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 WP:NFCC#8 as the image does not significantly increase readers' understanding of the topic. The importance of the image presented is strictly opinion or original research. The "reference" added to the caption was not a third party source but a collection of WIkilinks. - Nv8200p talk 03:21, 10 July 2008 (UTC) reply

Image:The Family of Blood.jpg

This discussion was subject to a deletion review on 2008 July 10. For an explanation of the process, see Wikipedia:Deletion review.

Image:The Family of Blood.jpg ( delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Wolf of Fenric ( notify | contribs).

• non-free matrerial failing WP:NFCC#8, what these characters look like is not significant to understanding the article Fasach Nua ( talk) 14:45, 1 July 2008 (UTC) reply
• keep. The picture shows an animated scarecrow, a school prefect or head boy, and a maid, both of the latter in Edwardian period clothing. They are lit from the side and their expressions are cruel. The boy's tie and collar are in disarray. The use of "horror film" lighting for such scenes is characteristic of this series, as is the employment of skilled actors and makeup technicians who can portray the dark themes of this story well. Used in The Family of Blood, this appropriate use of non-free content significantly enhances the reader's understanding of the subject of the article. -- Jenny 15:43, 1 July 2008 (UTC) reply
  • Yes, it shows these things. A scarecrow, a guy in black, and so on. So his tie and collar are in disarray? So what. So there's skilled actors and makeup technicians involved? I can't see that in the image. You say these things are characteristic of something. If that is the case, say it. Not here, but in the article. Analyse it. And source it. If that can't be done, delete. Fut.Perf. ☼ 14:51, 2 July 2008 (UTC) reply
    • I'm referring above to the cinematography (in the broadest sense) of the episode, which is really rather unique and very good. You can't really describe cinematographic effects in normal English, but a photograph does the trick rather well. -- Jenny 23:56, 3 July 2008 (UTC) reply
      • If the cinematography of the episode is "rather unique and very good", why is there no sourced mention of this fact in the article? The article must analyse these things. If and when it turns out it can't sufficiently do it with words alone (which of course would be very likely, I agree), then think about using an image. All too often, this whole "can't be done in words" argument is just a cheap excuse for bad article writing and analytical laziness. Fut.Perf. ☼ 05:28, 4 July 2008 (UTC) reply
        • Yes,all use of non-free content could be criticised for taking the easy way out. I stand by my opinion, and it's just an opinion, a matter of nuance, that in this case the use of non-free content is merited because it shows what would be difficult to tell. -- Jenny 05:33, 4 July 2008 (UTC) reply
• Keep - The image is highly beneficial to the article as it illustrates members of the titular Family of Blood along with their henchmen, the Scarecrows. These scarecrows are highly stylised - certainly they do not look like scarecrows I've seen in real life (even those at the annual Scarecrow Festival I've been to). The image depicts a key scene in the episode and is appropriate given the article's title. Wolf of Fenric ( talk) 23:27, 3 July 2008 (UTC) reply
• Delete, I see no discussion of this image or its elements in the article. It is a pretty for the infobox, and that does not pass the nonfree content requirements. If there is sourced commentary regarding this specific scene, an image illustrating it may be appropriate. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 16:49, 5 July 2008 (UTC) reply
• Delete per seraphimblade. — BQZip01 —  ^talk 22:39, 5 July 2008 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result of the discussion was: delete fails NFCC#8. There are no facts to support that the image is rare, educational or valuable. The use of the image in the article does not add significantly to the understanding of the article as the caption notes it just shows the Doctor shaking Nero's hand. - Nv8200p talk 03:00, 10 July 2008 (UTC) reply

Image:The Romans.jpg

Image:The Romans.jpg ( delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Tim! ( notify | contribs).

• non free image failing WP:NFCC#8 and #1, no real information contained, easily described with text, a couple of guys wearing sheets Fasach Nua ( talk) 12:15, 1 July 2008 (UTC) reply

• Delete Very low resolution, easily replaceable -- Meldshal42 (talk) 13:21, 1 July 2008 (UTC) reply
• Keep. A rare still from the Doctor Who story The Romans, first broadcast in early 1965, featuring the late William Hartnell as the cantankerous and devious First Doctor confronting an armed assassin in a Roman bath house. The low quality is appropriate to the use of non-free material and cause in part by the lower quality of 1960s television production and recording technology. This is not replaceable, and it enhances the reader's understanding of the subject. -- Jenny 15:59, 1 July 2008 (UTC) reply
• Keep. Inappropriate nomination. Rare, educational, valuable and irreplaceable (unless we are Time Lords who are able to go back in time!). SilkTork * ^YES! 07:19, 2 July 2008 (UTC) reply
• Delete. Just because it's from an older part of the series rather than from a recent one doesn't exempt it from the normal standards. This image serves to show nothing beyond the fact that a certain plot element happens. That can easily be conveyed in words. If there's anything beyond that (i.e. showing something significant about how that plot element is presented visually), then why isn't the article talking about that? As per multiple precedent in dozens or by now hundreds of comparable cases, images must support analytical commentary that happens in the text. Fut.Perf. ☼ 14:57, 2 July 2008 (UTC) reply
• Delete, the plot of the show seems to be quite adequately conveyed by text, I really don't see what educational value the image adds to the article. It is a pretty, and that's not a good enough reason to have nonfree content. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 17:01, 5 July 2008 (UTC) reply
• Delete doesn't meet NFCC criteria. — BQZip01 —  ^talk 22:59, 5 July 2008 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result of the discussion was: Nomination Withdrawn ~ Bigr Tex 02:21, 2 July 2008 (UTC) reply

Image:Michael_Nyman-Gattaca-The_Other_Side.ogg ( delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Beyond_silence ( notify | contribs).

• per Wikipedia:Music samples, non-free music samples should always be shorter than 30 seconds. This one is longer than a minute. Bigr Tex 01:41, 1 July 2008 (UTC) reply

Cutted. thx-- Beyond silence 09:44, 1 July 2008 (UTC) reply

Keep Split. -- Meldshal42 (talk) 13:23, 1 July 2008 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result of the discussion was: delete. Consensus here is that one minute is too long for a fair use audio clip. The way the clip was used also failed WP:NFCC#8. The clip was buried in a listing of tracks with no supporting commentary. - Nv8200p talk 05:19, 12 July 2008 (UTC) reply

Image:301-howard_shore-khazad-dûm.ogg

Image:301-howard_shore-khazad-dûm.ogg ( delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Locke_Cole ( notify | contribs).

• per Wikipedia:Music samples, non-free music samples should always be shorter than 30 seconds. This one is a minute long. Bigr Tex 02:05, 1 July 2008 (UTC) reply
• Keep, Wikipedia:Music samples is only a guideline, not a hard and fast rule (policy). The actual portion used is significantly smaller than the complete piece (8 minutes or so in length for just the track sampled, or about 3 hours of material for the entire album). — Locke Cole • t • c 04:10, 1 July 2008 (UTC) reply
• Delete 1 minute is too long for a music sample, even for an 8 minute song. Calliopejen1 ( talk) 04:55, 1 July 2008 (UTC) reply
  • How is 1 minute too long? Where did this arbitrary limit come from? Is there a legal backing for this limit, or are we self-limiting ourselves? — Locke Cole • t • c 15:07, 1 July 2008 (UTC) reply
• Delete Sorry, but per Callio. -- Meldshal42 (talk) 13:24, 1 July 2008 (UTC) reply
  • How is 1 minute too long? Where did this arbitrary limit come from? Is there a legal backing for this limit, or are we self-limiting ourselves? — Locke Cole • t • c 15:07, 1 July 2008 (UTC) reply
    • Wikipedia:NFC#Audio_clips, regards Fasach Nua ( talk) 15:10, 1 July 2008 (UTC) reply
      • That's still just a guideline though, not a hard and fast rule which must be followed. — Locke Cole • t • c 22:48, 1 July 2008 (UTC) reply

I looked around google today and found references to this guideline that predate Wikipedia. It also appeared to be a reasonably common guideline - I found at least 3 school districts/universities (i.e., U Texas) that use it in the first 50 search returns. Why do you think that we should not apply this guideline to this piece of music? What is special about it? ~ Bigr Tex 01:49, 2 July 2008 (UTC) reply

Because it appears to be an arbitrary number with no real legal backing behind it? As to the link you provided, it's curious to me that they limit themselves to thirty seconds for musical/lyrical works, but for motion pictures they expand that up to a full three minutes (thus affirming that it is indeed an arbitrary limit). Back to Wikipedia, we don't delete content simply because it violates a content style guideline: had the clip been of the full eight minute track I could understand the objection, but we're talking about one minute in fairly low quality (stereo as opposed to 5.1, 16/44.1 as opposed to 24/48 sample size/rate). I just don't see the immediate need to delete this. — Locke Cole • t • c 05:40, 2 July 2008 (UTC) reply

The aim is to use as little non-free content as possible, perhaps a FU rationale may be in order? Fasach Nua ( talk) 08:51, 2 July 2008 (UTC) reply

That would be fine with me, but would that address the nominators concerns? — Locke Cole • t • c 05:22, 3 July 2008 (UTC) reply

The point of a FU rationale is to justify the use on WP, if it is valid then there is no case to delete it, however it may not be possible to justify this as fair use, in the absence of a rationale, it is an automatic delete Fasach Nua ( talk) 06:39, 3 July 2008 (UTC) reply

I've added a FUR, though my impression wasn't that this deletion discussion was about the lack of a FUR, but the length of the piece. At any rate, does the added FUR address your concerns? — Locke Cole • t • c 04:53, 10 July 2008 (UTC) reply

• Delete I have no problem keeping this at one minute, but a guideline is "generally accepted standard that editors should follow, though it should be treated with common sense and the occasional exception." You have shown no reason why an exception should be made. If there is something we are missing here (e.g. "the music in this part shows the range and talent of XXX"), please let us know, but otherwise delete. — BQZip01 —  ^talk 23:05, 5 July 2008 (UTC) reply
  • As I indicated above, given the length of the work and this piece in particular I believe a longer sample is reasonable. I spent a reasonable amount of time trying to work this down to a one minute sample from the source track, and there's simply no way I'd be able to work this down to thirty seconds without omitting enough to make it irrelevant for an encyclopedia. — Locke Cole • t • c 02:28, 7 July 2008 (UTC) reply
    • Then this needs to be annotated in the FUR. — BQZip01 —  ^talk 01:21, 10 July 2008 (UTC) reply
      • I've added a FUR and tried to convey the necessity for a 1 minute sample. Comments? — Locke Cole • t • c 04:51, 10 July 2008 (UTC) reply
        • I appreciate your addition of a FUR. There does not seem to be any commentary at Music of The Lord of the Rings film trilogy about this track either. My understanding of our WP:NFCC is that non-free content needs to be supporting our encyclopedic text. Your FUR doesn't provide a reason that this music sample needs to exceed our guidelines, nor explain how it helps illustrate the encyclopedic content in the article. ~ Bigr Tex 02:09, 11 July 2008 (UTC) reply
          • There is some passing mention of the themes presented in the sample in the "Principal leitmotifs" section (though I admit there is no direct link to the sample, perhaps that's something to be rectified should this be kept). I thought I'd included an explanation that given the length of the overall piece I felt it justified a longer than normal sample length, but I'll double check to make sure the FUR reflects that (unless you're saying that's not acceptable). I'll tweak the FUR some more, regardless. — Locke Cole • t • c 07:10, 11 July 2008 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result of the debate was Speedy deleted as a copyright violation. OTRS:2008070310020883 (limited to those with OTRS access) for more info. - Rjd0060 ( talk) 04:34, 10 July 2008 (UTC) reply

Image:2nd Police Warning 4 God's Emissary 1.jpg

Image:2nd Police Warning 4 God's Emissary 1.jpg ( delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by DoDaCanaDa ( notify | contribs).

• This was originally tagged as replaceable fair use, but was kept. I don't think I agree with that- it has been kept on the rationale that it is an irreplaceable historic image. Maybe, but the specific incident in the photo isn't discussed in depth in the article, and, furthermore, a free image of the subject could be created (still living), meaning that there is no reason to keep this. J Milburn ( talk) 17:22, 1 July 2008 (UTC) reply

• This is not correct. The image was originally posted by another Administrator with the not free/fair use tag. J Milburn did not like it from the first time he saw it. From his POV he sees it depicting a person and not an event. Even though the subject is living and doesn't look the same, it would be impossible to recreate the looks on those faces, and words won't do it. It was originally posted in the larger size so the viewer could see the lines of the faces. DoDaCanaDa ( talk) 03:49, 2 July 2008 (UTC) reply

• Delete. The "historic image" justification works only where an image, in and by itself, is a noteworthy object (not just a vehicle) of encyclopedic discussion. This is usually the case if it has attained "iconic" status. Not here. The image and the specific scene it shows are not discussed in the text and nothing in it is necessary for understanding the text. There's also an obvious problem about non-minimality of use, because the page has two very similar images showing essentially the same event, with no indication why they should both be necessary. Fut.Perf. ☼ 14:37, 2 July 2008 (UTC) reply

• This is a valid point considering there are two images from different perspectives on the same event. One could go. If an image must be deleted, then it should be this one http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:2nd_Police_warning_4_God%27s_Emissary.jpg There were 1447 views of the article in June with only two objections, including yours. No one can be compelled to offer an opinion, but 1445 people had no objection to the image. DoDaCanaDa ( talk) 16:19, 2 July 2008 (UTC) reply

• That logic is completely flawed. The number of views an image has received is completely irrelevant- we are discussing whether this image adds enough to the article in which it is used to justify the fact that we are using a non-free image- something against our goals. J Milburn ( talk) 18:25, 2 July 2008 (UTC) reply

• That statement is flawed. The principles of this site clearly state Consensus is typically reached as a natural and inherent product of the wiki-editing process; generally someone makes a change or addition to a page, and then everyone who reads the page has an opportunity to either leave the page as it is or change it. In essence, silence implies consent, if there is adequate exposure to the community. Consensus among a limited group of editors, at one place and time, should never over-ride community consensus on a wider scale, unless convincing arguments cause the new process to become widely accepted. In the case of policy and process pages a higher standard of participation and consensus is expected than on other pages. Up to now it has been only you and I. We do not represent the community. DoDaCanaDa ( talk) 01:31, 3 July 2008 (UTC) reply
  • Silence could be argued to imply consent, but the moment that the silence is broken, it holds no weight. Using your logic, removing clear vandalism that has been in place for several months (I've seen it...) would be 'against consensus' as there has been silence up until then. In fact, you're arguing against yourself- you claim that "Consensus among a limited group of editors, at one place and time, should never over-ride community consensus on a wider scale", yet favour your own abstract arguments over guidelines and policies, despite the fact that they have been determined via consensus from a great number of editors. We may not represent the community, but the policies we cite do. I think it is important to keep the debating to a minimum (we both have strong views on politics, religion and philosophy- I am sure we could debate for hours, both regarding Wikipedia and otherwise) and instead focus on just judging material in relation to our policies and, if we wish to challenge the policy or guideline, do so on the appropriate page. J Milburn ( talk) 17:36, 3 July 2008 (UTC) reply

• J You removed these disputed images from the article the first time you saw them. You didn't just tag them for deletion which is the proper procedure. If anyone was interested enough to follow the discussion the last week, you eventually relented and they were restored for a few days undisputed. Obviously you've had a change of heart. It's becoming increasingly evident you are obsessed by them. You didn't even caption the image in the article it was up for deletion. Considering 95% of the article has been removed to history, thankfully this remains: He was arrested on a number of occasions in the late 1970s for making speeches to crowds in Downtown Ottawa and charged with shouting, causing a disturbance. He was convicted and handed a one day suspended sentence with one condition of probation for one year "not to attend on The Sparks Street Mall, or any other Street in the City of Ottawa, for the purpose of speaking or shouting". After that judgment, he continued to exercise what he saw as his democratic right to freedom of speech, he breached the probation and was sent to jail.[1][2][3][4] The images, showing only one time of many arrests, affirm and confirm an historic event not just the person in the article. Credit is given to the source and referenced: Second Police Warning for God's Emissary. Obviously the subject of the article did not choose the newspaper header. You are a smart young man so I will challenge you to disprove the image is historic. Read the letter of the probation, each word, and find anyone else in the Democratic nations placed under the same Court ordered probation and you will have proved your point. If you cannot, then the images are historic. Very simple. DoDaCanaDa ( talk) 22:54, 4 July 2008 (UTC) reply

• I originally replied to this ridiculous statement here. I am not going to waste my time responding again. J Milburn ( talk) 12:03, 5 July 2008 (UTC) reply

• KEEP A picture is worth a thousand words. Leave the image in to maintain the information the entry conveys. Morfane ( talk) 02:19, 5 July 2008 (UTC)— Morfane ( talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. reply
• Delete, nonfree image of a living person, and I'm not quite sure how these rise to the level of "historic" or even close to it. (That word doesn't just mean "They were taken in the past".) Quite replaceable, and even if not replaced, we get the point across that the man's been in trouble with the law in text just fine, the pictures are not needed to convey that. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 17:07, 5 July 2008 (UTC) reply
• Delete This guy is still alive (ergo, replaceable) and the newspaper still retains the copyright on this image. How is this image "iconic" in any meaningful way? — BQZip01 —  ^talk 23:22, 5 July 2008 (UTC) reply

• The question requiring consensus is whether the image depicts a person or an event? People take democracy for granted even while constitutional and civil rights are being waived in the name of a war on terror, and before the economy becomes an economic straitjacket. The conditions of the probation placed on the individual of the article is a sign to all of us to remain vigilant. The images are not about him. They are about us, we the people. DoDaCanaDa ( talk) 23:21, 6 July 2008 (UTC) reply

  Respectfully, the issue regarding deletion is that this image is copyrighted. It must meet specific criteria for inclusion in Wikipedia. It does not belong to "we the people"; it belongs to an individual. A reasonable fair use rationale does not possible on this one. If you are arguing that all images belong to "we the people" and copyrights don't apply, then I suggest you take this up on the WP:NFCC talk page and get consensus changed there. — BQZip01 —  ^talk 00:31, 7 July 2008 (UTC) reply

• Respectfully, it seems to me you have missed the point altogether. There is no question the copyright images belong to The Ottawa Citizen and they are credited for them in the tag. It's conceded the images are not historic just because they are 31 years old. Any commercial interest in them to The Citizen is long gone and buried. They have not seen the light of day until this dispute. A reader might wonder why Canwest, with a virtual monopoly of all major daily newspapers in Canada and referenced in the article until they were edited out, would deny permission for their use after 31 years? Besides, they never asked for my permission to make money on my image. What's in for them? What's not in it for them? I can't answer that. That is pure speculation. The only way around this for Wikipedia is the justifiable use of the not free/fair use tag. What I do understand, is many would be loathe to see an article on a prophet still living with images accepted as historical. Then there would be a plethora of citations and references that could be used as the article builds. Some would want to nip it in the bud. DoDaCanaDa ( talk) 16:48, 7 July 2008 (UTC) reply

• Just to be clear, you are saying ,this is a copyrighted image and it is not historic, right? If so, why are we discussing it? — BQZip01 —  ^talk 19:30, 7 July 2008 (UTC) reply

It reads it is not historic just because it is 31 years old

• Canwest may or may not have a monopoly, but if they own this paper, they still own the copyright. Their permission is required if it does not meet Wikipedia's not free content criteria.

The same words to different people may cause a different POV. That's what this discussion is about. From my POV, it meets all ten requirements. The 1st point is the contention. This is resolved by deciding if the image depicts an individual or an event.

• This isn't "your image" even if it is a picture of you. If it is, I recommend reading WP:COI.
• No one (well, at least not me) is interested in suppressing an emissary of a deity, only making sure copyright law is followed. — BQZip01 —  ^talk 19:30, 7 July 2008 (UTC) reply

For your own personal information I suggest you read the various messages of the emissary here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Ray_Joseph_Cormier DoDaCanaDa ( talk) 19:59, 7 July 2008 (UTC) reply

• Respectfully, I don't have that kind of time right now (that's really friggin' long!). Maybe some other time. My original point still stands. — BQZip01 —  ^talk 04:48, 9 July 2008 (UTC) reply

• Delete, doesn't seem to pass NFCC 8 when I think about it. Stifle ( talk) 19:45, 9 July 2008 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result of the discussion was: delete. Fails NFCC#8 as the image does not add significantly to the article as discussed below. I believe the image also fails NFCC#1 and NFCC#2 but those two items were not really discussed here. - Nv8200p talk 01:28, 9 July 2008 (UTC) reply

Image:Deeyah_is_threatened_by_fanatics.jpg

Image:Deeyah_is_threatened_by_fanatics.jpg ( delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Arunreginald ( notify | contribs).

• don't need to see a photo of a news clipping to understand that she was threatened Mangostar ( talk) 22:39, 1 July 2008 (UTC) reply

Keep Apparently the article's content relating to details about these incidents gives way to doubts and are often cited to be biased with a POV. Just to get rid of this nuisance once the article is done copyediting, I had to place this image. For the Deeyah article, it might be a little verbose but for the article on Pakistani pop music where this issue is addressed, it seems worthy of staying in place. Arun Reginald ( talk · contribs) 23:34, 1 July 2008 (UTC) reply

Strong Keep The image is primarily being used in the Pakistani pop music article and presents a certain aspect of the Pakistani culture and its attitude towards women. The image there serves the purpose of supporting the point of view that women in the Pakistani pop industry are expected to portray themselves in a certain manner. It is something that shapes the Pakistani pop industry and hence it should be included in the article. SholeemGriffin ( talk) 01:56, 2 July 2008 (UTC) reply

delete - It's is just a reference, it is certainly worthy of citation, but the reader does not need it in the article to understand the articles subject ( wp:nfcc#8) Fasach Nua ( talk) 08:54, 2 July 2008 (UTC) reply

delete - citing the newspaper as a source about the facts of the affair does not entail printing the image. I don't understand Sholeem's argument above: "supporting the point of view that women in the Pakistani pop industry are expected to portray themselves in a certain manner"? The image could serve as an example of how London tabloids present pop singers, perhaps. But no such point is made in the surrounding text. Fut.Perf. ☼ 13:42, 2 July 2008 (UTC) reply

Comment What I mean is that Pakistani women are expected to present themselves in a certain manner and if they don't then the consequence of that is what happened to Deeyah. It is something that shapes the Pakistani pop industry. There is a certain unsaid code to which one must abide by or they are excluded from the Pakistani pop industry. SholeemGriffin ( talk) 15:01, 2 July 2008 (UTC) reply

delete and replace by a {{ cite news}} tag. -- Damiens.rf 16:51, 2 July 2008 (UTC) reply

Delete per WP:NFCC#8. The only additional information besides the acttual content of that newspaper article (which can be cited and/or summarized in text as needed) is the layout and the photo of the singer itself, which seems justs a normal promo shoot not specifically relating to the situation (no threats visible on the photo), and as such is replacable by a free photo of her. Regards, HaeB ( talk) 17:42, 2 July 2008 (UTC) reply

• Delete, we reference news sources, we don't photograph them. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 17:09, 5 July 2008 (UTC) reply
• Delete Fails NFCC. — BQZip01 —  ^talk 23:23, 5 July 2008 (UTC) reply

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