I feel that for an article about a film, the DVD cover is one of the most important images that could be included. A critical commentary about the DVD or its cover is irrelevant. I see many DVD covers in film articles that are not "discussed", they are merely used to help the article. I feel that deleting this image would be wrong as DVD covers are almost as important to a film's article as a theatrical poster.
Donaldd2301:28, 16 July 2007 (UTC)reply
This is an exceedingly poor image of the DVD cover. IMO it does not contribute anything useful. A better (larger, square-on) image could arguably be used in the infobox instead of the poster, to represent the primary visual image associated with the film. But this image is not it. Delete.
Jheald23:02, 19 July 2007 (UTC)reply
Yes, he's living. This is a 2002 photo of Robert Van Deventer, who was a major network radio personality during the 1940s as a teenager, and there's a full paragraph about him in the article. The entire Van Deventer family made up the panel of the radio show Twenty Questions. This photo is, I believe, by the Poughkeepsie DJ Bill Eberle. After an extensive search, this is the only photo I could find of any Twenty Questions panelist. it appeared without copyright notice or credit on Eberle's site. Eberle has taken quite a few other recent photos of 1930s/1940s radio personalities. I would like to contact him about using his photos. If so, what procedure or what copyright tag would be appropriate?
Pepso206:28, 16 July 2007 (UTC)reply
Eberle has taken quite a few other recent photos of 1930s/1940s radio personalities. I would like to contact him about using his photos. If so, what procedure or what copyright tag would be appropriate?
Pepso213:20, 17 July 2007 (UTC)reply
Screenshot showing a woman's face. It doesn't seem to add any noteworthy information that can't conveyed with free text or images. Abu badali(
talk)12:27, 16 July 2007 (UTC)reply
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.
It was added to the Wikipe-tan gallery a couple of days ago as a Wikipe-tan variant; I think it's strange to call that "used in Wikipe-tan."
TomTheHand16:00, 16 July 2007 (UTC)reply
Not sure that I follow. Are you saying that any Wikipe variant one could cook up and link on the Wikipe-tan page deserves to be kept? If not, what makes this a keeper?
TomTheHand17:06, 16 July 2007 (UTC)reply
Agreed. This is a redundancy on the Wikipe-tan page, and there are enough pictures there as it is. I also strongly recommend removing some other images in that manner, like those overall bad images that look like they are made (and badly) with paint, like
Image:Wikipetan tries to hold off the WikiOgres.png. Those are completely useless and annoying. I feel they reduce the value of Wikipe-tan, and Wikipedia in general.
Nefzen19:53, 18 July 2007 (UTC)reply
Keep as "vaguely offensive" is not a criteria for deletion, and it's better quality than several other derivative Wikipe-tan images. It's not uploaded under fair use, so lack of being used isn't a valid criteria for deletion. Appears to be properly licensed (though it may need a GFDL tag in addition to the CC tag). I can see no valid reasons for deletion. ···
日本穣? ·
Talk to Nihonjoe00:48, 17 July 2007 (UTC)reply
Delete If she is portrayed as a group of people, one would hope it would generally be positive or neutral. Afro-tan, for example, doesn't seem to be negative. So the negative portrayal is what does it for me. You could make a Wikipe-tan nun and I probably wouldn't have a second thought about it. (anime and nuns... happens all the time)
With the lolicon image deletion, maintaining a good image for Wikipe-tan does seem to be in the interest of the community. It's generally safe to say that we don't want Wikipe-tan to be a sexually active 12 year old girl, or a nazi, or a pissed off religious zealot who's getting ready to backhand some child for saying "penis". Wikipe-tan can be sad, even angry, but she shouldn't really cause readers to be angry (within reason, since some people will find very silly reasons to get angry).
And it's not really that we're protecting her image, or saying "zomg, you can't do that!". It's just.. this image, for whatever reason, we don't want it on Wikipedia. It's not like I completely dislike the image (the image has been saved in my own copy of Wikipe-tan images), it's just.. doesn't seem like a good idea for it to be here. --
Ned Scott02:13, 18 July 2007 (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 article's talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
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.
Non-free news agency (New York Times) photo used to illustrate events being depicted in photo, failing
WP:NFCC #2 and #8 and possibly #1. Now it's argued on the image description page that the photo itself was controversial. If article(s) can be rewritten to talk about the controversy and those statements are backed up with citations to reliable sources, then I will happily withdraw this nomination. howcheng {
chat}17:17, 16 July 2007 (UTC)reply
And neither is it being proposed as the story, yet it tells a very telling part of it through its medium. If the picture violates copyright laws, I can see justification for removal, but other than that I believe it has every right to belong where it is.
Extra strong keep I want to ask you people just one thing. What is wikipedia? A NEUTRAL encyclopidia. Now how can we talk about the Iraq war only one-sidedly, only from the perspectiv of one side. If you look all of the articles and sub-articles about the Iraq war you will see only images of American soldiers. Only American soldiers. Except for this one image there is no other image of the other sides fighters. This image is needed for the balanced representation of the war. If we only show images of American soldiers this only becomes an American war. What about the insurgents? This is their war also. The problem here is, by some of you, the thing that the images made of insurgents are exclusivly made by AP or other news agencys reporters. And so what do you intend to do? To wait 20 or 30 years until the copyright on those images expaiers and than put in the images. We NEED at least this ONE image to represent those fighting the Americans and the coalition or Wikipedia is not neutral at all. At least this one image. The image has been used in only two articles. Jheald said the image is not the story. No it's not the story, it represents the story. It's used in the main Iraq war article in the section about the militias fighting the Americans, and in the article about the Iraq spring fighting of 2004 in the part where it is talked about the fighting in Najaf, well the image was taken in Najaf during that fighting. What do you think if we had only images of Allied soldiers in the World war two article and not of the German soldiers? What opinion would readers have of the war? We need this image so not just the Iraq war article but also Wikipedia can stay balanced and neutral. Just this one image.
Top Gun
Guess what, that's one way how the New York Times makes money, by selling licenses to use this photo in stories that discuss Iraqi insurgents and whatnot. Why is Wikipedia exempt from having to pay them for it? As I said at the beginning, if an article (or a section thereof) can be rewritten to discuss the controversy surrounding this image such that we no longer have a choice about whether the image should be shown or not, then we have a much stronger case. Only laziness is stopping us from keeping the image. howcheng {
chat}20:05, 22 July 2007 (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.
Keep This non-free media contributes significantly to the article. It significantly increases readers' understanding of the topic in a way that words alone cannot, by visually showing the Senate Watergate committee that brought down President Nixon. It conveys the somber and serious atmosphere at the time, and visually shows the central role played by
Fred Thompson. This photo is historic and very relevant to the article in which it is used. It is also the only photo in that article showing Thompson as a young man. Subsequent to when this photo was uploaded, its size and resolution were reduced to ensure fair use.
Ferrylodge18:02, 16 July 2007 (UTC)reply
The photo is not necessary at all to convey the supposed "somber and serious atmosphere at the time". And in any case, we need a better argument than "it's very convenient for us" in order to use an image from AP. --Abu badali(
talk)15:44, 18 July 2007 (UTC)reply
Delete: It is not evident to me that a free equivalent does not exist; I would expect official U.S. government photos of this committee. I do not see how this photo visually shows the central role played by Fred Thompson, or how this photo conveys more information than the sentence "Fred Thompson played an important role in the somber and serious Senate Watergate committee." Finally, it is not clear to me why we need to show Thompson as a young man, or if we do, why a free photo of a young Thompson does not exist. —
Bkell (
talk)
04:06, 17 July 2007 (UTC)reply
Keep While I agree that a free image would be best, a newspaper (AP photo) was the only one I found that would fit that section of the article. If it's a question of relevance or notability, I'm a bit confused since that whole section talked about his involvement in the Watergate hearings. I also feel the image helps the reader identify more with that section in terms already stated by
Ferrylodge.
Stills6414:06, 17 July 2007 (UTC)reply
Comment If there is still objection to the photo after what I and Stills64 have said, then please consider the following proposal. The photo has already been reduced in size and resolution, but it has not yet been cropped. I think it could be cropped as shown
here. What do you think?
Ferrylodge00:08, 18 July 2007 (UTC)reply
Delete, sadly. We absolutely cannot use an AP photograph except under exceptional circumstances. The AP makes its living licensing these images to news organizations to use, and our use could be seen as directly competing with these paying customers, violating NFCC #2. I know, it's an important and non-replaceable image. But that's not enough. –
Quadell(
talk) (
random)13:10, 18 July 2007 (UTC)reply
Images was uploaded under fair use rational and is not being used in accordance with the fair use policy to use it for identification and critical commentary on the station ID or program and its contents —
Grey Wanderer |
Talk18:58, 16 July 2007 (UTC)reply
This was a unique marketing feature, as discussed in the article, and a picture of it would be appropriate for fair use. But I'm afraid this pic is horrible. For that reason, delete.
Jheald23:31, 19 July 2007 (UTC)reply
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.
Per trademark law, it is important to present the logo in a size and resolution sufficient to maintain the quality intended by the company, so as to avoid tarnishing or misrepresenting the organization's brand image. Whilst I would agree the original image was probably too big, this smaller image makes the "cuts" in the solid lines look like dirt or noise. A 300 x 300 image (WP's rule of thumb for "low resolution") would be more appropriate. Such an image for
UEFA Euro 2012 would be in compliance with the guidance on the use of logos for identification at
WP:FAIR#Images.
Jheald23:55, 19 July 2007 (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 article's talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
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.
map appears to be based on original research, no sources listed for map making to show supposed ethnic areas, 'french' covers no area on map including quebec (which is french majority speaking...)
DieInquisitor21:34, 16 July 2007 (UTC)reply
Data appears to be sourced from Statistics Canada's official site
here.
WP:OR has a specific exemption (
here) to allow the creation of charts from reliably sourced data.
Jheald00:09, 20 July 2007 (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 article's talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
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 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 article's talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
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.
Resized and kept with the understanding that once the game is released, it will be replaced by an image of the box cover. howcheng {
chat}17:14, 23 July 2007 (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 article's talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
keep- replaceable fair use only applies pictures of living persons and buildings. Images of toys are never considered free even if you took the photo
Int9217:15, 19 July 2007 (UTC)reply
Comment: rfu does not only apply to pictures and buildings. It applies to toys as well. The character is copyrighted, and fair-use claim will have to made on the use of the toy character in a free image, but the image would still be free. We can't use a non-free image of a non-free toy when we could use a free image of that non-free toy. –
Quadell(
talk) (
random)01:30, 20 July 2007 (UTC)reply
comment:theres no such thing as a free image of a non free toy, the character is copyrighted and any images showing copyrighted material is not (and is never) considered a free image and as the rational states there are no free images of the toy nor any images can be created since hasbro no longer makes the toy anymor. and the licence can be easly changed to cover art.
Int9211:53, 20 July 2007 (UTC)reply
Delete - licensing info. claims that it is a promotional image, but source is a fan site -- neither image here nor fan site identifies advertisement or press packet whence it came. Additionally, the "critical commentary" that this and most other -boxart images accompany is plut summary and OR. --
EEMeltonIV07:31, 20 July 2007 (UTC)reply
I feel that for an article about a film, the DVD cover is one of the most important images that could be included. A critical commentary about the DVD or its cover is irrelevant. I see many DVD covers in film articles that are not "discussed", they are merely used to help the article. I feel that deleting this image would be wrong as DVD covers are almost as important to a film's article as a theatrical poster.
Donaldd2301:28, 16 July 2007 (UTC)reply
This is an exceedingly poor image of the DVD cover. IMO it does not contribute anything useful. A better (larger, square-on) image could arguably be used in the infobox instead of the poster, to represent the primary visual image associated with the film. But this image is not it. Delete.
Jheald23:02, 19 July 2007 (UTC)reply
Yes, he's living. This is a 2002 photo of Robert Van Deventer, who was a major network radio personality during the 1940s as a teenager, and there's a full paragraph about him in the article. The entire Van Deventer family made up the panel of the radio show Twenty Questions. This photo is, I believe, by the Poughkeepsie DJ Bill Eberle. After an extensive search, this is the only photo I could find of any Twenty Questions panelist. it appeared without copyright notice or credit on Eberle's site. Eberle has taken quite a few other recent photos of 1930s/1940s radio personalities. I would like to contact him about using his photos. If so, what procedure or what copyright tag would be appropriate?
Pepso206:28, 16 July 2007 (UTC)reply
Eberle has taken quite a few other recent photos of 1930s/1940s radio personalities. I would like to contact him about using his photos. If so, what procedure or what copyright tag would be appropriate?
Pepso213:20, 17 July 2007 (UTC)reply
Screenshot showing a woman's face. It doesn't seem to add any noteworthy information that can't conveyed with free text or images. Abu badali(
talk)12:27, 16 July 2007 (UTC)reply
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.
It was added to the Wikipe-tan gallery a couple of days ago as a Wikipe-tan variant; I think it's strange to call that "used in Wikipe-tan."
TomTheHand16:00, 16 July 2007 (UTC)reply
Not sure that I follow. Are you saying that any Wikipe variant one could cook up and link on the Wikipe-tan page deserves to be kept? If not, what makes this a keeper?
TomTheHand17:06, 16 July 2007 (UTC)reply
Agreed. This is a redundancy on the Wikipe-tan page, and there are enough pictures there as it is. I also strongly recommend removing some other images in that manner, like those overall bad images that look like they are made (and badly) with paint, like
Image:Wikipetan tries to hold off the WikiOgres.png. Those are completely useless and annoying. I feel they reduce the value of Wikipe-tan, and Wikipedia in general.
Nefzen19:53, 18 July 2007 (UTC)reply
Keep as "vaguely offensive" is not a criteria for deletion, and it's better quality than several other derivative Wikipe-tan images. It's not uploaded under fair use, so lack of being used isn't a valid criteria for deletion. Appears to be properly licensed (though it may need a GFDL tag in addition to the CC tag). I can see no valid reasons for deletion. ···
日本穣? ·
Talk to Nihonjoe00:48, 17 July 2007 (UTC)reply
Delete If she is portrayed as a group of people, one would hope it would generally be positive or neutral. Afro-tan, for example, doesn't seem to be negative. So the negative portrayal is what does it for me. You could make a Wikipe-tan nun and I probably wouldn't have a second thought about it. (anime and nuns... happens all the time)
With the lolicon image deletion, maintaining a good image for Wikipe-tan does seem to be in the interest of the community. It's generally safe to say that we don't want Wikipe-tan to be a sexually active 12 year old girl, or a nazi, or a pissed off religious zealot who's getting ready to backhand some child for saying "penis". Wikipe-tan can be sad, even angry, but she shouldn't really cause readers to be angry (within reason, since some people will find very silly reasons to get angry).
And it's not really that we're protecting her image, or saying "zomg, you can't do that!". It's just.. this image, for whatever reason, we don't want it on Wikipedia. It's not like I completely dislike the image (the image has been saved in my own copy of Wikipe-tan images), it's just.. doesn't seem like a good idea for it to be here. --
Ned Scott02:13, 18 July 2007 (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 article's talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
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.
Non-free news agency (New York Times) photo used to illustrate events being depicted in photo, failing
WP:NFCC #2 and #8 and possibly #1. Now it's argued on the image description page that the photo itself was controversial. If article(s) can be rewritten to talk about the controversy and those statements are backed up with citations to reliable sources, then I will happily withdraw this nomination. howcheng {
chat}17:17, 16 July 2007 (UTC)reply
And neither is it being proposed as the story, yet it tells a very telling part of it through its medium. If the picture violates copyright laws, I can see justification for removal, but other than that I believe it has every right to belong where it is.
Extra strong keep I want to ask you people just one thing. What is wikipedia? A NEUTRAL encyclopidia. Now how can we talk about the Iraq war only one-sidedly, only from the perspectiv of one side. If you look all of the articles and sub-articles about the Iraq war you will see only images of American soldiers. Only American soldiers. Except for this one image there is no other image of the other sides fighters. This image is needed for the balanced representation of the war. If we only show images of American soldiers this only becomes an American war. What about the insurgents? This is their war also. The problem here is, by some of you, the thing that the images made of insurgents are exclusivly made by AP or other news agencys reporters. And so what do you intend to do? To wait 20 or 30 years until the copyright on those images expaiers and than put in the images. We NEED at least this ONE image to represent those fighting the Americans and the coalition or Wikipedia is not neutral at all. At least this one image. The image has been used in only two articles. Jheald said the image is not the story. No it's not the story, it represents the story. It's used in the main Iraq war article in the section about the militias fighting the Americans, and in the article about the Iraq spring fighting of 2004 in the part where it is talked about the fighting in Najaf, well the image was taken in Najaf during that fighting. What do you think if we had only images of Allied soldiers in the World war two article and not of the German soldiers? What opinion would readers have of the war? We need this image so not just the Iraq war article but also Wikipedia can stay balanced and neutral. Just this one image.
Top Gun
Guess what, that's one way how the New York Times makes money, by selling licenses to use this photo in stories that discuss Iraqi insurgents and whatnot. Why is Wikipedia exempt from having to pay them for it? As I said at the beginning, if an article (or a section thereof) can be rewritten to discuss the controversy surrounding this image such that we no longer have a choice about whether the image should be shown or not, then we have a much stronger case. Only laziness is stopping us from keeping the image. howcheng {
chat}20:05, 22 July 2007 (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.
Keep This non-free media contributes significantly to the article. It significantly increases readers' understanding of the topic in a way that words alone cannot, by visually showing the Senate Watergate committee that brought down President Nixon. It conveys the somber and serious atmosphere at the time, and visually shows the central role played by
Fred Thompson. This photo is historic and very relevant to the article in which it is used. It is also the only photo in that article showing Thompson as a young man. Subsequent to when this photo was uploaded, its size and resolution were reduced to ensure fair use.
Ferrylodge18:02, 16 July 2007 (UTC)reply
The photo is not necessary at all to convey the supposed "somber and serious atmosphere at the time". And in any case, we need a better argument than "it's very convenient for us" in order to use an image from AP. --Abu badali(
talk)15:44, 18 July 2007 (UTC)reply
Delete: It is not evident to me that a free equivalent does not exist; I would expect official U.S. government photos of this committee. I do not see how this photo visually shows the central role played by Fred Thompson, or how this photo conveys more information than the sentence "Fred Thompson played an important role in the somber and serious Senate Watergate committee." Finally, it is not clear to me why we need to show Thompson as a young man, or if we do, why a free photo of a young Thompson does not exist. —
Bkell (
talk)
04:06, 17 July 2007 (UTC)reply
Keep While I agree that a free image would be best, a newspaper (AP photo) was the only one I found that would fit that section of the article. If it's a question of relevance or notability, I'm a bit confused since that whole section talked about his involvement in the Watergate hearings. I also feel the image helps the reader identify more with that section in terms already stated by
Ferrylodge.
Stills6414:06, 17 July 2007 (UTC)reply
Comment If there is still objection to the photo after what I and Stills64 have said, then please consider the following proposal. The photo has already been reduced in size and resolution, but it has not yet been cropped. I think it could be cropped as shown
here. What do you think?
Ferrylodge00:08, 18 July 2007 (UTC)reply
Delete, sadly. We absolutely cannot use an AP photograph except under exceptional circumstances. The AP makes its living licensing these images to news organizations to use, and our use could be seen as directly competing with these paying customers, violating NFCC #2. I know, it's an important and non-replaceable image. But that's not enough. –
Quadell(
talk) (
random)13:10, 18 July 2007 (UTC)reply
Images was uploaded under fair use rational and is not being used in accordance with the fair use policy to use it for identification and critical commentary on the station ID or program and its contents —
Grey Wanderer |
Talk18:58, 16 July 2007 (UTC)reply
This was a unique marketing feature, as discussed in the article, and a picture of it would be appropriate for fair use. But I'm afraid this pic is horrible. For that reason, delete.
Jheald23:31, 19 July 2007 (UTC)reply
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.
Per trademark law, it is important to present the logo in a size and resolution sufficient to maintain the quality intended by the company, so as to avoid tarnishing or misrepresenting the organization's brand image. Whilst I would agree the original image was probably too big, this smaller image makes the "cuts" in the solid lines look like dirt or noise. A 300 x 300 image (WP's rule of thumb for "low resolution") would be more appropriate. Such an image for
UEFA Euro 2012 would be in compliance with the guidance on the use of logos for identification at
WP:FAIR#Images.
Jheald23:55, 19 July 2007 (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 article's talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
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.
map appears to be based on original research, no sources listed for map making to show supposed ethnic areas, 'french' covers no area on map including quebec (which is french majority speaking...)
DieInquisitor21:34, 16 July 2007 (UTC)reply
Data appears to be sourced from Statistics Canada's official site
here.
WP:OR has a specific exemption (
here) to allow the creation of charts from reliably sourced data.
Jheald00:09, 20 July 2007 (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 article's talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
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 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 article's talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
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.
Resized and kept with the understanding that once the game is released, it will be replaced by an image of the box cover. howcheng {
chat}17:14, 23 July 2007 (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 article's talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
keep- replaceable fair use only applies pictures of living persons and buildings. Images of toys are never considered free even if you took the photo
Int9217:15, 19 July 2007 (UTC)reply
Comment: rfu does not only apply to pictures and buildings. It applies to toys as well. The character is copyrighted, and fair-use claim will have to made on the use of the toy character in a free image, but the image would still be free. We can't use a non-free image of a non-free toy when we could use a free image of that non-free toy. –
Quadell(
talk) (
random)01:30, 20 July 2007 (UTC)reply
comment:theres no such thing as a free image of a non free toy, the character is copyrighted and any images showing copyrighted material is not (and is never) considered a free image and as the rational states there are no free images of the toy nor any images can be created since hasbro no longer makes the toy anymor. and the licence can be easly changed to cover art.
Int9211:53, 20 July 2007 (UTC)reply
Delete - licensing info. claims that it is a promotional image, but source is a fan site -- neither image here nor fan site identifies advertisement or press packet whence it came. Additionally, the "critical commentary" that this and most other -boxart images accompany is plut summary and OR. --
EEMeltonIV07:31, 20 July 2007 (UTC)reply