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 - Peripitus (Talk) 01:45, 16 November 2008 (UTC) reply

Image:One and One With Biden.jpg ( delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Justmeherenow ( notify | contribs).

• Copyright is owned by a TV station. The picture is not needed and adds nothing to the article in which it is used. The tone of the article does enough to provoke the station against WP, no need to add to it by using their picture without permission. Steve Dufour ( talk) 01:40, 8 November 2008 (UTC) reply
• Keep Per Wikipedia guidelines. As for User:Steve Dufour's special pleadings about the local station's copyright: since, of course, TV news stations themselves busily use copyrighted fair-use images day in and day out 365 days a year, the chance this station would challenge the fair use of their copyrighted image from this broadcast to accompany a discussion about said broadcast approaches so very close to absolute zero to be for all practical intents and purposes nil. And as to the question of whether the image would augment the understanding of the interview by eg someone ten years in the future who is not residing in the US and is researching the American election of 2008 and who has never seen the interview, the answer would certainly appear to me to be a slamdunk yes.

Identified as "Acceptable use" per WP:Fair use#Images are

1. "Film and television screen shots: For critical commentary and discussion of the cinema and television."
   Note → Image is a TV screenshot from "One On One With Biden" interview.
2. "Other promotional material: Posters, programs, billboards, ads. For critical commentary."
   Note → TV screenshot of broadcast interview is labeled with promotional title: "One On One With Biden."
3. "Images with iconic status or historical importance: As subjects of commentary."
   Note → The "One On One With Biden" broadcast interview is deemed to be of enough historical importance to merit its coverage on Wikipedia.

If this TV screenshot of an interview of enough historical importance to merit WP coverage wouldn't be allowable under a license of fair use, when would a TV screenshot ever be?  ${\displaystyle \sim }$ Justmeherenow (  ) 15:50, 8 November 2008 (UTC) reply

The article in which the picture is used is the bio of the reporter. Already undue weight is given to one interview she did with Joe Biden. There is no special need for a picture to illustrate this one section of the article. If a picture must be used then it would be better to use one of just her at the top of the page. Steve Dufour ( talk) 17:55, 8 November 2008 (UTC) reply

p.s. I don't expect the TV station to sue WP either. However when they find out that WP is being used to try to intimidate reporters critical of the Obama administration the use of their copyrighted picture might tend to inflame their anger. Steve Dufour ( talk) 18:07, 8 November 2008 (UTC) reply

• Delete: There's nothing specific about this image that the article discusses. The article reads just fine without the image, and the image does not convey anything the reader doesn't already understand from the article. All the image shows is head shots of these two people on TV. We already know they had a debate on TV. We don't need an image to convey that. Therefore, it fails WP:NFCC #8, as removing it does not detract from the reader's understanding of the topic. -- Hammersoft ( talk) 17:09, 10 November 2008 (UTC) reply

Again, no-one has explained yet how someone without previous knowledge about the subjects, say a non-American ten years from now who is studying the 2008 US presidential election on Wikipedia, would already know what the headshots of Barbara West and Joe Biden looked like from this broadcast interview being granted encyclopedic coverage, prior to hi/r seeing this screenshot image while reading the article!?  ${\displaystyle \sim }$ Justmeherenow (  ) 08:36, 12 November 2008 (UTC) reply

• There's a considerably higher quality headshot of Joe Biden available at Image:Joe Biden, official photo portrait 2-cropped.jpg. I'm confident that we will have a considerably higher quality headshot of Barbara West within ten years as well. There's nothing significant about both of these people's headshots being on screen together that can not be replaced by the free image we already have of Biden and a future free image of West. -- Hammersoft ( talk) 14:21, 12 November 2008 (UTC) reply

• Delete - Fails NFCC 1 and 8. The image is replaceable by text, and patently does not significantly increase readers' understanding of the topic. I can see nothing that the hypothetical non-American historian from 2018 would gain from this article with the screenshot that they would not gain without the screenshot. The relevance of the interview patently does not rest with its visual appearance but with its content, and it is not possible to deduce that content from the screenshot as shown. To deal with the comment just above, I see little reason why said historian would care what West and Biden looked like in the precise setting of the interview, unless that came up in an important part of the interview or was discussed as part of the reaction to the interview (and if so, it should be mentioned in the text). They may be interested in what West and Biden look like in general, but we don't use non-free images to show what living people look like except in exceptional cases. Pfainuk talk 12:07, 12 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.

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 - someone can always upload a correct length file in the future . Noted that the file is also of too high quality per WP:Music Samples as well - Peripitus (Talk) 01:39, 16 November 2008 (UTC) reply

Image:Cardigans - My Favourite Game excerpt.ogg ( delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Ian Dunster ( notify | contribs).

• The WP:Music Samples guideline recommends that except in exceptional cases, music samples should be no longer than 30 seconds (and less than 10% of the length of the track, in this case < 22 seconds). This sample provides no reason to exceed the guideline.  ★  Bigr Tex 20:43, 8 November 2008 (UTC) reply

• Comment - I think the reason it exceeds the current time limit is probably because the file was uploaded nearly two months before the guideline was made official that files have to be 10%/30 secs long. The file has existed even longer than that guideline (including it's propsed guideline time) by about a month and the guidelines at that time were detailed simply as this where time limit was as vague as The sample is short in relation to the duration of the recorded track and is of an inferior quality to the original recording. While, by todays Wiki-standards, yes the file violates the guideline I does have to be said that when it was uploaded it was well within the very vague guideline. AngelOfSadness talk 21:12, 8 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.