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: - Delete as failing NFCC#8. This is an image copyright to Mark Zug yet there is no discussion of the image in the article, of the inspiration for the image or any thing that makes the image more than simply illustrative. An example of ok use of this type is the works of E.H. Shepherd in Winnie-the-Pooh where the illustrations themselves are discussed. - Peripitus (Talk) 01:29, 16 November 2008 (UTC) reply

Image:Septimusheap.JPG ( delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Legolas2186 ( notify | contribs).

• The image is a copyrighted image currently used under a fair-use rationale, but I believe it fails WP:NFCC number 8, which states that "Non-free content is used only if its presence would significantly increase readers' understanding of the topic, and its omission would be detrimental to that understanding." The image of the character is not the main subject of the article (which focuses on the book series, not the character) and the image is not at all essential to the understanding of the subject (the book series in question). In addition, the license used (for book covers) is inappropriate for the image. Mr. Absurd ( talk) 01:22, 7 November 2008 (UTC) reply
  • That's really absurd Mr. Absurd. the presence of the picture significantly increases the readers understanding of the subject. As you must have noticed the picture is present in the character section of the article, not the main section. it is only for enhancing readers understanding about the image of the main protagonist. Also since there is not a character page and all the characters are included in the main page only, hence only solution is to add the image in the main article in the characters section. Also the license for Book covers, Wikipedia doesnot have a license tag for Book pics, so once wikipedia has such a license tag, i will update the license. Untill that, the picture cannot be deleted as it is important in understanding. No copyright violations are intended, this is purely for encyclopedic purposes. -- "Legolas" ( talk) 05:41, 8 November 2008 (UTC) reply
    • No, the image does not pertain to the main focus of the article at all, and it does not significantly contribute to the readers' understanding. It's a literary character, and his "appearance" is only the opinion of one specific artist as depicted on a website. It's not an essential part of the character. Mr. Absurd ( talk) 17:34, 8 November 2008 (UTC) reply
      • According to the article, the image is an original illustration from one of the novels, and is therefore presumably canonical. (Of course, it would be nice to have this confirmed, e.g. by replacing the image with a direct scan from the books.) In particular, as an official illustration, it presumably reflects the author's conception of the character, not to mention the mental image that readers of the novels are likely to acquire from the illustrations. As such, I would say it does contribute to the reader's understanding of the character (who is both central to the books, as well as the direct subject of the paragraph the image illustrates). Whether this contribution is sufficient to justify the use of an unfree image in this case may of course (as always) be open to debate, but it seems clear to me that the case for it may at least be made. — Ilmari Karonen ( talk) 23:33, 8 November 2008 (UTC) reply
        • Yes, it may be "canonical," but the character is not the main subject of the article and so the image is not a valid fair-use. It's that simple. If this were an article specifically about the character, it might be argued, but that's not the case. (Also, to be clear, this image is from the website, but not from the books—I've read them and I'd never seen this image until it appeared on Wikipedia. So it's not all that relevant.) Mr. Absurd ( talk) 01:40, 9 November 2008 (UTC) reply
          • I totally agree with Ilmari Karonen, that it does indeed increase the reader's inderstanding of the article as it clearly increases the visual depictions as wanted buy the author. As for Mr. Absurd, please stop lying that you have read the books, as this picture is vividly present in all of the books except for Magyk the first book. This is Mark Zug's illustration of the main character and as you say, the character section is a part of the article, hence an illustration can be added only on that part which is done. The main focus of the article is also on the characters. Hence is argument about the depiction and importance from your part is completely baseless. -- "Legolas" ( talk) 02:55, 10 November 2008 (UTC) reply
            • Uh, no personal attacks, please. I'm not lying; I have read the books. And no, the main focus of the article is most certainly not on the characters, it's on the series. Mr. Absurd ( talk) 05:22, 10 November 2008 (UTC) reply
              • Nowhere I said that the article is only about the characters, but Character is a section in the article which briefly describes the characters present in the series. Hence inclusion of a picture in a section and that too of the main protagonist does increase the notability of the article as a whole. As for lying, yes if you would have really read the books you wouldn't have declared that the picture is not present in the books. Or if you have read them and missed it, i strongly suggest you to re-read them again especially the second book Flyte as it shows this picture from the second book. The presence of this picture doesnot take away one's notice from the articel but instead adds importance and value to it. Sorry to say, but again, i find your argument baseless.-- "Legolas" ( talk) 11:19, 10 November 2008 (UTC) reply
• Delete: Reading WP:NFCC #8, "Non-free content is used only if its presence would significantly increase readers' understanding of the topic, and its omission would be detrimental to that understanding." Septimus Heap might very well be the main character of this series of books, but how is his visual appearance something of import? Why do we need a fair use image of him, on the free encyclopedia, to assist the editor in understanding the novels? Even if this image is used liberally throughout the series, one isn't going to see the image without actually holding the book in your hands and opening it. I.e., no aid to the user. Furthermore, simply depicting the character is not a sufficient reason to use the image here. Is there something of particular interest about his appearance? Apparently not, since his visual appearance isn't discussed in the article. The image is being used strictly for depiction purposes only. Viewing Wikipedia:NFC#Images, we see that at #7, "Paintings and other works of visual art: For critical commentary, including images illustrative of a particular technique or school." There's no critical commentary of any kind occurring here with regards to this character's appearance as any sort of central theme, underlying import, or _anything_ to do with his appearance. It is strictly being used to depict him, and that's it. That's not sufficient. Fail. -- Hammersoft ( talk) 16:17, 10 November 2008 (UTC) reply

• Delete. It is extremely uncommon to include illustrations of characters from books in book articles. They do not add to the understanding of a written story and fail NFCC#8. For example, if you review the articles of similar illustrated books (say, the works of Roald Dahl), these only contain pictures of the book covers. Unusual? Quite ^TalkQu 21:58, 10 November 2008 (UTC) reply

• Keep. It is not uncommon to illustrate character pictures in articles. Mr. Hammersoft, you say that the reader is not going to see the picture untill he/she holds the book.. that's absurd. That is why an illustration is given in the character section, for those who havem't read the books to let them understand it. Since a character page is not there the image has been included in the article in the character section. A comprehensive character page is in progress and once it is developed, the character section can be removed from the main article alongwith the picture but not before that. In the character page the protagonist's description will be there and hence the illustration's value. Unntill then the illustration itself is considerably low in resolution and understandable enough for readers to get a visual understanding of the series and what it involves. As such for Mr. QuiteUnusual's argument (which i find completely idiotic and childish), we are not discussing Roald Dahl's books here, so don't compare with any other writer or series. why have we included book covers only?? That can also be deleted since "one isn't going to see the image without actually holding the book in your hands". right? As for Wikipedia's rules, please don't even get me started. People are so over wikipedia...... "Legolas" ( talk) 03:56, 11 November 2008 (UTC) reply

• Again, please don't make personal attacks. I've already pointed this out to you once, but you've just attacked another user. This isn't appropriate; instead of attacking other users with whom you disagree, try to focus on the subject at hand. Mr. Absurd ( talk) 07:14, 11 November 2008 (UTC) reply

• If I were you I would concentrate on Wikipedia's rules as it is those that will make the difference to whether or not the image is deleted. Unusual? Quite ^TalkQu 09:08, 11 November 2008 (UTC) reply
• Trying to counter policy based arguments by calling them "absurd", "childish" and "idiotic" is an ineffective means of generating consensus to keep this image. I strongly suggest you reconsider your comments and base your rationale for keeping the image on policies and guidelines, rather than insults. -- Hammersoft ( talk) 16:40, 11 November 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.