Image has no source, author info, and due to lighting is almost impossible to identify the subject.
VivioFateFan(
Talk,
Sandbox) 00:46, 19 January 2008 (UTC)reply
Delete Uploader has admitted that the now-salted
Eddie Vegas article was supposed to be autobiographical. If we don't delete it here, it'll be deleted as an orphan in a few days regardless.
Caknuck (
talk) 15:15, 19 January 2008 (UTC)reply
obsolete, not used
Zarni02 (
talk) 13:33, 19 January 2008 (UTC)reply
Barring a higher quality image already uploaded there, I would think this one should be moved to commons.
Cumulus Clouds (
talk) 10:31, 21 January 2008 (UTC)reply
Oh, I see. Well, this one's your call but you might want to consider uploading your images to Commons. Thanks for your contributions.
Cumulus Clouds (
talk) 10:34, 21 January 2008 (UTC)reply
copyright violation, it is four people in a car fails
WP:NFC #1, easily described with text and #8 does nothing to increase the reader's understanding of the article
Fasach Nua (
talk) 15:24, 19 January 2008 (UTC)reply
Delete - A random image that could have been from other serials. Not indicative, or important, to the serial/episode that is the subject of the article. -
J Greb (
talk) 21:47, 19 January 2008 (UTC)reply
"copyright violation, it is two people, one of whom is pointing a gun, fails
WP:NFC #1, easily described with text and #8 does nothing to increase the reader's understanding of the article"
Fasach Nua (
talk) 15:36, 19 January 2008 (UTC)reply
Delete - I cannot see why this image was chosen. It is not really significant.
StuartDDcontributions 15:45, 19 January 2008 (UTC)reply
Delete - A random image that could have been from other serials. Not indicative, or important, to the serial/episode that is the subject of the article. -
J Greb (
talk) 21:47, 19 January 2008 (UTC)reply
"copyright violation, it is three people having a chat, fails
WP:NFC #1, easily described with text and #8 does nothing to increase the reader's understanding of the article"
Fasach NuaFasach Nua (
talk) 15:39, 19 January 2008 (UTC)reply
Delete - A random image that could have been from other serials. Not indicative, or important, to the serial/episode that is the subject of the article. -
J Greb (
talk) 21:48, 19 January 2008 (UTC)reply
Orphaned, Unencyclopedic, Absent uploader
Nv8200ptalk 16:46, 19 January 2008 (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.
copyright violation, fails
WP:NFC #8 doesnt increase understanding, #5 a non notable character, although some novelty relating to the actresses later roll
Fasach Nua (
talk) 18:40, 19 January 2008 (UTC)reply
Comment - this shows the character - how does that not incresing the understanding.
StuartDDcontributions 19:34, 19 January 2008 (UTC)reply
The appearence of the character is not signicant, as it is not a major contribution to the story line, or the actions of the charecter. If you were told the character was an office worker played by Freema Agyeman would the addition of an image really constitute significantly more understanding of the roll the character?
Fasach Nua (
talk) 23:06, 19 January 2008 (UTC)reply
With respect, at this point, even though there is debate over image use in paragraph style list articles, it is acceptable to include images that are used to identify and support items in the list that have a reasonably long write up. It is used in that manner, just as the other images in that list article. -
J Greb (
talk) 15:04, 20 January 2008 (UTC)reply
The test is "Would its omission be detrimental to the readers understanding of the character?" (NFC#8), what is it that is significant about her appearence in this photo?
Fasach Nua (
talk) 13:30, 21 January 2008 (UTC)reply
OK. Reality check: The vast majority of the non-free images fail a strict, literal reading of NFC#8. Any image can, with a detailed enough description, be replaced. That is not, however, the desired state for an encyclopedia since image do two things: 1) reduce the verbiage and 2) provide an instant, concrete point of reference. This is where common sense has to come in to determine reasonable actions. This is so images can be used with in reason and the guideline can be used with in reason.
With characters, it is with in reason to use an image to support an article or section on that character, provided that the text is the reason for the image and not the other way round and the text is more than a bullet point. This image meets that, the text was not placed in the article solely to "justify" the image and it isn't a bullet point. It also serves as additional context, in around about way, for the
Freema Agyeman and
Martha Jones, articles where inclusion would be harder to justify as "with in reason". (The companion article would have it as, at best, "Image of related character" which would breed a FUR-vio gallery. The actor article would have it as an image of the actor, a BLP-vio, or a role played, which, I believe, the Biography project or the A&E work group has taken as a no-no in their MoS.) -
J Greb (
talk) 03:21, 22 January 2008 (UTC)reply
The test is "Would its omission be detrimental to the readers understanding of the character?" (NFC#8), and I have nothing to suggest that the answer to that question isn't "no"
Fasach Nua (
talk) 15:32, 27 January 2008 (UTC)reply
That brings up a question:
Why, since you are insisting on a literal, iron-clad reading of NFC#8, was this image alone from those used in
List of Doctor Who henchmen (the only article to use the image) chosen for nomination? All of the images are of a type and pre-date the nom. And all, even
Image:Novice Hame.jpg, can be reduced to a text description. All of them also provide the same context and base level of understanding that the dissenting voices her have said this image provides.
It may be that we've hit the point where an admin, other than Will or Edoktor, needs to step and and determine a close on this one. -
J Greb (
talk) 16:35, 27 January 2008 (UTC)reply
I have only finite resources, and am less familiar with the the other characters, and certainly this character is bearly notable, and would have been forgotten but for the re-casting of the actress later on. If you feel the other images are
inelligiable for use in WP, by all means remove them
Fasach Nua (
talk) 17:24, 27 January 2008 (UTC)reply
First "lack of resources" rings a little hollow, If anything, it just takes a bit more time.
Second, familiarity should not be an issue. As I said, all of the images in that article are of a type, and as such should all fail or pass section 8 for the same reason or reasons. If it is only your familiarity with the one character that is leading you to believe that the image fails section 8, step back and ask yourself if it is a failure a specific case (for one editor) or in a general failure. -
J Greb (
talk) 23:11, 29 January 2008 (UTC)reply
Time is a very valuable resource and I do not give i up easily
you seriously think familiarity should not be an issue when editing WP articles, how many articles that we are unfamiliar with have most of us edited? I was simply using my knowledge (or familiarity if you prefer) of the subject, to know that this image in no meaningful way increases the readers understanding of the character in question
Fasach Nua (
talk) 12:06, 30 January 2008 (UTC)reply
Keep - FUR may need to be tightened a little, but the use does not seem in violation of the NFC. -
J Greb (
talk) 21:54, 19 January 2008 (UTC)reply
Keep - Considering the rarity of a
companion actor playing a role in Doctor Who prior to appearing as a companion in the series, I think the image is lent notability by depicting
Freema Agyeman in her role as
Adeola Oshodi. After all, it was this appearance that led to her being cast as
Martha Jones.
Wolf of Fenric (
talk) 13:51, 20 January 2008 (UTC)reply
Keep - agree completely with J Greb - image serves a good purpose.
StuartDDcontributions 12:18, 23 January 2008 (UTC)reply
Image kept Low res image of fictional character in context is generally considered significant in an artcle about the character -
Nv8200ptalk 01:48, 6 February 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.
Copyright violation as above fails
WP:NFC #8, doesnt increase understanding, and #5 not notable enough to be included in encylopedia
Fasach Nua (
talk) 18:40, 19 January 2008 (UTC)reply
Delete - shows the hand more than the nanogenes - not really relevant.
StuartDDcontributions 19:34, 19 January 2008 (UTC)reply
Keep - FUR may need to be tightened a little, but the use does not seem in violation of the NFC as it is showing the item and a relation of size. Image istlf should be reduced to about 250px across. -
J Greb (
talk) 21:56, 19 January 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.
Copyright violation fails
WP:NFC #1 easily described with text, and three people standing about fails #8
Fasach Nua (
talk) 18:40, 19 January 2008 (UTC)reply
Delete - same arguments as nominator - not really useful.
StuartDDcontributions 19:36, 19 January 2008 (UTC)reply
Delete - A random image that could have been from other serials. Not indicative, or important, to the serial/episode that is the subject of the article. -
J Greb (
talk) 21:57, 19 January 2008 (UTC)reply
Copyright violation fails
WP:NFC #1 easily described with text, and #8 conributes nothing to the understanding of the story
Fasach Nua (
talk) 18:43, 19 January 2008 (UTC)reply
Delete - A random image that could have been from other serials. Not indicative, or important, to the serial/episode that is the subject of the article. -
J Greb (
talk) 21:57, 19 January 2008 (UTC)reply
Orphaned, Unencyclopedic, Absent uploader
Nv8200ptalk 17:16, 19 January 2008 (UTC)reply
Uploader owns ALL copyright for all images and content of MILLENNIUM SHAKEPSEARE —Preceding
unsigned comment added by
Millenniumshakespeare (
talk •
contribs) 11:35, 26 October 2008 (UTC)reply
Orphaned, Probable Copyright violation as I doubt the uploader is the copyright holder.
Nv8200ptalk 17:18, 19 January 2008 (UTC)reply
Delete, I don't think we're going to have an article on this model anytime soon, see
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tessa West. Regarding the copyright issue, the uploader has stated on his talk page that Ms. West is a friend and that the reason he wrote the article was that he wanted to give it to her as a present, and that he did take this photo himself. I'm inclined to believe him, though my vote remains delete since this is likely to remain orphaned for the foreseeable future. —
Elipongo (
Talkcontribs) 02:12, 23 January 2008 (UTC)reply
copyright violation - Two people on some concrete beside a police box, fails
WP:NFC #1, easily described with text, #8 doesnt contribute to understanding
Fasach Nua (
talk) 17:32, 19 January 2008 (UTC)reply
Delete - agree doesn't help the reader understand the episode article.
Addhoc (
talk) 19:58, 19 January 2008 (UTC)reply
Delete - A random image that could have been from other serials. Not indicative, or important, to the serial/episode that is the subject of the article. -
J Greb (
talk) 21:58, 19 January 2008 (UTC)reply
Can somebody please delete this? I uploaded it a few days ago because I was trying to upload another image. Thanks. ―
LADY GALAXY 18:40, 19 January 2008 (UTC)reply
Of course. For quicker response you could use {{db-spam}}.
Addhoc (
talk) 19:45, 19 January 2008 (UTC)reply
Uploader OWNS all copyright and is the Publisher of Millennium Shakespeare Wine Dark press/Gilded Press copyright 2001-2008 —Preceding
unsigned comment added by
Millenniumshakespeare (
talk •
contribs) 11:38, 26 October 2008 (UTC)reply
copyright violation fails
WP:NFC #1, can be described with the text, "a big gold coloured sphere"
Fasach Nua (
talk) 19:01, 19 January 2008 (UTC)reply
Delete - not sure about whether it's a copyright violation, however it doesn't significantly add to the reader's understanding of the article.
Addhoc (
talk) 19:26, 19 January 2008 (UTC)reply
Delete - while I don't agree with your reason for nominating this (as by that argument
Image:Death star1.png can be replaced), I have to agree that this is not really relevant.
StuartDDcontributions 19:42, 19 January 2008 (UTC)reply
copyright violation fails
WP:NFC #1 picture of UK building, available under fredom of panorama #8 contributes nothing to the understanding in any of its usage, and possibly fails #5
Fasach Nua (
talk)
Delete - a free image of the country house is probably feasible, the rationale only covers the "Torchwood" article, and the image doesn't meaningfully help the reader to understand this article.
Addhoc (
talk) 19:42, 19 January 2008 (UTC)reply
There appear to be some images of the castle
here and they may well be both suitable and out of copyright. In any case it wouldn't be too difficult for a suitably motivated Wikipedian to take a trip up there (I must say it looks well worth it for a day out!) and take a few photographs. --
Tony Sidaway 20:13, 19 January 2008 (UTC)reply
Delete - plausability of a free replacement; I didn't replace it when adding the picture of One Canada Square and the Millenium Centre to the article because I wasn't aware where the location shot was. Will(
talk) 21:42, 19 January 2008 (UTC)reply
Weak keep though with work -
Only the use in
Torchwood Institute seems reasonable, and the FUR should clearly state what it is supporting in the section it's in.
A free image of the location used in shooting the show would be preferable is the section is about the production of the episode. It isn't, it's about the fictional organization, its bases, and its operations. As such, an image of the original base would need to be drawn from the broadcast image. That is unless the observatory and telescope are part of the real structure.
The image should be replaced with the Torchwood logo in
Story arcs in Doctor Who since that is more indicative of the organization.
Image has no source, author info, and due to lighting is almost impossible to identify the subject.
VivioFateFan(
Talk,
Sandbox) 00:46, 19 January 2008 (UTC)reply
Delete Uploader has admitted that the now-salted
Eddie Vegas article was supposed to be autobiographical. If we don't delete it here, it'll be deleted as an orphan in a few days regardless.
Caknuck (
talk) 15:15, 19 January 2008 (UTC)reply
obsolete, not used
Zarni02 (
talk) 13:33, 19 January 2008 (UTC)reply
Barring a higher quality image already uploaded there, I would think this one should be moved to commons.
Cumulus Clouds (
talk) 10:31, 21 January 2008 (UTC)reply
Oh, I see. Well, this one's your call but you might want to consider uploading your images to Commons. Thanks for your contributions.
Cumulus Clouds (
talk) 10:34, 21 January 2008 (UTC)reply
copyright violation, it is four people in a car fails
WP:NFC #1, easily described with text and #8 does nothing to increase the reader's understanding of the article
Fasach Nua (
talk) 15:24, 19 January 2008 (UTC)reply
Delete - A random image that could have been from other serials. Not indicative, or important, to the serial/episode that is the subject of the article. -
J Greb (
talk) 21:47, 19 January 2008 (UTC)reply
"copyright violation, it is two people, one of whom is pointing a gun, fails
WP:NFC #1, easily described with text and #8 does nothing to increase the reader's understanding of the article"
Fasach Nua (
talk) 15:36, 19 January 2008 (UTC)reply
Delete - I cannot see why this image was chosen. It is not really significant.
StuartDDcontributions 15:45, 19 January 2008 (UTC)reply
Delete - A random image that could have been from other serials. Not indicative, or important, to the serial/episode that is the subject of the article. -
J Greb (
talk) 21:47, 19 January 2008 (UTC)reply
"copyright violation, it is three people having a chat, fails
WP:NFC #1, easily described with text and #8 does nothing to increase the reader's understanding of the article"
Fasach NuaFasach Nua (
talk) 15:39, 19 January 2008 (UTC)reply
Delete - A random image that could have been from other serials. Not indicative, or important, to the serial/episode that is the subject of the article. -
J Greb (
talk) 21:48, 19 January 2008 (UTC)reply
Orphaned, Unencyclopedic, Absent uploader
Nv8200ptalk 16:46, 19 January 2008 (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.
copyright violation, fails
WP:NFC #8 doesnt increase understanding, #5 a non notable character, although some novelty relating to the actresses later roll
Fasach Nua (
talk) 18:40, 19 January 2008 (UTC)reply
Comment - this shows the character - how does that not incresing the understanding.
StuartDDcontributions 19:34, 19 January 2008 (UTC)reply
The appearence of the character is not signicant, as it is not a major contribution to the story line, or the actions of the charecter. If you were told the character was an office worker played by Freema Agyeman would the addition of an image really constitute significantly more understanding of the roll the character?
Fasach Nua (
talk) 23:06, 19 January 2008 (UTC)reply
With respect, at this point, even though there is debate over image use in paragraph style list articles, it is acceptable to include images that are used to identify and support items in the list that have a reasonably long write up. It is used in that manner, just as the other images in that list article. -
J Greb (
talk) 15:04, 20 January 2008 (UTC)reply
The test is "Would its omission be detrimental to the readers understanding of the character?" (NFC#8), what is it that is significant about her appearence in this photo?
Fasach Nua (
talk) 13:30, 21 January 2008 (UTC)reply
OK. Reality check: The vast majority of the non-free images fail a strict, literal reading of NFC#8. Any image can, with a detailed enough description, be replaced. That is not, however, the desired state for an encyclopedia since image do two things: 1) reduce the verbiage and 2) provide an instant, concrete point of reference. This is where common sense has to come in to determine reasonable actions. This is so images can be used with in reason and the guideline can be used with in reason.
With characters, it is with in reason to use an image to support an article or section on that character, provided that the text is the reason for the image and not the other way round and the text is more than a bullet point. This image meets that, the text was not placed in the article solely to "justify" the image and it isn't a bullet point. It also serves as additional context, in around about way, for the
Freema Agyeman and
Martha Jones, articles where inclusion would be harder to justify as "with in reason". (The companion article would have it as, at best, "Image of related character" which would breed a FUR-vio gallery. The actor article would have it as an image of the actor, a BLP-vio, or a role played, which, I believe, the Biography project or the A&E work group has taken as a no-no in their MoS.) -
J Greb (
talk) 03:21, 22 January 2008 (UTC)reply
The test is "Would its omission be detrimental to the readers understanding of the character?" (NFC#8), and I have nothing to suggest that the answer to that question isn't "no"
Fasach Nua (
talk) 15:32, 27 January 2008 (UTC)reply
That brings up a question:
Why, since you are insisting on a literal, iron-clad reading of NFC#8, was this image alone from those used in
List of Doctor Who henchmen (the only article to use the image) chosen for nomination? All of the images are of a type and pre-date the nom. And all, even
Image:Novice Hame.jpg, can be reduced to a text description. All of them also provide the same context and base level of understanding that the dissenting voices her have said this image provides.
It may be that we've hit the point where an admin, other than Will or Edoktor, needs to step and and determine a close on this one. -
J Greb (
talk) 16:35, 27 January 2008 (UTC)reply
I have only finite resources, and am less familiar with the the other characters, and certainly this character is bearly notable, and would have been forgotten but for the re-casting of the actress later on. If you feel the other images are
inelligiable for use in WP, by all means remove them
Fasach Nua (
talk) 17:24, 27 January 2008 (UTC)reply
First "lack of resources" rings a little hollow, If anything, it just takes a bit more time.
Second, familiarity should not be an issue. As I said, all of the images in that article are of a type, and as such should all fail or pass section 8 for the same reason or reasons. If it is only your familiarity with the one character that is leading you to believe that the image fails section 8, step back and ask yourself if it is a failure a specific case (for one editor) or in a general failure. -
J Greb (
talk) 23:11, 29 January 2008 (UTC)reply
Time is a very valuable resource and I do not give i up easily
you seriously think familiarity should not be an issue when editing WP articles, how many articles that we are unfamiliar with have most of us edited? I was simply using my knowledge (or familiarity if you prefer) of the subject, to know that this image in no meaningful way increases the readers understanding of the character in question
Fasach Nua (
talk) 12:06, 30 January 2008 (UTC)reply
Keep - FUR may need to be tightened a little, but the use does not seem in violation of the NFC. -
J Greb (
talk) 21:54, 19 January 2008 (UTC)reply
Keep - Considering the rarity of a
companion actor playing a role in Doctor Who prior to appearing as a companion in the series, I think the image is lent notability by depicting
Freema Agyeman in her role as
Adeola Oshodi. After all, it was this appearance that led to her being cast as
Martha Jones.
Wolf of Fenric (
talk) 13:51, 20 January 2008 (UTC)reply
Keep - agree completely with J Greb - image serves a good purpose.
StuartDDcontributions 12:18, 23 January 2008 (UTC)reply
Image kept Low res image of fictional character in context is generally considered significant in an artcle about the character -
Nv8200ptalk 01:48, 6 February 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.
Copyright violation as above fails
WP:NFC #8, doesnt increase understanding, and #5 not notable enough to be included in encylopedia
Fasach Nua (
talk) 18:40, 19 January 2008 (UTC)reply
Delete - shows the hand more than the nanogenes - not really relevant.
StuartDDcontributions 19:34, 19 January 2008 (UTC)reply
Keep - FUR may need to be tightened a little, but the use does not seem in violation of the NFC as it is showing the item and a relation of size. Image istlf should be reduced to about 250px across. -
J Greb (
talk) 21:56, 19 January 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.
Copyright violation fails
WP:NFC #1 easily described with text, and three people standing about fails #8
Fasach Nua (
talk) 18:40, 19 January 2008 (UTC)reply
Delete - same arguments as nominator - not really useful.
StuartDDcontributions 19:36, 19 January 2008 (UTC)reply
Delete - A random image that could have been from other serials. Not indicative, or important, to the serial/episode that is the subject of the article. -
J Greb (
talk) 21:57, 19 January 2008 (UTC)reply
Copyright violation fails
WP:NFC #1 easily described with text, and #8 conributes nothing to the understanding of the story
Fasach Nua (
talk) 18:43, 19 January 2008 (UTC)reply
Delete - A random image that could have been from other serials. Not indicative, or important, to the serial/episode that is the subject of the article. -
J Greb (
talk) 21:57, 19 January 2008 (UTC)reply
Orphaned, Unencyclopedic, Absent uploader
Nv8200ptalk 17:16, 19 January 2008 (UTC)reply
Uploader owns ALL copyright for all images and content of MILLENNIUM SHAKEPSEARE —Preceding
unsigned comment added by
Millenniumshakespeare (
talk •
contribs) 11:35, 26 October 2008 (UTC)reply
Orphaned, Probable Copyright violation as I doubt the uploader is the copyright holder.
Nv8200ptalk 17:18, 19 January 2008 (UTC)reply
Delete, I don't think we're going to have an article on this model anytime soon, see
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tessa West. Regarding the copyright issue, the uploader has stated on his talk page that Ms. West is a friend and that the reason he wrote the article was that he wanted to give it to her as a present, and that he did take this photo himself. I'm inclined to believe him, though my vote remains delete since this is likely to remain orphaned for the foreseeable future. —
Elipongo (
Talkcontribs) 02:12, 23 January 2008 (UTC)reply
copyright violation - Two people on some concrete beside a police box, fails
WP:NFC #1, easily described with text, #8 doesnt contribute to understanding
Fasach Nua (
talk) 17:32, 19 January 2008 (UTC)reply
Delete - agree doesn't help the reader understand the episode article.
Addhoc (
talk) 19:58, 19 January 2008 (UTC)reply
Delete - A random image that could have been from other serials. Not indicative, or important, to the serial/episode that is the subject of the article. -
J Greb (
talk) 21:58, 19 January 2008 (UTC)reply
Can somebody please delete this? I uploaded it a few days ago because I was trying to upload another image. Thanks. ―
LADY GALAXY 18:40, 19 January 2008 (UTC)reply
Of course. For quicker response you could use {{db-spam}}.
Addhoc (
talk) 19:45, 19 January 2008 (UTC)reply
Uploader OWNS all copyright and is the Publisher of Millennium Shakespeare Wine Dark press/Gilded Press copyright 2001-2008 —Preceding
unsigned comment added by
Millenniumshakespeare (
talk •
contribs) 11:38, 26 October 2008 (UTC)reply
copyright violation fails
WP:NFC #1, can be described with the text, "a big gold coloured sphere"
Fasach Nua (
talk) 19:01, 19 January 2008 (UTC)reply
Delete - not sure about whether it's a copyright violation, however it doesn't significantly add to the reader's understanding of the article.
Addhoc (
talk) 19:26, 19 January 2008 (UTC)reply
Delete - while I don't agree with your reason for nominating this (as by that argument
Image:Death star1.png can be replaced), I have to agree that this is not really relevant.
StuartDDcontributions 19:42, 19 January 2008 (UTC)reply
copyright violation fails
WP:NFC #1 picture of UK building, available under fredom of panorama #8 contributes nothing to the understanding in any of its usage, and possibly fails #5
Fasach Nua (
talk)
Delete - a free image of the country house is probably feasible, the rationale only covers the "Torchwood" article, and the image doesn't meaningfully help the reader to understand this article.
Addhoc (
talk) 19:42, 19 January 2008 (UTC)reply
There appear to be some images of the castle
here and they may well be both suitable and out of copyright. In any case it wouldn't be too difficult for a suitably motivated Wikipedian to take a trip up there (I must say it looks well worth it for a day out!) and take a few photographs. --
Tony Sidaway 20:13, 19 January 2008 (UTC)reply
Delete - plausability of a free replacement; I didn't replace it when adding the picture of One Canada Square and the Millenium Centre to the article because I wasn't aware where the location shot was. Will(
talk) 21:42, 19 January 2008 (UTC)reply
Weak keep though with work -
Only the use in
Torchwood Institute seems reasonable, and the FUR should clearly state what it is supporting in the section it's in.
A free image of the location used in shooting the show would be preferable is the section is about the production of the episode. It isn't, it's about the fictional organization, its bases, and its operations. As such, an image of the original base would need to be drawn from the broadcast image. That is unless the observatory and telescope are part of the real structure.
The image should be replaced with the Torchwood logo in
Story arcs in Doctor Who since that is more indicative of the organization.