The result of the discussion was: Delete - but only after I save a copy. There are certain kinds of things that are so stupid that they're actually quite funny ( [1]). King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 00:47, 24 May 2011 (UTC) reply
OR, UE. WP:NOTHOST Ronhjones (Talk) 00:40, 16 May 2011 (UTC) reply
The result of the discussion was: Delete; deleted by Skier Dude ( talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 05:19, 24 May 2011 (UTC) reply
OR, UE Ronhjones (Talk) 00:46, 16 May 2011 (UTC) delete Unused pointless image-- Breawycker ( talk to me!) 11:57, 21 May 2011 (UTC) reply
The result of the discussion was: Delete; deleted by Future Perfect at Sunrise ( talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) A file with this name on Commons is now visible. AnomieBOT ⚡ 08:23, 24 May 2011 (UTC) reply
Image under same name exists on Commons in full color, and higher res, compared to this lo-res B/W version. Sfan00 IMG ( talk) 08:51, 16 May 2011 (UTC) reply
The result of the discussion was: Delete; deleted as F7 by Future Perfect at Sunrise ( talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 08:23, 24 May 2011 (UTC) reply
Image with no rationale nor reason apart from illustration. Fails WP:NFCC#8 - adds little to reader's understanding of the topic. Peripitus (Talk) 14:09, 16 May 2011 (UTC) reply
The result of the discussion was: Delete; deleted by Future Perfect at Sunrise ( talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 08:23, 24 May 2011 (UTC) reply
Image with no rationale nor reason apart from illustration. Fails WP:NFCC#8 - adds little to reader's understanding of the topic. Peripitus (Talk) 14:10, 16 May 2011 (UTC) reply
The result of the discussion was: Keep for The New Paper as a sample cover. Remove use from Tin Pei Ling. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 00:52, 24 May 2011 (UTC) reply
Fails WP:NFC#UUI. Picture of someone still alive. The likely defence here is WP:NFCI, that this is of historical importance, which I dispute. Further, the fair use rationale is horribly POV ("illustrate the sensationalistic press") and I dispute the claim that "this would not be possible with mere text", because quite clearly the text that is used in the headline can be quoted and attributed. Strange Passerby ( talk • cont) 15:41, 16 May 2011 (UTC) reply
Also, see the image used in The Daily Mail. This is similar. Elle vécut heureuse à jamais ( be free) 04:44, 17 May 2011 (UTC) reply
The result of the discussion was: Delete; deleted by Future Perfect at Sunrise ( talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 09:23, 24 May 2011 (UTC) reply
Per above.
Fails WP:NFC#UUI. Picture of someone still alive. The likely defence here is WP:NFCI, that this is of historical importance, which I dispute. Further, quite clearly the text that is used in the headline can be quoted and attributed, and there is no need for the actual image — which isn't low-resolution as claimed at all. 754x964 is pretty damn good for a newspaper image. Strange Passerby ( talk • cont) 15:53, 16 May 2011 (UTC) reply
For the two images let me emphasise that the purpose of the two images is not merely to discuss the issues contained in the covers, but to talk about the covers themselves and to talk about press coverage during the election. Singapore does not have a free press. The images add to commentary on the government's bias or style in coverage that mere text cannot. I do intend to use these images later on to discuss press coverage during the election (using new sources for political analysis). This would strengthen the claims to fair use.
Elle vécut heureuse à jamais (
be free) 14:21, 17 May 2011 (UTC)
reply
The result of the discussion was: Delete; deleted by Skier Dude ( talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 05:19, 24 May 2011 (UTC) reply
Orphaned Acather96 ( talk) 19:33, 16 May 2011 (UTC) reply
The result of the discussion was: Delete; deleted by Skier Dude ( talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 05:19, 24 May 2011 (UTC) reply
Orphaned, unencyclopedic, unidentifiable subject. Acather96 ( talk) 19:51, 16 May 2011 (UTC) reply
The result of the discussion was: Delete; deleted by Skier Dude ( talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 05:19, 24 May 2011 (UTC) reply
Orphaned, unidentifiable location Acather96 ( talk) 20:09, 16 May 2011 (UTC) reply
The result of the discussion was: Delete as failing NFCC#8 (image does not significantly add to reader's understanding) - Peripitus (Talk) 11:47, 26 May 2011 (UTC) reply
Non-free screenshot in a TV episode infobox. Shows a detail of a scene whose visual information value is extremely low. No Indication how the visual presence of this image is necessary to understand the article Fut.Perf. ☼ 20:24, 16 May 2011 (UTC) reply
Unless you know of another image that would better represent the episode, please let me know. Otherwise, I think the image should stay. NetflixSoup (talk) 13:37, 16 May 2011 (UTC) reply
The result of the discussion was: Delete; deleted by Peripitus ( talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 13:09, 26 May 2011 (UTC) reply
Non-free screenshot in a TV episode infobox. While the scene shown (two female protagonists engaged in a physical fight on top of some garbage bags) is the object of some discussion in the article, it does not appear the visual presence of the image is needed to understand the article. In fact, the verbal description I just gave above offers an exhaustive and more than adequate equivalent of the information value of this image. Fut.Perf. ☼ 20:27, 16 May 2011 (UTC) reply
The result of the discussion was: Moved to Commons: File:Jasminum sambac 2 years old.jpg. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 05:32, 24 May 2011 (UTC) reply
Orphaned, unencyclopedic due to unidentifiable subject Acather96 ( talk) 20:38, 16 May 2011 (UTC) reply
The result of the discussion was: Delete; deleted by Peripitus ( talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 13:09, 26 May 2011 (UTC) reply
Non-free image of an historical written document, used to demonstrate a certain of word choice in the text shown. Fails NFCC#8: we don't use non-free images to prove historical facts. We use reliable sources for that purpose. If it is a significant historical fact that somebody used a certain word in a certain text, cite a reliable source that says he did so. We don't need to see an image to understand this. Fut.Perf. ☼ 20:39, 16 May 2011 (UTC) reply
The result of the discussion was: Delete; deleted as F4 by Future Perfect at Sunrise ( talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) A file with this name on Commons is now visible. AnomieBOT ⚡ 08:05, 17 May 2011 (UTC) reply
Completely bonked upload history with multiple unrelated images uploaded on top of each other without copyright information. Only the very first, from 2007, ever had a plausible author/copyright statement, but that image was an unencyclopedic photograph of a non-notable kid used only in a short-lived A7/attack page. All later images were uploaded over it without making any change to the copyright declaration and are most likely copyvios. Oh yes, and the second upload, the one that was in use for much of the time until today, was uploaded by an editor who was later blocked as a serial copyvio offender, so it's probably bad too. Fut.Perf. ☼ 20:48, 16 May 2011 (UTC) reply
The result of the discussion was: Delete; deleted as F7 by Future Perfect at Sunrise ( talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 08:15, 21 May 2011 (UTC) reply
Non-free TV episode screenshot. Apparently random scene, not embedded in analytical commentary, not needed to understand the article. Fails NFCC#8, just like so many others. Fut.Perf. ☼ 21:22, 16 May 2011 (UTC) reply
The result of the discussion was: Delete; deleted by Skier Dude ( talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 05:19, 24 May 2011 (UTC) reply
OR, UE. Someone's wedding photos
WP:NOTHOST, also
File:ThesaBgirls.jpg and
File:Darylllbryant.jpg
Ronhjones
(Talk) 21:49, 16 May 2011 (UTC)
reply
The result of the discussion was: Kept. Relevant and informative to the article. -- Hadal ( talk) 23:16, 31 May 2011 (UTC) reply
This image is no longer warranted. This image is redundant to the other three images- portals are illustrated by the diagram and the portrait, the graphics are shown by the portrait and the cube is shown by the merch image. The image is no longer used where it was; it is now simply tacked on to the plot section. J Milburn ( talk) 22:13, 16 May 2011 (UTC) reply
The result of the discussion was: Kept - Peripitus (Talk) 11:50, 26 May 2011 (UTC) reply
per WP:FILMNFI since it lacks significance to justify fair use. This is only a portrait of the main characters of the well-known television series, and adds nothing to readers' understanding of the article. Sbtdu ( talk) 22:59, 16 May 2011 (UTC) reply
The result of the discussion was: Delete - but only after I save a copy. There are certain kinds of things that are so stupid that they're actually quite funny ( [1]). King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 00:47, 24 May 2011 (UTC) reply
OR, UE. WP:NOTHOST Ronhjones (Talk) 00:40, 16 May 2011 (UTC) reply
The result of the discussion was: Delete; deleted by Skier Dude ( talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 05:19, 24 May 2011 (UTC) reply
OR, UE Ronhjones (Talk) 00:46, 16 May 2011 (UTC) delete Unused pointless image-- Breawycker ( talk to me!) 11:57, 21 May 2011 (UTC) reply
The result of the discussion was: Delete; deleted by Future Perfect at Sunrise ( talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) A file with this name on Commons is now visible. AnomieBOT ⚡ 08:23, 24 May 2011 (UTC) reply
Image under same name exists on Commons in full color, and higher res, compared to this lo-res B/W version. Sfan00 IMG ( talk) 08:51, 16 May 2011 (UTC) reply
The result of the discussion was: Delete; deleted as F7 by Future Perfect at Sunrise ( talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 08:23, 24 May 2011 (UTC) reply
Image with no rationale nor reason apart from illustration. Fails WP:NFCC#8 - adds little to reader's understanding of the topic. Peripitus (Talk) 14:09, 16 May 2011 (UTC) reply
The result of the discussion was: Delete; deleted by Future Perfect at Sunrise ( talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 08:23, 24 May 2011 (UTC) reply
Image with no rationale nor reason apart from illustration. Fails WP:NFCC#8 - adds little to reader's understanding of the topic. Peripitus (Talk) 14:10, 16 May 2011 (UTC) reply
The result of the discussion was: Keep for The New Paper as a sample cover. Remove use from Tin Pei Ling. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 00:52, 24 May 2011 (UTC) reply
Fails WP:NFC#UUI. Picture of someone still alive. The likely defence here is WP:NFCI, that this is of historical importance, which I dispute. Further, the fair use rationale is horribly POV ("illustrate the sensationalistic press") and I dispute the claim that "this would not be possible with mere text", because quite clearly the text that is used in the headline can be quoted and attributed. Strange Passerby ( talk • cont) 15:41, 16 May 2011 (UTC) reply
Also, see the image used in The Daily Mail. This is similar. Elle vécut heureuse à jamais ( be free) 04:44, 17 May 2011 (UTC) reply
The result of the discussion was: Delete; deleted by Future Perfect at Sunrise ( talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 09:23, 24 May 2011 (UTC) reply
Per above.
Fails WP:NFC#UUI. Picture of someone still alive. The likely defence here is WP:NFCI, that this is of historical importance, which I dispute. Further, quite clearly the text that is used in the headline can be quoted and attributed, and there is no need for the actual image — which isn't low-resolution as claimed at all. 754x964 is pretty damn good for a newspaper image. Strange Passerby ( talk • cont) 15:53, 16 May 2011 (UTC) reply
For the two images let me emphasise that the purpose of the two images is not merely to discuss the issues contained in the covers, but to talk about the covers themselves and to talk about press coverage during the election. Singapore does not have a free press. The images add to commentary on the government's bias or style in coverage that mere text cannot. I do intend to use these images later on to discuss press coverage during the election (using new sources for political analysis). This would strengthen the claims to fair use.
Elle vécut heureuse à jamais (
be free) 14:21, 17 May 2011 (UTC)
reply
The result of the discussion was: Delete; deleted by Skier Dude ( talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 05:19, 24 May 2011 (UTC) reply
Orphaned Acather96 ( talk) 19:33, 16 May 2011 (UTC) reply
The result of the discussion was: Delete; deleted by Skier Dude ( talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 05:19, 24 May 2011 (UTC) reply
Orphaned, unencyclopedic, unidentifiable subject. Acather96 ( talk) 19:51, 16 May 2011 (UTC) reply
The result of the discussion was: Delete; deleted by Skier Dude ( talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 05:19, 24 May 2011 (UTC) reply
Orphaned, unidentifiable location Acather96 ( talk) 20:09, 16 May 2011 (UTC) reply
The result of the discussion was: Delete as failing NFCC#8 (image does not significantly add to reader's understanding) - Peripitus (Talk) 11:47, 26 May 2011 (UTC) reply
Non-free screenshot in a TV episode infobox. Shows a detail of a scene whose visual information value is extremely low. No Indication how the visual presence of this image is necessary to understand the article Fut.Perf. ☼ 20:24, 16 May 2011 (UTC) reply
Unless you know of another image that would better represent the episode, please let me know. Otherwise, I think the image should stay. NetflixSoup (talk) 13:37, 16 May 2011 (UTC) reply
The result of the discussion was: Delete; deleted by Peripitus ( talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 13:09, 26 May 2011 (UTC) reply
Non-free screenshot in a TV episode infobox. While the scene shown (two female protagonists engaged in a physical fight on top of some garbage bags) is the object of some discussion in the article, it does not appear the visual presence of the image is needed to understand the article. In fact, the verbal description I just gave above offers an exhaustive and more than adequate equivalent of the information value of this image. Fut.Perf. ☼ 20:27, 16 May 2011 (UTC) reply
The result of the discussion was: Moved to Commons: File:Jasminum sambac 2 years old.jpg. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 05:32, 24 May 2011 (UTC) reply
Orphaned, unencyclopedic due to unidentifiable subject Acather96 ( talk) 20:38, 16 May 2011 (UTC) reply
The result of the discussion was: Delete; deleted by Peripitus ( talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 13:09, 26 May 2011 (UTC) reply
Non-free image of an historical written document, used to demonstrate a certain of word choice in the text shown. Fails NFCC#8: we don't use non-free images to prove historical facts. We use reliable sources for that purpose. If it is a significant historical fact that somebody used a certain word in a certain text, cite a reliable source that says he did so. We don't need to see an image to understand this. Fut.Perf. ☼ 20:39, 16 May 2011 (UTC) reply
The result of the discussion was: Delete; deleted as F4 by Future Perfect at Sunrise ( talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) A file with this name on Commons is now visible. AnomieBOT ⚡ 08:05, 17 May 2011 (UTC) reply
Completely bonked upload history with multiple unrelated images uploaded on top of each other without copyright information. Only the very first, from 2007, ever had a plausible author/copyright statement, but that image was an unencyclopedic photograph of a non-notable kid used only in a short-lived A7/attack page. All later images were uploaded over it without making any change to the copyright declaration and are most likely copyvios. Oh yes, and the second upload, the one that was in use for much of the time until today, was uploaded by an editor who was later blocked as a serial copyvio offender, so it's probably bad too. Fut.Perf. ☼ 20:48, 16 May 2011 (UTC) reply
The result of the discussion was: Delete; deleted as F7 by Future Perfect at Sunrise ( talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 08:15, 21 May 2011 (UTC) reply
Non-free TV episode screenshot. Apparently random scene, not embedded in analytical commentary, not needed to understand the article. Fails NFCC#8, just like so many others. Fut.Perf. ☼ 21:22, 16 May 2011 (UTC) reply
The result of the discussion was: Delete; deleted by Skier Dude ( talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 05:19, 24 May 2011 (UTC) reply
OR, UE. Someone's wedding photos
WP:NOTHOST, also
File:ThesaBgirls.jpg and
File:Darylllbryant.jpg
Ronhjones
(Talk) 21:49, 16 May 2011 (UTC)
reply
The result of the discussion was: Kept. Relevant and informative to the article. -- Hadal ( talk) 23:16, 31 May 2011 (UTC) reply
This image is no longer warranted. This image is redundant to the other three images- portals are illustrated by the diagram and the portrait, the graphics are shown by the portrait and the cube is shown by the merch image. The image is no longer used where it was; it is now simply tacked on to the plot section. J Milburn ( talk) 22:13, 16 May 2011 (UTC) reply
The result of the discussion was: Kept - Peripitus (Talk) 11:50, 26 May 2011 (UTC) reply
per WP:FILMNFI since it lacks significance to justify fair use. This is only a portrait of the main characters of the well-known television series, and adds nothing to readers' understanding of the article. Sbtdu ( talk) 22:59, 16 May 2011 (UTC) reply