Wikipedia:Files for deletion/2010 October 1#File:Thirteen-house-season7.jpg

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

The result of the discussion was: Delete; deleted by {{admin|SchuminWeb}} AnomieBOT⚡ 01:01, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

::File:Fooled-you.jpg ([{{fullurl:File:Fooled-you.jpg|action=delete&wpReason=%5B%5BWikipedia%3AFiles+for+deletion%2F2010+October+1%23File%3AFooled-you.jpg%5D%5D}} delete] | talk | [{{fullurl:File:Fooled-you.jpg|action=history}} history] | [{{fullurl:Special:Log|page=File%3AFooled-you.jpg}} logs]) – uploaded by Destructo 087 ([{{fullurl:User talk:Destructo 087|action=edit&preload=Template:Fdw_preload&editintro=Template:Fdw_editintro§ion=new&create=Post+a+comment}} notify] | contribs | uploads).

• Consensus sought whether this image contains enough simulation of the interface to need modifying or deletion to prevent confusion. Underlying image for User:Destructo 087/Userboxes/Fooled. Reasons why yes = simulates interface, may confuse casual readers or newcomers, annoyance factor if clicked, simulations usually deleted. Reasons why no = small userbox image not banner, reasonable fun, harmless if clicked. FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 11:16, 1 October 2010 (UTC)
• Keep As far as I can tell, it's only used in the userbox; in that context, it's plainly an illustration, not an attempt to simulate the interface, and thus not a problem. Nyttend (talk) 04:17, 2 October 2010 (UTC)
• Delete It's not used there anymore, and has no encyclopedic value. User:TeleComNasSprVenNaSpUser:TCNSV/PMD 04:34, 8 October 2010 (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. SchuminWeb (Talk) 23:43, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

::File:Thirteen-house-season7.jpg ([{{fullurl:File:Thirteen-house-season7.jpg|action=delete&wpReason=%5B%5BWikipedia%3AFiles+for+deletion%2F2010+October+1%23File%3AThirteen-house-season7.jpg%5D%5D}} delete] | talk | [{{fullurl:File:Thirteen-house-season7.jpg|action=history}} history] | [{{fullurl:Special:Log|page=File%3AThirteen-house-season7.jpg}} logs]) – uploaded by Qurq ([{{fullurl:User talk:Qurq|action=edit&preload=Template:Fdw_preload&editintro=Template:Fdw_editintro§ion=new&create=Post+a+comment}} notify] | contribs | uploads).

• Replaceable by :File:Olivia Wilde by David Shankbone.jpg. PhilKnight (talk) 12:41, 1 October 2010 (UTC)
• Keep a random picture of the actress is not equivalent to the actress posing as the character. Qurq (talk) 19:10, 1 October 2010 (UTC)
• In my humble opinion, Wilde's hair, make-up, and facial expression are similar. In other words the non-free image provides the same educational value. PhilKnight (talk) 19:18, 1 October 2010 (UTC)
• Well, of course an actress is going to look similar to the character she plays. But that doesn't mean it's replaceable. By your logic, :File:Image-Tacoma Narrows Bridge1.gif is replaceable by :File:Old Severn Bridge HDR.jpg simply because they happen to be the same sort of bridge. -mattbuck (Talk) 20:05, 1 October 2010 (UTC)
• Keep per Qurq. Also, their hair, makeup and facial expressions are not similar. In one picture, she has straight hair. In the other, her hair is wavy and has a different part. The makeup is wildly different. One picture features her with a "natural" look, and the other makes her skin much lighter and seemingly flawless. The picture of Wilde as Thirteen shows her as Thirteen, a character completely different from Wilde. In the Thirteen picture, Wilde is acting "alluring" and perhaps a little seductive. In the picture of Wilde as herself, Wilde is just openly smiling. Two different pictures. --- cymru lass ^{(hit me up)}⁄_{(background check)} 19:46, 3 October 2010 (UTC)
• I have to agree to keep the image here. While I agree that there is a free image of Olivia Wilde available, it does not adequately portray Wilde in character, as Thirteen. The same could be said for images like :File:Kiefer Sutherland 2008.jpg which could replace :File:Jack Bauer.jpg but would not accurately portray the character. The free image would show you who portrays the character, while this non-free images shows that actor, in character. The difference is significant, as detailed by others above, and in some ways critical to commentary about the character, and for this reason, should be kept. Steven Zhang ^{The clock is ticking....} 01:31, 5 October 2010 (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|SchuminWeb}} AnomieBOT⚡ 01:01, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

::File:Bild 025.jpg ([{{fullurl:File:Bild 025.jpg|action=delete&wpReason=%5B%5BWikipedia%3AFiles+for+deletion%2F2010+October+1%23File%3ABild+025.jpg%5D%5D}} delete] | talk | [{{fullurl:File:Bild 025.jpg|action=history}} history] | [{{fullurl:Special:Log|page=File%3ABild+025.jpg}} logs]) – uploaded by Tresckow ([{{fullurl:User talk:Tresckow|action=edit&preload=Template:Fdw_preload&editintro=Template:Fdw_editintro§ion=new&create=Post+a+comment}} notify] | contribs | uploads).

• Blurred and orphaned image (not used in Eberhard I, Duke of Württemberg). Leyo 17:42, 1 October 2010 (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|SchuminWeb}} AnomieBOT⚡ 01:01, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

::File:Bild 1.jpg ([{{fullurl:File:Bild 1.jpg|action=delete&wpReason=%5B%5BWikipedia%3AFiles+for+deletion%2F2010+October+1%23File%3ABild+1.jpg%5D%5D}} delete] | talk | [{{fullurl:File:Bild 1.jpg|action=history}} history] | [{{fullurl:Special:Log|page=File%3ABild+1.jpg}} logs]) – uploaded by BERTOLOFCARBRING1962 ([{{fullurl:User talk:BERTOLOFCARBRING1962|action=edit&preload=Template:Fdw_preload&editintro=Template:Fdw_editintro§ion=new&create=Post+a+comment}} notify] | contribs | uploads).

• Useless personal image, only contribution of the uploader. Leyo 17:45, 1 October 2010 (UTC)
• Delete, never going to be useful. Nyttend (talk) 04:10, 2 October 2010 (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. SchuminWeb (Talk) 01:25, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

• :File:British North America New.jpg
• :File:689px-British North America New1.jpg

These are all inaccurate and faded versions of :File:British North America.png and have all been replaced by the aforesaid file. Vadac (talk) 20:50, 1 October 2010 (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|SchuminWeb}} AnomieBOT⚡ 01:01, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

::File:Superpowers 1945.png ([{{fullurl:File:Superpowers 1945.png|action=delete&wpReason=%5B%5BWikipedia%3AFiles+for+deletion%2F2010+October+1%23File%3ASuperpowers+1945.png%5D%5D}} delete] | talk | [{{fullurl:File:Superpowers 1945.png|action=history}} history] | [{{fullurl:Special:Log|page=File%3ASuperpowers+1945.png}} logs]) – uploaded by ([ notify] | contribs | uploads).

• One of a colection of maps about the superpowers in 1945. This one has Nepal and Bhutan as part of te British Empire when niether of them ever were. File not in use as a result Vadac (talk) 20:57, 1 October 2010 (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|SchuminWeb}} AnomieBOT⚡ 01:01, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

This is an unsued map which includes North Yamen which was never part of the British Empire and is otherwise the same as Vadac (talk) 20:50, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

• Delete, this image is inferior in quality as well as having the inaccuracy that the nominator notes. Nyttend (talk) 04:13, 2 October 2010 (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|SchuminWeb}} AnomieBOT⚡ 01:01, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

::File:Bushmillerbyfrankgodwin.jpg ([{{fullurl:File:Bushmillerbyfrankgodwin.jpg|action=delete&wpReason=%5B%5BWikipedia%3AFiles+for+deletion%2F2010+October+1%23File%3ABushmillerbyfrankgodwin.jpg%5D%5D}} delete] | talk | [{{fullurl:File:Bushmillerbyfrankgodwin.jpg|action=history}} history] | [{{fullurl:Special:Log|page=File%3ABushmillerbyfrankgodwin.jpg}} logs]) – uploaded by Pepso2 ([{{fullurl:User talk:Pepso2|action=edit&preload=Template:Fdw_preload&editintro=Template:Fdw_editintro§ion=new&create=Post+a+comment}} notify] | contribs | uploads).

• non-free image in an article with existing ones that identify the subject. Fails WP:NFCC#3a as excessive use of non free content and the use of a third-party illustration like this falls into one of the unacceptable use categories...similar to using a stamp with an image to illustrate an article about the object depicted on the stamp. Peripitus (Talk) 23:12, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

::Even so, you have to admit it is a beautiful portrait. Pepso2 (talk) 23:23, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

:That is is - Peripitus (Talk) 23:48, 1 October 2010 (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.