15:04, 19 May 2009 (UTC)
• Note: I explained at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding Damiens.rf as to why I could not assume good faith in this case. Flyer22 (talk) 18:55, 19 May 2009 (UTC)
• Keep - Good image, no reason for deletion. - NeutralHomer • Talk • 20:14, 19 May 2009 (UTC)
• Keep. --Silvestris (talk) 00:04, 20 May 2009 (UTC)
• Keep per Flyer22 and NeutralHomer - ALLST✰R▼^echo _{wuz here @} 06:15, 20 May 2009 (UTC)
• Delete We don't need to see a non-free image to understand that two characters met. Jay32183 (talk) 08:11, 21 May 2009 (UTC)
• Delete per Jay. — BQZip01 — ^talk 03:17, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

: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. No policy-based reason has been advanced for keeping the image; merely "good image, no reason for deletion" and two further keeps without any justification. Stifle (talk) 10:40, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

::File:{{ucfirst:Maggie and Bianca (D).jpg}} ([{{fullurl:File:Maggie and Bianca (D).jpg|action=delete&wpReason={{urlencode:Wikipedia:Files for deletion/2009 May 18}}}} delete] | talk | [{{fullurl:File:{{ucfirst:Maggie and Bianca (D).jpg}}|action=history}} history] | [{{fullurl:Special:Log|page={{urlencode:File:{{ucfirst:Maggie and Bianca (D).jpg}}}}}} logs]) - uploaded by Flyer22 ([{{fullurl:User_talk:Flyer22|action=edit&preload=Template:idw_preload&editintro=Template:idw_editintro§ion=new&create=Post+a+comment}} notify] | contribs).

• Decorative non-free screenshot. Helps nothing in understanding the article. Damiens.rf 20:20, 18 May 2009 (UTC)
• Keep. Not decorative. Significant first kiss between two fictional characters, noted within the article, and not otherwise conveyed through text alone.
• Note: This user is on a crusade against almost any image I have uploaded, when most are perfectly valid within the realm of fictional characters. Flyer22 (talk) 22:33, 18 May 2009 (UTC)
• Note: The above note violates WP:AGF and offers no actual justification to keep. --Hammersoft (talk) 15:04, 19 May 2009 (UTC)
• Note: I explained at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding Damiens.rf as to why I could not assume good faith in this case. Flyer22 (talk) 18:55, 19 May 2009 (UTC)
• Note It offers a reasonable justification, just not one that we recognize for keeping it. — BQZip01 — ^talk 03:16, 24 May 2009 (UTC)
• We recognize keeping images that enhance readers' understanding of certain fictional key moments, and I feel that this image does so. I would concur that we do not need an image of the first time they met, but I do feel that this image in particular is somewhat needed. Flyer22 (talk) 04:11, 24 May 2009 (UTC)
• "We recognize keeping images that enhance readers' understanding of certain fictional key moments" isn't backed up by any policy or guideline of which I am aware. — BQZip01 — ^talk 04:20, 24 May 2009 (UTC)
• LOL. I did not state that that exact wording is policy or a guideline. I am speaking of images that enhance the readers' understanding of the subject or moment, which I felt I was being clear in stating. Flyer22 (talk) 04:40, 24 May 2009 (UTC)
• Keep - Good image, no reason for deletion. - NeutralHomer • Talk • 20:14, 19 May 2009 (UTC)
• Keep. --Silvestris (talk) 00:04, 20 May 2009 (UTC)
• Keep per Flyer22 and NeutralHomer - ALLST✰R▼^echo _{wuz here @} 06:16, 20 May 2009 (UTC)
• Delete We don't need to see the characters kissing to understand that they kissed. Jay32183 (talk) 08:11, 21 May 2009 (UTC)
• Delete I can see why this could be considered a key plot point, but, nothing in our WP:NFCC states that "key plot points" are a reason for inclusion. This image is one of two copyrighted images on the article violating WP:NFCC#3. Specifically, we don't need an additional non-free image when one does the trick. — BQZip01 — ^talk 03:16, 24 May 2009 (UTC)
• Comment. Replied to BQZip01 above about this. Flyer22 (talk) 04:11, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

: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: Deleted, fails WP:NFCC#8. – Quadell ^(talk) 02:12, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

::File:{{ucfirst:SIDcover-bam.jpg}} ([{{fullurl:File:SIDcover-bam.jpg|action=delete&wpReason={{urlencode:Wikipedia:Files for deletion/2009 May 18}}}} delete] | talk | [{{fullurl:File:{{ucfirst:SIDcover-bam.jpg}}|action=history}} history] | [{{fullurl:Special:Log|page={{urlencode:File:{{ucfirst:SIDcover-bam.jpg}}}}}} logs]) - uploaded by Flyer22 ([{{fullurl:User_talk:Flyer22|action=edit&preload=Template:idw_preload&editintro=Template:idw_editintro§ion=new&create=Post+a+comment}} notify] | contribs).

• Decorative non-free crop of magazine cover. Helps nothing in understanding the article. Damiens.rf 20:21, 18 May 2009 (UTC)
• Keep. Not decorative. The specific imagery is noted within the article. Unless the text can convey exactly what it means by that image cover, it does add to the article in a way that helps the reader understand the point.
• Note: This user is on a crusade against almost any image I have uploaded, when most are perfectly valid within the realm of fictional characters. Flyer22 (talk) 22:36, 18 May 2009 (UTC)
• Note: The above note violates WP:AGF and offers no actual justification to keep. --Hammersoft (talk) 15:05, 19 May 2009 (UTC)
• Note: I explained at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding Damiens.rf as to why I could not assume good faith in this case. Flyer22 (talk) 18:56, 19 May 2009 (UTC)
• Keep - Good image, no reason for deletion. - NeutralHomer • Talk • 20:14, 19 May 2009 (UTC)
• Keep. --Silvestris (talk) 00:04, 20 May 2009 (UTC)
• Keep per Flyer22 and NeutralHomer - ALLST✰R▼^echo _{wuz here @} 06:16, 20 May 2009 (UTC)
• Delete, fails WP:NFCC#3a and/or WP:NFCC#8. Stifle (talk) 11:08, 22 May 2009 (UTC)
• Delete I can see why this could be considered a key plot point, but, nothing in our WP:NFCC states that "key plot points" are a reason for inclusion. This image is one of two copyrighted images on the article violating WP:NFCC#3. Specifically, we don't need an additional non-free image when one does the trick. — BQZip01 — ^talk 03:15, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

: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: Deleted, does not pass NFCC#8. – Quadell ^(talk) 17:32, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

::File:{{ucfirst:Luke and Noah fall into each other during tug of war.jpg}} ([{{fullurl:File:Luke and Noah fall into each other during tug of war.jpg|action=delete&wpReason={{urlencode:Wikipedia:Files for deletion/2009 May 18}}}} delete] | talk | [{{fullurl:File:{{ucfirst:Luke and Noah fall into each other during tug of war.jpg}}|action=history}} history] | [{{fullurl:Special:Log|page={{urlencode:File:{{ucfirst:Luke and Noah fall into each other during tug of war.jpg}}}}}} logs]) - uploaded by Flyer22 ([{{fullurl:User_talk:Flyer22|action=edit&preload=Template:idw_preload&editintro=Template:idw_editintro§ion=new&create=Post+a+comment}} notify] | contribs).

• Decorative non-free screenshot. Helps nothing in understanding the article. Damiens.rf 20:25, 18 May 2009 (UTC)
• Keep - Good image, no reason for deletion. - NeutralHomer • Talk • 20:14, 19 May 2009 (UTC)
• Keep per NeutralHomer - ALLST✰R▼^echo _{wuz here @} 06:19, 20 May 2009 (UTC)
• Delete, fails WP:NFCC#3a and/or WP:NFCC#8. Stifle (talk) 11:08, 22 May 2009 (UTC)
• Delete I can see why this could be considered a key plot point, but, nothing in our WP:NFCC states that "key plot points" are a reason for inclusion. This image is one of two copyrighted images on the article violating WP:NFCC#3. Specifically, we don't need an additional non-free image when one does the trick. — BQZip01 — ^talk 03:14, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

Keep because this is a pivitol moment in Noah's personal development.

: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: Deleted, fails NFCC#3 and #8. – Quadell ^(talk) 13:49, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

::File:{{ucfirst:Luke and Noah love story.jpg}} ([{{fullurl:File:Luke and Noah love story.jpg|action=delete&wpReason={{urlencode:Wikipedia:Files for deletion/2009 May 18}}}} delete] | talk | [{{fullurl:File:{{ucfirst:Luke and Noah love story.jpg}}|action=history}} history] | [{{fullurl:Special:Log|page={{urlencode:File:{{ucfirst:Luke and Noah love story.jpg}}}}}} logs]) - uploaded by Flyer22 ([{{fullurl:User_talk:Flyer22|action=edit&preload=Template:idw_preload&editintro=Template:idw_editintro§ion=new&create=Post+a+comment}} notify] | contribs).

• Decorative non-free magazine scan. Helps nothing in understanding the article. Damiens.rf 20:25, 18 May 2009 (UTC)
• Keep - Good image, no reason for deletion. - NeutralHomer • Talk • 20:14, 19 May 2009 (UTC)
• Keep. --Silvestris (talk) 00:04, 20 May 2009 (UTC)
• Keep per NeutralHomer - ALLST✰R▼^echo _{wuz here @} 06:20, 20 May 2009 (UTC)
• Delete, fails WP:NFCC#3a and/or WP:NFCC#8. Stifle (talk) 11:08, 22 May 2009 (UTC)
• Delete This image is one of a few copyrighted images on the article violating WP:NFCC#3. Specifically, we don't need an additional non-free image when one does the trick. — BQZip01 — ^talk 03:14, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

: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: Not deleted. The image itself (not just the characters) is discussed and important to the topic. Passes all NFCC. – Quadell ^(talk) 13:52, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

::File:{{ucfirst:Famous Luke and Noah kiss.jpg}} ([{{fullurl:File:Famous Luke and Noah kiss.jpg|action=delete&wpReason={{urlencode:Wikipedia:Files for deletion/2009 May 18}}}} delete] | talk | [{{fullurl:File:{{ucfirst:Famous Luke and Noah kiss.jpg}}|action=history}} history] | [{{fullurl:Special:Log|page={{urlencode:File:{{ucfirst:Famous Luke and Noah kiss.jpg}}}}}} logs]) - uploaded by Flyer22 ([{{fullurl:User_talk:Flyer22|action=edit&preload=Template:idw_preload&editintro=Template:idw_editintro§ion=new&create=Post+a+comment}} notify] | contribs).

• Decorative non-free screenshot. Helps nothing in understanding the article. Damiens.rf 20:25, 18 May 2009 (UTC)
• Keep. Not at all decorative. This kiss is the subject of much criticism and controversy, very much noted within the article. The imagery of these two kissing became famous and was reported within several valid and world-wide sources. It is also placed in a section in which discusses the kiss. This imagery is not conveyed through text alone, and does enhance the reader's understanding of this very much-publicized kiss.
• Note: This user is on a crusade against almost any image I have uploaded, when most are perfectly valid within the realm of fictional characters. Flyer22 (talk) 22:17, 18 May 2009 (UTC)
• Note: The above note violates WP:AGF and offers no actual justification to keep. --Hammersoft (talk) 15:04, 19 May 2009 (UTC)
• Note: I explained at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding Damiens.rf as to why I could not assume good faith in this case. Flyer22 (talk) 18:57, 19 May 2009 (UTC)
• Keep. The picture is of a critical moment which is discussed at length in the article; in my opinion, the section would be incomplete without an image of this kiss. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 00:48, 19 May 2009 (UTC)
• Keep - Good image, no reason for deletion. With these last 6 images up for deletion, it almost seems as if Damiens.rf has something against LBGT images on Soaps pages. Just sayin'. - NeutralHomer • Talk • 20:15, 19 May 2009 (UTC)
• Keep. Concur with FisherQueen & NeutralHomer. --Jack-A-Roe (talk) 20:41, 19 May 2009 (UTC)
• Keep. --Silvestris (talk) 00:04, 20 May 2009 (UTC)
• Keep per Flyer22, FisherQueen and NeutralHomer This image is more than decorative.. the part of the article for which the image is being used, was covered broadly in the news media as being "groundbreaking" and "legendary". - ALLST✰R▼^echo _{wuz here @} 06:20, 20 May 2009 (UTC)
• Delete, fails WP:NFCC#3a and/or WP:NFCC#8. Stifle (talk) 11:08, 22 May 2009 (UTC)
• Comment. How does it fail, when it actually does significantly help the reader understand all the publicity about this particular kiss which was seen just about all over the world? Flyer22 (talk) 23:56, 23 May 2009 (UTC)
• It is not that different than having an image of Janet Jackson's "wardrobe malfunction" in the article Super Bowl XXXVIII halftime show controversy, which is imagery that was just as controversial as the Luke and Noah kiss (the only difference is that Janet Jackson's wardrobe malfunction is more famous). The Luke and Noah kiss imagery was shown on CNN (CNN is noted within the article in another section). It was also shown on the Fox News Channel, where it was debated by a conservative and a liberal (information that I have yet to add into the article, but will soon). Flyer22 (talk) 00:31, 24 May 2009 (UTC)
• Comment I can certainly see both sides to this argument and certainly concede that the moment is certainly "groundbreaking" (for better or for worse, you make the call). I'm going to refrain from passing judgement on this one. — BQZip01 — ^talk 03:13, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

: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: Deleted, does not pass NFCC#8. – Quadell ^(talk) 17:34, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

::File:{{ucfirst:Time-SoapOperas-1976.jpg}} ([{{fullurl:File:Time-SoapOperas-1976.jpg|action=delete&wpReason={{urlencode:Wikipedia:Files for deletion/2009 May 18}}}} delete] | talk | [{{fullurl:File:{{ucfirst:Time-SoapOperas-1976.jpg}}|action=history}} history] | [{{fullurl:Special:Log|page={{urlencode:File:{{ucfirst:Time-SoapOperas-1976.jpg}}}}}} logs]) - uploaded by TAnthony ([{{fullurl:User_talk:TAnthony|action=edit&preload=Template:idw_preload&editintro=Template:idw_editintro§ion=new&create=Post+a+comment}} notify] | contribs).

• A non-free magazine cover for a cover that is not discussed on Soap Opera and is barely mentioned in Doug Williams and Julie Olson. Fails WP:NFCC#8. Damiens.rf 20:28, 18 May 2009 (UTC)
• Keep - Good image, no reason for deletion. - NeutralHomer • Talk • 20:16, 19 May 2009 (UTC)
• Keep. --Silvestris (talk) 00:04, 20 May 2009 (UTC)
• Delete Non-free magazine covers are not to be uploaded just to show who was on the cover. The issue can be cited as a source without using any image. Jay32183 (talk) 06:00, 20 May 2009 (UTC)
• Keep per NeutralHomer - ALLST✰R▼^echo _{wuz here @} 06:21, 20 May 2009 (UTC)
• Keep, it's got potential; soap characters on the cover of this mainstream news magazine is definitely notable, I'd like to see this milestone discussed further in the article. While I understand the policy that Jay32183 cites above (and have enforced it myself in the past), there is a certain intrinsic impact bestowed by Time magazine that asserts notability in a way a passage of text does not. Are there no precedents for exceptions to the magazine cover "rule"?— TAnthony^Talk 18:50, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

::I've beefed up the coverage in soap opera; the Time article itself is expansive and I'd like to incorporate more into the Wiki article anyway, but any direction on how to use it to make use of the image more appropriate would be appreciated.— TAnthony^Talk 19:42, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

• Keep, per TAnthony. This image is used in the Doug Williams and Julie Olson article for critical commentary about the couple and this magazine cover; this cover was the first time two soap opera characters appeared on a mainstream media magazine as big as this. Flyer22 (talk) 00:31, 24 May 2009 (UTC)
• Delete per Jay32183. — BQZip01 — ^talk 03:10, 24 May 2009 (UTC)
• Delete. As it says on the magazine cover template itself, magazine covers are supposed to be used only in the article about the magazine. Stifle (talk) 10:41, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

: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: Deleted. Does not pass NFCC#3 and #8. – Quadell ^(talk) 13:47, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

::File:{{ucfirst:John and Marlena SOD.jpg}} ([{{fullurl:File:John and Marlena SOD.jpg|action=delete&wpReason={{urlencode:Wikipedia:Files for deletion/2009 May 18}}}} delete] | talk | [{{fullurl:File:{{ucfirst:John and Marlena SOD.jpg}}|action=history}} history] | [{{fullurl:Special:Log|page={{urlencode:File:{{ucfirst:John and Marlena SOD.jpg}}}}}} logs]) - uploaded by Rocksey ([{{fullurl:User_talk:Rocksey|action=edit&preload=Template:idw_preload&editintro=Template:idw_editintro§ion=new&create=Post+a+comment}} notify] | contribs).

• Decorative non-free magazine cover. Helps nothing in understanding the article. Damiens.rf 20:29, 18 May 2009 (UTC)
• Keep. --Silvestris (talk) 00:04, 20 May 2009 (UTC)
• Keep Provides valid commentary to John nolonger being on the show - ALLST✰R▼^echo _{wuz here @} 06:23, 20 May 2009 (UTC)
• Delete, fails WP:NFCC#3a and/or WP:NFCC#8. Stifle (talk) 11:08, 22 May 2009 (UTC)
• Delete per Stifle...twice in the same day? — BQZip01 — ^talk 03:08, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

: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. Recommendations and !votes lacking a policy-based reason have been given less weight. Stifle (talk) 10:42, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

::File:{{ucfirst:Lnlwedding.jpg}} ([{{fullurl:File:Lnlwedding.jpg|action=delete&wpReason={{urlencode:Wikipedia:Files for deletion/2009 May 18}}}} delete] | talk | [{{fullurl:File:{{ucfirst:Lnlwedding.jpg}}|action=history}} history] | [{{fullurl:Special:Log|page={{urlencode:File:{{ucfirst:Lnlwedding.jpg}}}}}} logs]) - uploaded by Tarheel44 ([{{fullurl:User_talk:Tarheel44|action=edit&preload=Template:idw_preload&editintro=Template:idw_editintro§ion=new&create=Post+a+comment}} notify] | contribs).

• This non-free image is decorative in Luke and Laura Spencer and there are free alternatives available for Supercouple. Damiens.rf 20:31, 18 May 2009 (UTC)
• Keep. The fact is...it is not decorative in the Supercouple article, in which it is used as the main image. This is the couple who started the term supercouple, which is very much sourced and commented on within the article. There is no free alternative image to use for this couple at their wedding (which started the initial supercouple era), and using any other couple as the lead (intro) image in the article simply because that image is free would be ludicrous. A free image of a celebrity supercouple as the lead image will not do, when taken into consideration that celebrity supercouples did not define the term and came after soap opera supercouples (at least when referencing the term supercouple).
• If the image has no significant purpose in the Luke Spencer and Laura Webber article, then remove it from there. But it has huge significance in the Supercouple article.
• Note: This user is on a crusade against almost any image I have uploaded, when most are perfectly valid within the realm of fictional characters. Flyer22 (talk) 23:12, 18 May 2009 (UTC)
• Note: The above note violates WP:AGF and offers no actual justification to keep. --Hammersoft (talk) 14:22, 19 May 2009 (UTC)
• Note: I explained at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding Damiens.rf as to why I could not assume good faith in this case. Flyer22 (talk) 18:59, 19 May 2009 (UTC)
• Keep - Good image, no reason for deletion. - NeutralHomer • Talk • 20:17, 19 May 2009 (UTC)
• Keep. --Silvestris (talk) 00:04, 20 May 2009 (UTC)
• Keep per Flyer22 and NeutralHomer - ALLST✰R▼^echo _{wuz here @} 06:23, 20 May 2009 (UTC)
• Keep: Both Supercouple and the "Luke and Laura" articles benefit by having a contemporaneous image, and there is not a free image that can replace it. 71.234.215.133 (talk) 16:31, 22 May 2009 (UTC)
• Delete I can see why this could be considered a key plot point, but, nothing in our WP:NFCC states that "key plot points" are a reason for inclusion. This image is one of two copyrighted images on the article violating WP:NFCC#3. Specifically, we don't need an additional non-free image when one does the trick. — BQZip01 — ^talk 03:04, 24 May 2009 (UTC)
• Comment. Are you carefully reading all of these discussions, besides copying and pasting almost the same response each time? I mean, I know that you are carefully reading some of them, but it does not matter what other images are within the Supercouple article. What matters is that this image is absolutely valid within the article for the reasons I stated above. There is no valid reason that can be given for the deletion of this image. Flyer22 (talk) 03:10, 24 May 2009 (UTC)
• Weak delete. The article states "The term was coined in the early 1980s when intense public interest in fictional soap opera couple Luke Spencer and Laura Webber from General Hospital made the pair a popular culture phenomenon." This fact is clearly an important fact in the Supercouple article, but it isn't any clearer or any better explained by having a non-free image illustrate it in the article. – Quadell ^(talk) 02:21, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

: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. No policy-based reasons for keeping provided. Stifle (talk) 10:43, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

::File:{{ucfirst:RobinandPatrickDrake2.jpg}} ([{{fullurl:File:RobinandPatrickDrake2.jpg|action=delete&wpReason={{urlencode:Wikipedia:Files for deletion/2009 May 18}}}} delete] | talk | [{{fullurl:File:{{ucfirst:RobinandPatrickDrake2.jpg}}|action=history}} history] | [{{fullurl:Special:Log|page={{urlencode:File:{{ucfirst:RobinandPatrickDrake2.jpg}}}}}} logs]) - uploaded by Mikeslikb ([{{fullurl:User_talk:Mikeslikb|action=edit&preload=Template:idw_preload&editintro=Template:idw_editintro§ion=new&create=Post+a+comment}} notify] | contribs).

• Decorative non-free poster. Helps nothing in understanding the article. Damiens.rf 20:36, 18 May 2009 (UTC)
• Keep - Good image, no reason for deletion. - NeutralHomer • Talk • 20:17, 19 May 2009 (UTC)
• Keep. --Silvestris (talk) 00:04, 20 May 2009 (UTC)
• Keep per NeutralHomer - ALLST✰R▼^echo _{wuz here @} 06:25, 20 May 2009 (UTC)
• Delete I can see why this could be considered a key plot point, but, nothing in our WP:NFCC states that "key plot points" are a reason for inclusion. This image is one of many copyrighted images on the article violating WP:NFCC#3. Specifically, we don't need an additional non-free image when one does the trick. — BQZip01 — ^talk 03:03, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

: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 {{admin|Stifle}} AnomieBOT⚡ 12:08, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

::File:{{ucfirst:Craig and John Paul airport-goodbye in 2007.jpg}} ([{{fullurl:File:Craig and John Paul airport-goodbye in 2007.jpg|action=delete&wpReason={{urlencode:Wikipedia:Files for deletion/2009 May 18}}}} delete] | talk | [{{fullurl:File:{{ucfirst:Craig and John Paul airport-goodbye in 2007.jpg}}|action=history}} history] | [{{fullurl:Special:Log|page={{urlencode:File:{{ucfirst:Craig and John Paul airport-goodbye in 2007.jpg}}}}}} logs]) - uploaded by Flyer22 ([{{fullurl:User_talk:Flyer22|action=edit&preload=Template:idw_preload&editintro=Template:idw_editintro§ion=new&create=Post+a+comment}} notify] | contribs).

• Decorative non-free screenshot. Helps nothing in understanding the article. Damiens.rf 20:37, 18 May 2009 (UTC)
• Not decorative. Significant moment of the two characters saying goodbye at an airport, noted within the article. Flyer22 (talk) 22:07, 18 May 2009 (UTC)
• Also not a screenshot so much as a fan taken photo (hence crew/equipment visible), so it may be not "non-free".86.162.108.112 (talk) 23:42, 18 May 2009 (UTC)
• Hmm, then, on second thought, I am not against this image being deleted at all. Flyer22 (talk) 23:49, 18 May 2009 (UTC)
• Keep - Good image, no reason for deletion. - NeutralHomer • Talk • 20:17, 19 May 2009 (UTC)
• Keep. --Silvestris (talk) 00:04, 20 May 2009 (UTC)
• Keep per Flyer22 and NeutralHomer - ALLST✰R▼^echo _{wuz here @} 06:25, 20 May 2009 (UTC)
• Keep - image illustrates information in text and thus is relevant —added by Magooeymagoo (talk • contribs) 11:30, 20 May 2009 (UTC)
• Delete This image does nothing to "significantly increase readers' understanding of the topic" as required in WP:NFCC#8. It shows the two actors filming in the airport. The article does make a comment on how one of the characters asks the other to kiss him in he airport and the other can't bring himself to do it, but how does this image help to understand it better in any way? Also, there is already a better image depicting the fictional couple at the top of the article, so it can't be used for that purpose. --Enric Naval (talk) 01:57, 22 May 2009 (UTC)
• Delete per Enric. — BQZip01 — ^talk 03:01, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

: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. Arguments lacking basis in policy have been given less weight. Stifle (talk) 10:44, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

::File:{{ucfirst:JPCraigBed.jpg}} ([{{fullurl:File:JPCraigBed.jpg|action=delete&wpReason={{urlencode:Wikipedia:Files for deletion/2009 May 18}}}} delete] | talk | [{{fullurl:File:{{ucfirst:JPCraigBed.jpg}}|action=history}} history] | [{{fullurl:Special:Log|page={{urlencode:File:{{ucfirst:JPCraigBed.jpg}}}}}} logs]) - uploaded by ThisIsAce ([{{fullurl:User_talk:ThisIsAce|action=edit&preload=Template:idw_preload&editintro=Template:idw_editintro§ion=new&create=Post+a+comment}} notify] | contribs).

• Decorative non-free screenshot. Helps nothing in understanding the article. Damiens.rf 20:37, 18 May 2009 (UTC)
• Keep - Good image, no reason for deletion. - NeutralHomer • Talk • 20:17, 19 May 2009 (UTC)
• Keep. --Silvestris (talk) 00:04, 20 May 2009 (UTC)
• Keep per NeutralHomer - ALLST✰R▼^echo _{wuz here @} 06:26, 20 May 2009 (UTC)
• Keep- illustrates points in article and is relevant
• Delete per WP:NFCC#8 a image has to "significantly increase readers' understanding of the topic". Also, in both articles where it's used there is already a better non-free photo illustrating the subject of the article, so it can't serve the purpose of illustrating the couple. If the purpose is to illustrate that they are a couple in love, then :File:John Paul and Craig.PNG already serves that purpose at the top of the article. --Enric Naval (talk) 02:08, 22 May 2009 (UTC)
• Delete per Enric. — BQZip01 — ^talk 03:00, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

: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: Deleted, does not pass NFCC#8. – Quadell ^(talk) 17:36, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

::File:{{ucfirst:Craig Dean returns.jpg}} ([{{fullurl:File:Craig Dean returns.jpg|action=delete&wpReason={{urlencode:Wikipedia:Files for deletion/2009 May 18}}}} delete] | talk | [{{fullurl:File:{{ucfirst:Craig Dean returns.jpg}}|action=history}} history] | [{{fullurl:Special:Log|page={{urlencode:File:{{ucfirst:Craig Dean returns.jpg}}}}}} logs]) - uploaded by Flyer22 ([{{fullurl:User_talk:Flyer22|action=edit&preload=Template:idw_preload&editintro=Template:idw_editintro§ion=new&create=Post+a+comment}} notify] | contribs).

• Decorative non-free screenshot. Helps nothing in understanding the article. Damiens.rf 20:37, 18 May 2009 (UTC)
• Keep - Good image, no reason for deletion. - [[User:Neutralhomer|NeutralHomer]

] • Talk • 20:17, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

• Keep. --Silvestris (talk) 00:04, 20 May 2009 (UTC)
• Keep per NeutralHomer - ALLST✰R▼^echo _{wuz here @} 06:26, 20 May 2009 (UTC)
• Keep - illustrates point in article and is totally relevant.
• Delete, fails WP:NFCC#3a and/or WP:NFCC#8. Stifle (talk) 11:08, 22 May 2009 (UTC)
• Delete per Stifle...I don't think I've ever said that... :-) Congrats to Stifle! — BQZip01 — ^talk 02:59, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

: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 {{admin|Stifle}} AnomieBOT⚡ 12:08, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

::File:{{ucfirst:GaskillandHersheyLocationshoot.jpg}} ([{{fullurl:File:GaskillandHersheyLocationshoot.jpg|action=delete&wpReason={{urlencode:Wikipedia:Files for deletion/2009 May 18}}}} delete] | talk | [{{fullurl:File:{{ucfirst:GaskillandHersheyLocationshoot.jpg}}|action=history}} history] | [{{fullurl:Special:Log|page={{urlencode:File:{{ucfirst:GaskillandHersheyLocationshoot.jpg}}}}}} logs]) - uploaded by Rocksey ([{{fullurl:User_talk:Rocksey|action=edit&preload=Template:idw_preload&editintro=Template:idw_editintro§ion=new&create=Post+a+comment}} notify] | contribs).

• Decorative non-free screenshot. Helps nothing in understanding the article. Damiens.rf 20:39, 18 May 2009 (UTC)
• Keep - Good image, no reason for deletion. - NeutralHomer • Talk • 20:17, 19 May 2009 (UTC)
• Keep. --Silvestris (talk) 00:04, 20 May 2009 (UTC)
• Keep - The image is more than decorative. It adds a visual depiction that enhances the understanding of a location shoot discussed in the article. Rocksey (talk) 06:25, 20 May 2009 (UTC)
• Keep per NeutralHomer and Rocksey - ALLST✰R▼^echo _{wuz here @} 06:27, 20 May 2009 (UTC)
• Delete per WP:NFCC#8 a image has to "significantly increase readers' understanding of the topic". There is commentary in the article the type of wagon, the windows, and the jump of the man into the train, but none of those elements appear on that image. I would suggest producing a better image that actually helps to understand better the subject. --Enric Naval (talk) 02:12, 22 May 2009 (UTC)
• I uploaded a different image over the past one which shows the actors on the Pullman car and gives a better view of the train. If that isn't better than I can add one of the blacked out windows instead. Rocksey (talk) 17:34, 24 May 2009 (UTC)
• Delete I can see why this could be considered a key plot point, but, nothing in our WP:NFCC states that "key plot points" are a reason for inclusion. This image is one of many copyrighted images on the article violating WP:NFCC#3. Specifically, we don't need an additional non-free image when one does the trick. — BQZip01 — ^talk 02:58, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

: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: Deleted. Fails NFCC#8

::File:{{ucfirst:Rafe and Alison say goodbye.jpg}} ([{{fullurl:File:Rafe and Alison say goodbye.jpg|action=delete&wpReason={{urlencode:Wikipedia:Files for deletion/2009 May 18}}}} delete] | talk | [{{fullurl:File:{{ucfirst:Rafe and Alison say goodbye.jpg}}|action=history}} history] | [{{fullurl:Special:Log|page={{urlencode:File:{{ucfirst:Rafe and Alison say goodbye.jpg}}}}}} logs]) - uploaded by Rocksey ([{{fullurl:User_talk:Rocksey|action=edit&preload=Template:idw_preload&editintro=Template:idw_editintro§ion=new&create=Post+a+comment}} notify] | contribs).

• Decorative non-free screenshot. Helps nothing in understanding the article. Damiens.rf 20:39, 18 May 2009 (UTC)
• Keep - Good image, no reason for deletion. - NeutralHomer • Talk • 20:17, 19 May 2009 (UTC)
• Keep. --Silvestris (talk) 00:04, 20 May 2009 (UTC)
• Keep per NeutralHomer - ALLST✰R▼^echo _{wuz here @} 06:27, 20 May 2009 (UTC)
• Delete per WP:NFCC#8 a image has to "significantly increase readers' understanding of the topic". Hum, what part of this image does that? They are just saying goodbye to each other, the article says nothing about anything happening during the goodbye, and the image shows nothing special.... The image is nice, sure, but that's good enough to fit fair use.... --Enric Naval (talk) 02:17, 22 May 2009 (UTC)
• Delete I can see why this could be considered a key plot point, but, nothing in our WP:NFCC states that "key plot points" are a reason for inclusion. This image is one of many copyrighted images on the article violating WP:NFCC#3. Specifically, we don't need an additional non-free image when one does the trick. — BQZip01 — ^talk 02:57, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

: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: Deleted, does not pass NFCC#8. – Quadell ^(talk) 17:39, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

::File:{{ucfirst:ToddBlair-RHKD.jpg}} ([{{fullurl:File:ToddBlair-RHKD.jpg|action=delete&wpReason={{urlencode:Wikipedia:Files for deletion/2009 May 18}}}} delete] | talk | [{{fullurl:File:{{ucfirst:ToddBlair-RHKD.jpg}}|action=history}} history] | [{{fullurl:Special:Log|page={{urlencode:File:{{ucfirst:ToddBlair-RHKD.jpg}}}}}} logs]) - uploaded by Tarheel44 ([{{fullurl:User_talk:Tarheel44|action=edit&preload=Template:idw_preload&editintro=Template:idw_editintro§ion=new&create=Post+a+comment}} notify] | contribs).

• Decorative non-free screenshot. Helps nothing in understanding the articles. Damiens.rf 20:40, 18 May 2009 (UTC)
• Keep. Unless the reader can envision what Todd and Blair's wedding looked like, along with the fact that this was before Todd's plastic surgery, then it does add to the article and helps the reader in understanding that moment. Flyer22 (talk) 21:54, 18 May 2009 (UTC)
• Keep - Good image, no reason for deletion. - NeutralHomer • Talk • 20:18, 19 May 2009 (UTC)
• Keep. --Silvestris (talk) 00:04, 20 May 2009 (UTC)
• Keep per Flyer22 and NeutralHomer - ALLST✰R▼^echo _{wuz here @} 06:28, 20 May 2009 (UTC)
• Delete, fails WP:NFCC#3a and/or WP:NFCC#8. Stifle (talk) 11:08, 22 May 2009 (UTC)
• Comment. Does not fail, when taken into account that there is no other image of Todd Manning before his plastic surgery within the article. Flyer22 (talk) 00:31, 24 May 2009 (UTC)
• This article isn't about Todd Manning. — BQZip01 — ^talk 02:56, 24 May 2009 (UTC)
• Yes, it is about Todd Manning, which is why it is named Todd Manning and Blair Cramer. Flyer22 (talk) 18:12, 25 May 2009 (UTC)
• Delete I can see why this could be considered a key plot point, but, nothing in our WP:NFCC states that "key plot points" are a reason for inclusion. This image is one of many copyrighted images on the article violating WP:NFCC#3. Specifically, we don't need an additional non-free image when one does the trick. — BQZip01 — ^talk 02:56, 24 May 2009 (UTC)
• Comment. Not about a key plot point. It is about what I stated above. There are also not many copyrighted images within the article. There only two, and both are different. Both are one of a kind doing the trick within the article. Flyer22 (talk) 18:12, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

: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: Not deleted. – Quadell ^(talk) 18:17, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

::File:{{ucfirst:Edencruz1986.jpg}} ([{{fullurl:File:Edencruz1986.jpg|action=delete&wpReason={{urlencode:Wikipedia:Files for deletion/2009 May 18}}}} delete] | talk | [{{fullurl:File:{{ucfirst:Edencruz1986.jpg}}|action=history}} history] | [{{fullurl:Special:Log|page={{urlencode:File:{{ucfirst:Edencruz1986.jpg}}}}}} logs]) - uploaded by Dmarex ([{{fullurl:User_talk:Dmarex|action=edit&preload=Template:idw_preload&editintro=Template:idw_editintro§ion=new&create=Post+a+comment}} notify] | contribs).

• Decorative non-free screenshot. Helps nothing in understanding the article. Damiens.rf 20:45, 18 May 2009 (UTC)
• Keep - Good image, no reason for deletion. - NeutralHomer • Talk • 20:18, 19 May 2009 (UTC)
• Keep. --Silvestris (talk) 00:04, 20 May 2009 (UTC)
• Keep per NeutralHomer - ALLST✰R▼^echo _{wuz here @} 06:30, 20 May 2009 (UTC)
• Keep but substitute for the other two non-free images in the article and delete those. WP:NFCC#3 applies. — BQZip01 — ^talk 02:53, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

: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. Arguments carrying no basis in policy have been weighted accordingly. Stifle (talk) 10:46, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

::File:{{ucfirst:MorrowCaseParisKiss.jpg}} ([{{fullurl:File:MorrowCaseParisKiss.jpg|action=delete&wpReason={{urlencode:Wikipedia:Files for deletion/2009 May 18}}}} delete] | talk | [{{fullurl:File:{{ucfirst:MorrowCaseParisKiss.jpg}}|action=history}} history] | [{{fullurl:Special:Log|page={{urlencode:File:{{ucfirst:MorrowCaseParisKiss.jpg}}}}}} logs]) - uploaded by Rocksey ([{{fullurl:User_talk:Rocksey|action=edit&preload=Template:idw_preload&editintro=Template:idw_editintro§ion=new&create=Post+a+comment}} notify] | contribs).

• Decorative non-free poster. Helps nothing in understanding the article. Damiens.rf 20:45, 18 May 2009 (UTC)
• Keep - Good image, no reason for deletion. - NeutralHomer • Talk • 20:18, 19 May 2009 (UTC)
• Keep. --Silvestris (talk) 00:04, 20 May 2009 (UTC)
• Keep per NeutralHomer - ALLST✰R▼^echo _{wuz here @} 06:30, 20 May 2009 (UTC)
• Delete I can see why this could be considered a key plot point, but, nothing in our WP:NFCC states that "key plot points" are a reason for inclusion. This image is one of many copyrighted images on the article violating WP:NFCC#3. Specifically, we don't need an additional non-free image when one does the trick. — BQZip01 — ^talk 02:52, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

: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 {{admin|Peripitus}} AnomieBOT⚡ 13:57, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

::File:{{ucfirst:Nick and Sharon on the cover of Soap Opera Digest, July 16, 1996..jpg}} ([{{fullurl:File:Nick and Sharon on the cover of Soap Opera Digest, July 16, 1996..jpg|action=delete&wpReason={{urlencode:Wikipedia:Files for deletion/2009 May 18}}}} delete] | talk | [{{fullurl:File:{{ucfirst:Nick and Sharon on the cover of Soap Opera Digest, July 16, 1996..jpg}}|action=history}} history] | [{{fullurl:Special:Log|page={{urlencode:File:{{ucfirst:Nick and Sharon on the cover of Soap Opera Digest, July 16, 1996..jpg}}}}}} logs]) - uploaded by Flyer22 ([{{fullurl:User_talk:Flyer22|action=edit&preload=Template:idw_preload&editintro=Template:idw_editintro§ion=new&create=Post+a+comment}} notify] | contribs).

• Decorative non-free magazine cover. Helps nothing in understanding the article. Damiens.rf 20:45, 18 May 2009 (UTC)
• Keep - Good image, no reason for deletion. - NeutralHomer • Talk • 20:18, 19 May 2009 (UTC)
• Keep. --Silvestris (talk) 00:04, 20 May 2009 (UTC)
• Keep per NeutralHomer - ALLST✰R▼^echo _{wuz here @} 06:31, 20 May 2009 (UTC)
• Delete Fails WP:NFCC on many levels. — BQZip01 — ^talk 02:51, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

: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. Arguments not backed by policy have been given less weight. Stifle (talk) 10:47, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

::File:{{ucfirst:Leo and Greenlee undying love.jpg}} ([{{fullurl:File:Leo and Greenlee undying love.jpg|action=delete&wpReason={{urlencode:Wikipedia:Files for deletion/2009 May 18}}}} delete] | talk | [{{fullurl:File:{{ucfirst:Leo and Greenlee undying love.jpg}}|action=history}} history] | [{{fullurl:Special:Log|page={{urlencode:File:{{ucfirst:Leo and Greenlee undying love.jpg}}}}}} logs]) - uploaded by Flyer22 ([{{fullurl:User_talk:Flyer22|action=edit&preload=Template:idw_preload&editintro=Template:idw_editintro§ion=new&create=Post+a+comment}} notify] | contribs).

• Decorative non-free screenshot. Helps nothing in understanding the article. Damiens.rf 20:48, 18 May 2009 (UTC)
• Keep - Good image, no reason for deletion. - NeutralHomer • Talk • 20:18, 19 May 2009 (UTC)
• Keep. --Silvestris (talk) 00:04, 20 May 2009 (UTC)
• Keep per NeutralHomer - ALLST✰R▼^echo _{wuz here @} 06:31, 20 May 2009 (UTC)
• Delete I can see why this could be considered a key plot point, but, nothing in our WP:NFCC states that "key plot points" are a reason for inclusion. This image is one of many copyrighted images on the article violating WP:NFCC#3. Specifically, we don't need an additional non-free image when one does the trick. — BQZip01 — ^talk 02:50, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

: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: Deleted, does not pass WP:NFCC#8. – Quadell ^(talk) 18:12, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

::File:{{ucfirst:Leo at Miller's Falls.jpg}} ([{{fullurl:File:Leo at Miller's Falls.jpg|action=delete&wpReason={{urlencode:Wikipedia:Files for deletion/2009 May 18}}}} delete] | talk | [{{fullurl:File:{{ucfirst:Leo at Miller's Falls.jpg}}|action=history}} history] | [{{fullurl:Special:Log|page={{urlencode:File:{{ucfirst:Leo at Miller's Falls.jpg}}}}}} logs]) - uploaded by Flyer22 ([{{fullurl:User_talk:Flyer22|action=edit&preload=Template:idw_preload&editintro=Template:idw_editintro§ion=new&create=Post+a+comment}} notify] | contribs).

• Decorative non-free screenshot. Helps nothing in understanding the article. Damiens.rf 20:48, 18 May 2009 (UTC)
• Keep. Not decorative whatsoever. Unless the reader can actually picture what Miller's Falls looks like, it does add significantly to the article. The image is of a significant moment of fictional character who has been led to his death, noted within the article. Image is absolutely valid.
• Note: This user is on a crusade against almost any image I have uploaded, when most are perfectly valid within the realm of fictional characters. Flyer22 (talk) 21:50, 18 May 2009 (UTC)
• Note: The above note violates WP:AGF and offers no actual justification to keep. --Hammersoft (talk) 14:22, 19 May 2009 (UTC)
• Note: I explained at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding Damiens.rf as to why I could not assume good faith in this case. Flyer22 (talk) 19:01, 19 May 2009 (UTC)
• Keep - Good image, no reason for deletion. - NeutralHomer • Talk • 20:18, 19 May 2009 (UTC)
• Keep. --Silvestris (talk) 00:04, 20 May 2009 (UTC)
• Keep per Flyer22 and NeutralHomer - ALLST✰R▼^echo _{wuz here @} 06:31, 20 May 2009 (UTC)
• Delete I can see why this could be considered a key plot point, but, nothing in our WP:NFCC states that "key plot points" are a reason for inclusion. This image is one of many copyrighted images on the article violating WP:NFCC#3. Specifically, we don't need an additional non-free image when one does the trick. — BQZip01 — ^talk 02:49, 24 May 2009 (UTC)
• Comment. It is not simply about this being a key plot point. It is about the fact that this provides visual aid that is not conveyed through text alone. I feel that it does significantly enhance the reader's understanding of that moment. One image like this would suffice. But there are no other images like this within the article. I also do not feel that the article has many images violating WP:NFCC#3. I only see one image within the article that does not enhance the reader's understanding much, and that image should rightfully be deleted. Flyer22 (talk) 02:58, 24 May 2009 (UTC)
• Sorry, I guess I don't see how. He's leaning over a log rail looking down with a sign in the background and an amazingly fake backdrop of rocks behind him. I could also describe his clothes, but that doesn't add anything to the article...neither does the picture. — BQZip01 — ^talk 19:29, 24 May 2009 (UTC)
• Eh, the rocks are not that fake-looking (LOL). Flyer22 (talk) 18:44, 25 May 2009 (UTC)
• Weak delete, decorative screenshot violating WP:NFCC#8. Stifle (talk) 10:48, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

: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 {{admin|Peripitus}} AnomieBOT⚡ 13:57, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

::File:{{ucfirst:Leo and Greenlee Soap Opera Digest.jpg}} ([{{fullurl:File:Leo and Greenlee Soap Opera Digest.jpg|action=delete&wpReason={{urlencode:Wikipedia:Files for deletion/2009 May 18}}}} delete] | talk | [{{fullurl:File:{{ucfirst:Leo and Greenlee Soap Opera Digest.jpg}}|action=history}} history] | [{{fullurl:Special:Log|page={{urlencode:File:{{ucfirst:Leo and Greenlee Soap Opera Digest.jpg}}}}}} logs]) - uploaded by Flyer22 ([{{fullurl:User_talk:Flyer22|action=edit&preload=Template:idw_preload&editintro=Template:idw_editintro§ion=new&create=Post+a+comment}} notify] | contribs).

• Decorative non-free magazine cover. Helps nothing in understanding the article. Damiens.rf 20:48, 18 May 2009 (UTC)
• Keep - Good image, no reason for deletion. - NeutralHomer • Talk • 20:18, 19 May 2009 (UTC)
• Keep. --Silvestris (talk) 00:04, 20 May 2009 (UTC)
• Keep per NeutralHomer - ALLST✰R▼^echo _{wuz here @} 06:32, 20 May 2009 (UTC)
• Delete Non-notable copyrighted image. Fails our WP:NFCC. — BQZip01 — ^talk 02:48, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

: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: Deleted, does not pass WP:NFCC#8. – Quadell ^(talk) 18:11, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

::File:{{ucfirst:J.R. and Babe in a shack making love, their frustions wild. B (Main).JPG}} ([{{fullurl:File:J.R. and Babe in a shack making love, their frustions wild. B (Main).JPG|action=delete&wpReason={{urlencode:Wikipedia:Files for deletion/2009 May 18}}}} delete] | talk | [{{fullurl:File:{{ucfirst:J.R. and Babe in a shack making love, their frustions wild. B (Main).JPG}}|action=history}} history] | [{{fullurl:Special:Log|page={{urlencode:File:{{ucfirst:J.R. and Babe in a shack making love, their frustions wild. B (Main).JPG}}}}}} logs]) - uploaded by Flyer22 ([{{fullurl:User_talk:Flyer22|action=edit&preload=Template:idw_preload&editintro=Template:idw_editintro§ion=new&create=Post+a+comment}} notify] | contribs).

• Decorative non-free screenshot. Helps nothing in understanding the article. Damiens.rf 20:49, 18 May 2009 (UTC)
• Keep. Not decorative. This is an image of two fictional characters making love, which is not conveyed through text alone.
• Note: This user is on a crusade against almost any image I have uploaded, when most are perfectly valid within the realm of fictional characters. Flyer22 (talk) 21:47, 18 May 2009 (UTC)
• Note: The above note violates WP:AGF and offers no actual justification to keep. --Hammersoft (talk) 15:03, 19 May 2009 (UTC)
• Note: I explained at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding Damiens.rf as to why I could not assume good faith in this case. And the above actually does offer justification for keep. Flyer22 (talk) 19:05, 19 May 2009 (UTC)
• Keep - Good image, no reason for deletion. - NeutralHomer • Talk • 20:18, 19 May 2009 (UTC)
• Keep. --Silvestris (talk) 00:04, 20 May 2009 (UTC)
• Keep per Flyer22 and NeutralHomer - ALLST✰R▼^echo _{wuz here @} 06:33, 20 May 2009 (UTC)
• Delete I can see why this could be considered a key plot point, but, nothing in our WP:NFCC states that "key plot points" are a reason for inclusion. This image is one of many copyrighted images on the article violating WP:NFCC#3. Specifically, we don't need an additional non-free image when one does the trick. — BQZip01 — ^talk 02:47, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

: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 {{admin|Peripitus}} AnomieBOT⚡ 13:57, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

::File:{{ucfirst:J.R. holds Krystal hostage, threatens her life (Main).JPG}} ([{{fullurl:File:J.R. holds Krystal hostage, threatens her life (Main).JPG|action=delete&wpReason={{urlencode:Wikipedia:Files for deletion/2009 May 18}}}} delete] | talk | [{{fullurl:File:{{ucfirst:J.R. holds Krystal hostage, threatens her life (Main).JPG}}|action=history}} history] | [{{fullurl:Special:Log|page={{urlencode:File:{{ucfirst:J.R. holds Krystal hostage, threatens her life (Main).JPG}}}}}} logs]) - uploaded by Flyer22 ([{{fullurl:User_talk:Flyer22|action=edit&preload=Template:idw_preload&editintro=Template:idw_editintro§ion=new&create=Post+a+comment}} notify] | contribs).

• Decorative non-free screenshot. Helps nothing in understanding the article. Damiens.rf 20:49, 18 May 2009 (UTC)
• Keep - Good image, no reason for deletion. - NeutralHomer • Talk • 20:18, 19 May 2009 (UTC)
• Keep per NeutralHomer - ALLST✰R▼^echo _{wuz here @} 06:33, 20 May 2009 (UTC)
• Delete I can see why this could be considered a key plot point, but, nothing in our WP:NFCC states that "key plot points" are a reason for inclusion. This image is one of many copyrighted images on the article violating WP:NFCC#3. Specifically, we don't need an additional non-free image when one does the trick. — BQZip01 — ^talk 02:48, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

: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: Deleted, does not pass WP:NFCC#8. – Quadell ^(talk) 18:09, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

::File:{{ucfirst:J.R. heartbroken that Babe is (supposedly) dead (Main).JPG}} ([{{fullurl:File:J.R. heartbroken that Babe is (supposedly) dead (Main).JPG|action=delete&wpReason={{urlencode:Wikipedia:Files for deletion/2009 May 18}}}} delete] | talk | [{{fullurl:File:{{ucfirst:J.R. heartbroken that Babe is (supposedly) dead (Main).JPG}}|action=history}} history] | [{{fullurl:Special:Log|page={{urlencode:File:{{ucfirst:J.R. heartbroken that Babe is (supposedly) dead (Main).JPG}}}}}} logs]) - uploaded by Flyer22 ([{{fullurl:User_talk:Flyer22|action=edit&preload=Template:idw_preload&editintro=Template:idw_editintro§ion=new&create=Post+a+comment}} notify] | contribs).

• Decorative non-free screenshot. Helps nothing in understanding the article. Damiens.rf 20:49, 18 May 2009 (UTC)
• Keep. Not decorative. Image displays the expression of a fictional character upon believing that his wife is dead, noted within the article, which is not otherwise conveyed through text alone.
• Note: This user is on a crusade against almost any image I have uploaded, when most are perfectly valid within the realm of fictional characters. Flyer22 (talk) 21:41, 18 May 2009 (UTC)
• Note: The above note violates WP:AGF and offers no actual justification to keep. --Hammersoft (talk) 15:05, 19 May 2009 (UTC)
• Note: I explained at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding Damiens.rf as to why I could not assume good faith in this case. And the above actually does offer justification for keep. Flyer22 (talk) 19:06, 19 May 2009 (UTC)
• Keep - Good image, no reason for deletion. - NeutralHomer • Talk • 20:18, 19 May 2009 (UTC)
• Keep. --Silvestris (talk) 00:04, 20 May 2009 (UTC)
• Keep per Flyer22 and NeutralHomer - ALLST✰R▼^echo _{wuz here @} 06:34, 20 May 2009 (UTC)
• Delete I can see why this could be considered a key plot point, but, nothing in our WP:NFCC states that "key plot points" are a reason for inclusion. This image is one of many copyrighted images on the article violating WP:NFCC#3. Specifically, we don't need an additional non-free image when one does the trick. — BQZip01 — ^talk 02:47, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

: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 {{admin|Peripitus}} AnomieBOT⚡ 13:57, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

::File:{{ucfirst:J.R. tells Babe from the moment he saw her, he knew he wanted to be a good man.jpg}} ([{{fullurl:File:J.R. tells Babe from the moment he saw her, he knew he wanted to be a good man.jpg|action=delete&wpReason={{urlencode:Wikipedia:Files for deletion/2009 May 18}}}} delete] | talk | [{{fullurl:File:{{ucfirst:J.R. tells Babe from the moment he saw her, he knew he wanted to be a good man.jpg}}|action=history}} history] | [{{fullurl:Special:Log|page={{urlencode:File:{{ucfirst:J.R. tells Babe from the moment he saw her, he knew he wanted to be a good man.jpg}}}}}} logs]) - uploaded by Flyer22 ([{{fullurl:User_talk:Flyer22|action=edit&preload=Template:idw_preload&editintro=Template:idw_editintro§ion=new&create=Post+a+comment}} notify] | contribs).

• Decorative non-free screenshot. Helps nothing in understanding the article. Damiens.rf 20:49, 18 May 2009 (UTC)
• Keep - Good image, no reason for deletion. - NeutralHomer • Talk • 20:19, 19 May 2009 (UTC)
• Keep. --Silvestris (talk) 00:04, 20 May 2009 (UTC)
• Keep per NeutralHomer - ALLST✰R▼^echo _{wuz here @} 06:34, 20 May 2009 (UTC)
• Delete I can see why this could be considered a key plot point, but, nothing in our WP:NFCC states that "key plot points" are a reason for inclusion. This image is one of many copyrighted images on the article violating WP:NFCC#3. Specifically, we don't need an additional non-free image when one does the trick. — BQZip01 — ^talk 02:45, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

: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: Deleted, does not pass WP:NFCC#8. – Quadell ^(talk) 18:08, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

::File:{{ucfirst:J.R. and Babe's Celebrity Wedding Exclusive (Main).JPG}} ([{{fullurl:File:J.R. and Babe's Celebrity Wedding Exclusive (Main).JPG|action=delete&wpReason={{urlencode:Wikipedia:Files for deletion/2009 May 18}}}} delete] | talk | [{{fullurl:File:{{ucfirst:J.R. and Babe's Celebrity Wedding Exclusive (Main).JPG}}|action=history}} history] | [{{fullurl:Special:Log|page={{urlencode:File:{{ucfirst:J.R. and Babe's Celebrity Wedding Exclusive (Main).JPG}}}}}} logs]) - uploaded by Flyer22 ([{{fullurl:User_talk:Flyer22|action=edit&preload=Template:idw_preload&editintro=Template:idw_editintro§ion=new&create=Post+a+comment}} notify] | contribs).

• Decorative non-free magazine cover. Helps nothing in understanding the article. Damiens.rf 20:49, 18 May 2009 (UTC)
• Keep. Not decorative. Though magazine covers are mainly allowed for use only in an article about that magazine cover, this cover is noted within the article and cannot be conveyed through text alone.
• Note: This user is on a crusade against almost any image I have uploaded, when most are perfectly valid within the realm of fictional characters. Flyer22 (talk) 21:44, 18 May 2009 (UTC)
• Note: The above note violates WP:AGF and offers no actual justification to keep. --Hammersoft (talk) 15:03, 19 May 2009 (UTC)
• Note: I explained at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding Damiens.rf as to why I could not assume good faith in this case. And the above actually does offer justification for keep. Flyer22 (talk) 19:08, 19 May 2009 (UTC)
• Keep - Good image, no reason for deletion. - NeutralHomer • Talk • 20:19, 19 May 2009 (UTC)
• Keep. --Silvestris (talk) 00:04, 20 May 2009 (UTC)
• Keep per Flyer22 and NeutralHomer - ALLST✰R▼^echo _{wuz here @} 06:35, 20 May 2009 (UTC)
• Delete This image is one of many copyrighted images on the article violating WP:NFCC#3. Specifically, we don't need an additional non-free image when one does the trick. — BQZip01 — ^talk 02:43, 24 May 2009 (UTC)
• Comment. But how many images within the article showcase this fictional couple on a (at that time) mainstream magazine cover? One would do the trick is right, and this is the only one of that kind within the article. Flyer22 (talk) 02:48, 24 May 2009 (UTC)
• Delete. It's settled consensus that magazine covers are used only in the article about the magazine. Stifle (talk) 10:49, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

: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: Deleted. Fails NFCC#3

::File:{{ucfirst:Ejsavessami.jpg}} ([{{fullurl:File:Ejsavessami.jpg|action=delete&wpReason={{urlencode:Wikipedia:Files for deletion/2009 May 18}}}} delete] | talk | [{{fullurl:File:{{ucfirst:Ejsavessami.jpg}}|action=history}} history] | [{{fullurl:Special:Log|page={{urlencode:File:{{ucfirst:Ejsavessami.jpg}}}}}} logs]) - uploaded by KellyAna ([{{fullurl:User_talk:KellyAna|action=edit&preload=Template:idw_preload&editintro=Template:idw_editintro§ion=new&create=Post+a+comment}} notify] | contribs).

• Decorative non-free screenshot. Helps nothing in understanding the article. Damiens.rf 20:50, 18 May 2009 (UTC)
• Keep - Good image, no reason for deletion. - NeutralHomer • Talk • 20:19, 19 May 2009 (UTC)
• Keep. --Silvestris (talk) 00:04, 20 May 2009 (UTC)
• Delete Only because it's a poor quality screenshot. - ALLST✰R▼^echo _{wuz here @} 06:36, 20 May 2009 (UTC)
• Delete I can see why this could be considered a key plot point, but, nothing in our WP:NFCC states that "key plot points" are a reason for inclusion. This image is one of many copyrighted images on the article violating WP:NFCC#3. Specifically, we don't need an additional non-free image when one does the trick. — BQZip01 — ^talk 02:43, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

: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 {{admin|Peripitus}} AnomieBOT⚡ 13:57, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

::File:{{ucfirst:BradyDimeraPromo.jpg}} ([{{fullurl:File:BradyDimeraPromo.jpg|action=delete&wpReason={{urlencode:Wikipedia:Files for deletion/2009 May 18}}}} delete] | talk | [{{fullurl:File:{{ucfirst:BradyDimeraPromo.jpg}}|action=history}} history] | [{{fullurl:Special:Log|page={{urlencode:File:{{ucfirst:BradyDimeraPromo.jpg}}}}}} logs]) - uploaded by Radiantbutterfly ([{{fullurl:User_talk:Radiantbutterfly|action=edit&preload=Template:idw_preload&editintro=Template:idw_editintro§ion=new&create=Post+a+comment}} notify] | contribs).

• Decorative non-free banner. Helps nothing in understanding the article. Damiens.rf 20:50, 18 May 2009 (UTC)
• Keep - Good image, no reason for deletion. - NeutralHomer • Talk • 20:19, 19 May 2009 (UTC)
• Keep. --Silvestris (talk) 00:04, 20 May 2009 (UTC)
• Keep per NeutralHomer - ALLST✰R▼^echo _{wuz here @} 06:36, 20 May 2009 (UTC)
• Delete This image is one of many copyrighted images on the article violating WP:NFCC#3. Specifically, we don't need an additional non-free image when one does the trick. — BQZip01 — ^talk 02:42, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

: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 - no keep policy based opinions offerred - image fails NFCC#8 - Peripitus (Talk) 12:50, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

::File:{{ucfirst:My Two Mommies.jpg}} ([{{fullurl:File:My Two Mommies.jpg|action=delete&wpReason={{urlencode:Wikipedia:Files for deletion/2009 May 18}}}} delete] | talk | [{{fullurl:File:{{ucfirst:My Two Mommies.jpg}}|action=history}} history] | [{{fullurl:Special:Log|page={{urlencode:File:{{ucfirst:My Two Mommies.jpg}}}}}} logs]) - uploaded by Loveoandn ([{{fullurl:User_talk:Loveoandn|action=edit&preload=Template:idw_preload&editintro=Template:idw_editintro§ion=new&create=Post+a+comment}} notify] | contribs).

• Decorative non-free screenshot. Helps nothing in understanding the article. Damiens.rf 20:51, 18 May 2009 (UTC)
• Keep - Good image, no reason for deletion. - NeutralHomer • Talk • 20:19, 19 May 2009 (UTC)
• Keep. --Silvestris (talk) 00:04, 20 May 2009 (UTC)
• Keep per NeutralHomer - ALLST✰R▼^echo _{wuz here @} 06:37, 20 May 2009 (UTC)
• Unsure wellll, the readers could arguibly understand better this pivotal point of the plot by looking at the kid presentation themselves, and seeing how it could be misundertood.... --Enric Naval (talk) 22:26, 20 May 2009 (UTC)
• Delete This isn't needed to explain the subject of the article. — BQZip01 — ^talk 02:39, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the discussion was: - Delete - fails NFCC#8 and 3 - noted that there are no keep policy based arguments offerred - Peripitus (Talk) 12:39, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

::File:{{ucfirst:Todd and Téa on Soap Opera Weekly cover.jpg}} ([{{fullurl:File:Todd and Téa on Soap Opera Weekly cover.jpg|action=delete&wpReason={{urlencode:Wikipedia:Files for deletion/2009 May 18}}}} delete] | talk | [{{fullurl:File:{{ucfirst:Todd and Téa on Soap Opera Weekly cover.jpg}}|action=history}} history] | [{{fullurl:Special:Log|page={{urlencode:File:{{ucfirst:Todd and Téa on Soap Opera Weekly cover.jpg}}}}}} logs]) - uploaded by Flyer22 ([{{fullurl:User_talk:Flyer22|action=edit&preload=Template:idw_preload&editintro=Template:idw_editintro§ion=new&create=Post+a+comment}} notify] | contribs).

• Decorative non-free magazine cover. Helps nothing in understanding the article. Damiens.rf 20:52, 18 May 2009 (UTC)
• Keep - Good image, no reason for deletion. - NeutralHomer • Talk • 20:20, 19 May 2009 (UTC)
• Keep. --Silvestris (talk) 00:04, 20 May 2009 (UTC)
• Keep per NeutralHomer - ALLST✰R▼^echo _{wuz here @} 06:37, 20 May 2009 (UTC)
• Delete Does not improve understanding of what is explained in the article. There is no need to illustrate that it was actaully covered (and this justification would fail WP:NFCC), no critical commentary of the specific image. "good image" is not argument to keep a non-free image that fails WP:NFCC. Closing admin, please give the appropiate weight to the important WP:NFCC policy, I fear that this might be kept due to headcount. --Enric Naval (talk) 22:17, 20 May 2009 (UTC)
• Delete This image is one of many copyrighted images on the article violating WP:NFCC#3. Specifically, we don't need an additional non-free image when one does the trick. — BQZip01 — ^talk 02:37, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

: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. I'm going to have to close against the numbers on this one. Proponents of keeping this image have not sufficiently shown why this image meets the WP:NFCC criteria, especially criterion 3a and criterion 8.--Aervanath (talk) 09:39, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

::File:{{ucfirst:Normal 114788 6298 ful.jpg}} ([{{fullurl:File:Normal 114788 6298 ful.jpg|action=delete&wpReason={{urlencode:Wikipedia:Files for deletion/2009 May 18}}}} delete] | talk | [{{fullurl:File:{{ucfirst:Normal 114788 6298 ful.jpg}}|action=history}} history] | [{{fullurl:Special:Log|page={{urlencode:File:{{ucfirst:Normal 114788 6298 ful.jpg}}}}}} logs]) - uploaded by Candyo32 ([{{fullurl:User_talk:Candyo32|action=edit&preload=Template:idw_preload&editintro=Template:idw_editintro§ion=new&create=Post+a+comment}} notify] | contribs).

• Decorative non-free screenshot. Helps nothing in understanding the article. Damiens.rf 20:53, 18 May 2009 (UTC)
• Keep. Todd Manning is a fictional character who has had his faced changed due to plastic surgery within the series. The image is illustrative of what Todd Manning currently looks like now, as portrayed by Trevor St. John, in his interaction with fictional character Téa Delgado. Flyer22 (talk) 19:21, 19 May 2009 (UTC)
• Keep - Good image, no reason for deletion. - NeutralHomer • Talk • 20:20, 19 May 2009 (UTC)
• Keep. --Silvestris (talk) 00:04, 20 May 2009 (UTC)
• Keep per Flyer22 and NeutralHomer - ALLST✰R▼^echo _{wuz here @} 06:37, 20 May 2009 (UTC)
• Keep I improved the caption so it's clearer why the photo is there. --Enric Naval (talk) 22:02, 20 May 2009 (UTC)
• Keep - Tea and Todd (with a new face) react with one another for the first time in almost eight years. Keep image! **** —Preceding unsigned comment added by Candyo32 (talk • contribs) 22:10, 21 May 2009 (UTC)
• In six years, to be exact. They last saw each other in 2002 before she came back in 2008 and interacted with him then. This particular image from January 2009 is not the first time they interacted with each other since her return, but, yeah, still valid for the reasons I stated above about it. Flyer22 (talk) 22:44, 21 May 2009 (UTC)
• Delete Completely disagree with Damiens.rf on this one though. I can see why this could be considered a key plot point, but, nothing in our WP:NFCC states that "key plot points" are a reason for inclusion. If this is supposed to show Todd Manning, it should be included on his character page, not its current location; it is about the actress, not this actor. This image is one of many copyrighted images on the article violating WP:NFCC#3. Specifically, we don't need an additional non-free image when one does the trick. — BQZip01 — ^talk 02:36, 24 May 2009 (UTC)
• Comment. The image (besides the fictional moment it is displaying) is about Todd Manning with a new face and his interaction with Téa Delgado/this actress. The image is valid because Todd's new face cannot be conveyed through text alone. Flyer22 (talk) 03:41, 24 May 2009 (UTC)
• Delete. We already have an image to show what this character looked like in general. Yes, this shows a particular look for the character, but the difference between his look before and after the surgery is not shown to be notable through extensive text and reliable secondary sources. As such, this image only illustrates material which is not necessary in the article. – Quadell ^(talk) 18:07, 27 May 2009 (UTC)
• Comment. Extensive text can always be added. But either way, given that Todd does have a new face, I cannot see how this image is not necessary in the article. Going on a policy-based argument, removal of the image does significantly decrease readers' understanding of what Todd looks like now and these new moments. In fact, the only way they would know what Todd looks like now is either if they are familiar with this character or if they were to click on the Todd Manning article. But the thing is...Wikipedia articles are supposed to be about casual readers as well, not just for the fans of the topic. Flyer22 (talk) 02:01, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

: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: Deleted. Fails NFCC#3.

::File:{{ucfirst:Todd and Téa have sex together for the first time.jpg}} ([{{fullurl:File:Todd and Téa have sex together for the first time.jpg|action=delete&wpReason={{urlencode:Wikipedia:Files for deletion/2009 May 18}}}} delete] | talk | [{{fullurl:File:{{ucfirst:Todd and Téa have sex together for the first time.jpg}}|action=history}} history] | [{{fullurl:Special:Log|page={{urlencode:File:{{ucfirst:Todd and Téa have sex together for the first time.jpg}}}}}} logs]) - uploaded by Flyer22 ([{{fullurl:User_talk:Flyer22|action=edit&preload=Template:idw_preload&editintro=Template:idw_editintro§ion=new&create=Post+a+comment}} notify] | contribs).

• Decorative non-free screenshot. Helps nothing in understanding the article. Damiens.rf 20:53, 18 May 2009 (UTC)
• Keep. Not decorative. It depicts a sexual encounter between two fictional characters, which is noted as significant and has critical commentary to back it up in the Téa Delgado Impact section. The imagery of these two having sex for the first time was rampant all over soap opera websites and within soap opera magazines due to its significance at the time.
• Note: This user is on a crusade against almost any image I have uploaded, when most are perfectly valid within the realm of fictional characters. Flyer22 (talk) 21:35, 18 May 2009 (UTC)
• Note: The above note violates WP:AGF and offers no actual justification to keep. --Hammersoft (talk) 15:03, 19 May 2009 (UTC)
• Note: I explained at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding Damiens.rf as to why I could not assume good faith in this case. And the above actually does offer justification for keep. Critical commentary and significant moments spent between fictional characters that are discussed within articles, such as is the case with Todd and Téa on that deserted island, is always justification for keep for images displaying what is being commented on and or discussed. Flyer22 (talk) 19:14, 19 May 2009 (UTC)
• Keep - Good image, no reason for deletion. - NeutralHomer • Talk • 20:20, 19 May 2009 (UTC)
• Keep. --Silvestris (talk) 00:04, 20 May 2009 (UTC)
• Keep per Flyer22 and NeutralHomer - ALLST✰R▼^echo _{wuz here @} 06:38, 20 May 2009 (UTC)
• Delete the problem with Flyer22's argument is that I don't see at all how the heck this image is supposed to improve the understanding of the article by the reader, the specific image is not significant by itself and the commentary on the media repercusion can go without the photo. This is not a case where a specific image had a huge impact, like that moment of a film where Bruce Willis showed his naked ass and the photograms where removed from the US version but not from the european version. "good image" is not a reason not to remove an image that is failing WP:NFCC policy. --Enric Naval (talk) 22:14, 20 May 2009 (UTC)
• Comment. This specific imagery was shown all over soap opera websites and within soap opera magazines when this couple's first sexual encounter with each other happened. I argue that this imagery did have a huge impact within the soap opera community at the time. This was a hugely popular couple back then and their first sexual encounter was highly anticipated, which is noted within the (Impact) section this image is now placed in. Their time on that deserted island together and their first sexual encounter with each other while there were big moments at the time. Perhaps, if I uploaded an image that shows a better view of them on the island, that would please more people, since it would be displaying the look of the island (and not only them), but this sex scene is what I feel is more significant out of the options and that it does satisfy Wikipedia's image policies. Flyer22 (talk) 23:00, 21 May 2009 (UTC)
• Delete partly per Enric Naval. The image doesn't significantly improve the reader's understanding of the topic, and it appears to be solely a random shot from a TV show (and the "couple's first sexual encounter" isn't especially notable). American Eagle (talk) 19:30, 22 May 2009 (UTC)
• Comment. It is not a random shot, per explained above by me. And their first sexual encounter with each other was especially notable within the series and to fans. Flyer22 (talk) 23:51, 23 May 2009 (UTC)
• Delete Completely disagree with Damiens.rf on this one though. I can see why this could be considered a key plot point, but, nothing in our WP:NFCC states that "key plot points" are a reason for inclusion. This image is one of many copyrighted images on the article violating WP:NFCC#3. Specifically, we don't need an additional non-free image when one does the trick. — BQZip01 — ^talk 02:33, 24 May 2009 (UTC)
• Comment. I would not say that the article has many copyrighted images violating WP:NFCC#3. The first image is of the actress who portrays the character, and the second and third images are of the same couple portrayed by two different male actors with the same female. And then there is this one we are debating now, which I feel is valid for the reasons I stated above. Flyer22 (talk) 02:42, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

: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. Arguments lacking basis in policy have been weighted accordingly. Stifle (talk) 10:50, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

::File:{{ucfirst:Daniel Romalotti and Lily Winters on their wedding day, March 24, 2006..jpg}} ([{{fullurl:File:Daniel Romalotti and Lily Winters on their wedding day, March 24, 2006..jpg|action=delete&wpReason={{urlencode:Wikipedia:Files for deletion/2009 May 18}}}} delete] | talk | [{{fullurl:File:{{ucfirst:Daniel Romalotti and Lily Winters on their wedding day, March 24, 2006..jpg}}|action=history}} history] | [{{fullurl:Special:Log|page={{urlencode:File:{{ucfirst:Daniel Romalotti and Lily Winters on their wedding day, March 24, 2006..jpg}}}}}} logs]) - uploaded by Carly Greene ([{{fullurl:User_talk:Carly Greene|action=edit&preload=Template:idw_preload&editintro=Template:idw_editintro§ion=new&create=Post+a+comment}} notify] | contribs).

• Decorative non-free screenshot. Helps nothing in understanding the article. Damiens.rf 20:53, 18 May 2009 (UTC)
• Keep - Good image, no reason for deletion. - NeutralHomer • Talk • 20:20, 19 May 2009 (UTC)
• Keep. --Silvestris (talk) 00:04, 20 May 2009 (UTC)
• Keep - This image provides a visual depiction of the second actress to play the role of the female lead in the fictional couple the article is about. It is just as important as the top image on the page and not at all just for decoration.
• It should also be noted that this was the same issue with the Thad and Adrianne mid-show promo 2006.jpg which Damiens.rf also nominated. The difference is, when I brought up that point with that article he rescinded the nomination. When I brought up that this one had the same type of purpose in a different article, not only did he not cancel that nomination, he didn't even bother to reply and engage in discussion. Rocksey (talk) 05:57, 20 May 2009 (UTC)
• Keep per NeutralHomer and Rocksey - ALLST✰R▼^echo _{wuz here @} 06:39, 20 May 2009 (UTC)
• keep shows what the fictional characters look like, no free replacement. There are no other photos on the page serving the same purpose (I think) --Enric Naval (talk) 22:05, 20 May 2009 (UTC)
• Delete This image is one of many copyrighted images on the article violating WP:NFCC#3. Specifically, we don't need an additional non-free image when one does the trick. — BQZip01 — ^talk 02:29, 24 May 2009 (UTC)
• Comment. I'm not sure what you mean by this. There isn't more than one image in the article that shows what the fictional character looks like with the second actress in the role. This image would be the one that does the trick. Rocksey (talk) 08:54, 24 May 2009 (UTC)
• Delete - image clearly fails NFCC#8 - of course it illustrates the character...that is the point of an image (to illustrate something). However it adds no significant understanding of the topic for readers - Peripitus (Talk) 12:48, 24 May 2009 (UTC)
• So we're not supposed to have images that show what a character looks like even when the article is about that character? Rocksey (talk) 17:06, 24 May 2009 (UTC)
• All the picture adds is that you can see Davetta Sherwood who briefly was in the part. As a casual reader how does it add significantly to my understanding. What is achieved that a free image of Davetta Sherwood would not. - Peripitus (Talk) 12:01, 25 May 2009 (UTC)
• It achieves the same purpose that any image of a fictional character in a role. If Sherwood had only been in the role for a week or maybe even a month, I would agree that it wasn't necessary to have a picture of her in the article. But she was in the role from February to November of 2006 on contract with the show. I know the article should make the span of time more clear. I'll take out the "briefly".Rocksey (talk) 17:16, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

: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: Deleted. Fails NFCC#3 and #8

::File:{{ucfirst:Khalil and Graziadei on location.jpg}} ([{{fullurl:File:Khalil and Graziadei on location.jpg|action=delete&wpReason={{urlencode:Wikipedia:Files for deletion/2009 May 18}}}} delete] | talk | [{{fullurl:File:{{ucfirst:Khalil and Graziadei on location.jpg}}|action=history}} history] | [{{fullurl:Special:Log|page={{urlencode:File:{{ucfirst:Khalil and Graziadei on location.jpg}}}}}} logs]) - uploaded by Rocksey ([{{fullurl:User_talk:Rocksey|action=edit&preload=Template:idw_preload&editintro=Template:idw_editintro§ion=new&create=Post+a+comment}} notify] | contribs).

• Decorative non-free picture by some unidentified papparazzo. Helps nothing in understanding the article. Damiens.rf 20:54, 18 May 2009 (UTC)
• Keep - Good image, no reason for deletion. - NeutralHomer • Talk • 20:22, 19 May 2009 (UTC)
• Keep. --Silvestris (talk) 00:04, 20 May 2009 (UTC)
• Keep - The image is not just decorative as it gives a visual depiction of the filming of a location shoot that added significantly to the fiction, was spotlighted in the press, and noted within the article. The nominators description of the image as a "non-free picture by some unidentified papparazzo" is inaccurate. The source for the image was clearly given as a magazine. I reiterated it on the images page just to make sure it's clear what it is and where it came from. Rocksey (talk) 06:11, 20 May 2009 (UTC)
• Keep per NeutralHomer and Rocksey - ALLST✰R▼^echo _{wuz here @} 06:39, 20 May 2009 (UTC)
• Delete. Uh, the sentence "they went to Malibu to film shoots" does not get its significance improved because you add a photo of the guys filming in the beach. There is no significance of the image itself, so it's failing WP:NFCC#8. I remind the closing admin that fair use images need to have a good justification of why they qualify for fair use per WP:NFCC. It's the people arguing who have to justify why it fulfills WP:NFCC, you don't need a "reason", failing WP:NFCC is a good enough reason to delete. Idem for other images in this page. --Enric Naval (talk) 21:59, 20 May 2009 (UTC)
• Delete This image is one of many copyrighted images on the article violating WP:NFCC#3. Specifically, we don't need an additional non-free image when one does the trick. — BQZip01 — ^talk 02:29, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

: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: Deleted. Invalid license, inadequate source.

::File:{{ucfirst:SConstage-10.jpg}} ([{{fullurl:File:SConstage-10.jpg|action=delete&wpReason={{urlencode:Wikipedia:Files for deletion/2009 May 18}}}} delete] | talk | [{{fullurl:File:{{ucfirst:SConstage-10.jpg}}|action=history}} history] | [{{fullurl:Special:Log|page={{urlencode:File:{{ucfirst:SConstage-10.jpg}}}}}} logs]) - uploaded by Kekkomereq4 ([{{fullurl:User_talk:Kekkomereq4|action=edit&preload=Template:idw_preload&editintro=Template:idw_editintro§ion=new&create=Post+a+comment}} notify] | contribs).

• Recursive source and no evidence of PD. Damiens.rf 21:22, 18 May 2009 (UTC)
• See [http://www.rollingstone.com/artists/sonnyandcher/articles/story/5926084/baby_dont_go here] and [http://www.carnabystreetthemusical.com/journal/index.php/2008/12/09/famous-celebrity-couples-in-the-60s/ here], I've found the source.Kekkomereq4 06:43, 19 May 2009 (UTC)
• The second link just credits "wikipedia". The first one credits no one specific, but has the generic bottom-of-the-page note "©RealNetworks, Inc. All rights reserved." and "©Copyright 2009 Rolling Stone;" --Damiens.rf 14:09, 19 May 2009 (UTC)
• Kind of hard to credit something in 2009 when it was uploaded in 2009. — BQZip01 — ^talk 02:26, 24 May 2009 (UTC)
• Keep - Good image, no reason for deletion. - NeutralHomer • Talk • 20:20, 19 May 2009 (UTC)
• :I concur its an excellent image, but it doesn't have a valid source. — BQZip01 — ^talk 02:26, 24 May 2009 (UTC)
• Keep. --Silvestris (talk) 00:04, 20 May 2009 (UTC)
• Delete No source, no license. - ALLST✰R▼^echo _{wuz here @} 06:40, 20 May 2009 (UTC)
• Delete no source + no reason to believe the license is valid = deletion. — BQZip01 — ^talk 02:26, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

: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.