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 discussion was: Speedy keep. It is pretty clear consensus is developing against deletion, and the nomination borders on disruption, given the article is featured on the main page. The image has also passed considerable scrutiny before. If you want to discuss this image agin, I recommend doing so after the article has rolled of the main page. —
Edokter (
talk) — 09:58, 23 November 2013 (UTC)reply
Speedy Keep - the image clearly meets the fair use guidelines. Seeing as it is on the featured article of the day, I recommend Speedy Keep so as not to have the article containing maintenance tags today.
Oddbodz - (
Talk) (
Contribs)
00:44, 23 November 2013 (UTC)reply
Speedy keep Clearly passes
WP:NFCC#8 when presented along with the caption, as was discussed in the featured article nomination linked by Sceptre above. Close and de-uglify the featured article of the day.
Odg2vcLR (
talk)
01:13, 23 November 2013 (UTC)reply
Keep I'm not a big fan of television images, especially in infoboxes - they give too much weight to the screenshot and seem to propose "yup this is official primary identification." But that's a different story - this image is discussed critically so it can stay. Taylor Trescott - my talk + my edits03:03, 23 November 2013 (UTC)reply
Speedy keep I see no evidence that anything has changed since the last time this image was discussed and approved during the FA nom (per Sceptre, above). Raising the issue once the article reaches main page FA does seem a little
pointy, to be honest.
Anaxial (
talk)
08:16, 23 November 2013 (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 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 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 discussion was: delete. Having carefully reviewed the discussion here, the arguments for deletion are considerably more persuasive. In particular the arguments for keeping the image did not adequately explain how the image satisfies
NFCC#8, that is how the image significantly increases readers' understanding of the article topic.
PhilKnight (
talk)
15:08, 18 February 2014 (UTC)reply
Keep The image is referred to within the article, and all commentary can be confirmed by the official BBC video on YouTube. As with the other images in use on each Doctor Who episode article, it is important that this is kept.
Cloudbound (
talk)
21:42, 23 November 2013 (UTC)reply
By that rationale then every single screenshot used in a Doctor Who article should be debated - in any case, this particular screenshot displays the pivotal moment of the episode, the seconds prior to the Doctor's regeneration, which is not only pivotal to the episode itself, but a significant event in the recent history of Doctor Who.
Hammersfan (
talk)
16:49, 25 November 2013 (UTC)reply
Delete Truly adds absolutely nothing. This looks to me like a regular man holding a cup. Not discussed critically as such is ornamental. A "pivotal moment" is not critical commentary....
Beerest 2talk00:31, 26 November 2013 (UTC)reply
Delete - I added
File:Paul McGann.JPG, the free photo of the portrayer of the Eighth Doctor. I believe that the whole scene itself is replaceable and insignificant. Sources must cover age difference of the actor in 1996 and in 2013, but I guess that's not possible.
George Ho (
talk)
02:42, 26 November 2013 (UTC)reply
So essentially what you're saying is that if there is a way to display the difference between Paul McGann in 1996 and Paul McGann in 2013, then that's fine?
Hammersfan (
talk)
10:34, 26 November 2013 (UTC)reply
Just make sure not to use original analysis or research. Just facts from sources. And about his portrayal as Eighth Doctor, but an administrator like Masem must approve fair use of non-free pic. --
George Ho (
talk)
08:13, 27 November 2013 (UTC)reply
Delete - Yes, he regenerates. No, the image is not necessary to understand that this is a regeneration scene (given that the details of the process of regeneration are discussed elsewhere). Yes, McGann looks much different from the TV movie to this short, but a free image of the actor today can be used to show how McGann looks at the time of filming. Fails NFCC#8 + #1. --
MASEM (
t)
20:56, 26 November 2013 (UTC)reply
KeepFor the reasons that Cloudbound had said and this is from the show. Every picture tells a story, and this picture deferentially tells a great story, so it is not pointless. It should stay.
Nhajivandi (
talk)
06:38, 27 November 2013 (UTC)reply
NFCC#1 says the description of the image must be adequately sourced enough for fair use. Also, it says that the description must not make the image replaceable. The image is easy to describe, so it may fail.
George Ho (
talk)
01:22, 28 November 2013 (UTC)reply
The "Mona Lisa" is easy to describe: "Woman sitting with arms folded." But obviously my description isn't remotely a substitute for the image itself. A text description can never connect to the reader's memory the way an image can.
Algr (
talk)
06:56, 3 December 2013 (UTC)reply
Keep It is fair use as there is no other way to illustrate the subject of the article. It increases the reader's understanding because a casual viewer, or a viewer years from now, might not otherwise be certain that the article refers to an episode they vaguely remember seeing.
Algr (
talk)
05:20, 2 December 2013 (UTC)reply
Decorative and Illustrative are VERY different things - almost opposites. Please clarify your terms. Why is [File:Stolen Earth.jpg] receiving a speedy keep above? Isn't that the same thing?
Algr (
talk)
21:00, 6 December 2013 (UTC)reply
Delete Most of the arguments in favor come down to
WP:ILIKEIT or the mistaken belief that every episode of a TV show needs to have an image illustrating it. There is no exception in the NFCC for "a special scene in the eyes of a TV show's fans".
FunPika11:32, 3 December 2013 (UTC)reply
Perhaps you should read those arguments more carefully.
WP:AGFAlgr (
talk)
There is a faction who are utterly paranoid that someday someone might sue Wikipedia over image use, and another who want no images at all. Both are intersecting right now. Interesting to note clear evidence that some voting against the image have not bothered to actually read the article. As IP opinions are ignored in this venue there's no point in me giving a "vote" on this. In my opinion the only image that should be disallowed in this article is the one of the postage stamp.
70.76.69.162 (
talk)
15:05, 28 December 2013 (UTC)reply
Delete. This image does not significantly add to the article. Yes, it shows that McGann looks quite different than in the 1996 movie (many years older, shorter hair), but I do not think that criteria alone is enough to keep it; the scenes in the ship would illustrate that better. Other users' comments that this is a pivotal scene are not significant as the sequence is sufficiently described in the article and the image does not add sufficiently to the reader's understanding of that scene.
Nutster (
talk)
07:16, 15 December 2013 (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.