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 no disagreement here that it fails unreplacable criterion. 
Wily
D 
13:51, 16 June 2008 (UTC)
reply

Image:DFS3000.jpg

Image:DFS3000.jpg ( delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by BackStagePass ( notify | contribs).

• Copyrighted image of a product. The product is rare but not so rare that it should be impossible to photograph one, so it is replaceable. In addition, it serves a very weak purpose in the article. Mango juice ^talk 14:13, 26 May 2008 (UTC) reply
• I have used this manufacturer's products for 18 years and never seen a DFS 3000 in the flesh to take a photo of it. Please tell me where I can find one to take a photo of as in your words it is 'not so rare'. You also say it 'serves a very weak purpose in the article', that is your opinion and not grounds for deletion... BackStagePass ( talk) 16:13, 26 May 2008 (UTC) reply
• Delete - Find another, more accessible product to represent the company. Cumulus Clouds ( talk) 18:54, 26 May 2008 (UTC) reply
• Keep -- it would most likely be possible to take another photograph of the product, but locating one would require an unreasonable effort. It's doubtful that any en-wp editor has immediate access to one, and further doubtful that such an editor (if s/he exists) would see that there was a demand for such a photograph. It's fairly significant to the Quantel article given that it's their first product. — xDanielx ^T/ _C\ ^R 18:55, 26 May 2008 (UTC) reply

• Immediate/easy access is not the issue. WP editors do not have immediate/easy access to celebrities, but we require free images of them. For comparison, look at the images in the articles on IBM mainframes and other early computers: all of those images are free. Mango juice ^talk 17:36, 27 May 2008 (UTC) reply

• Well, I can bike down to my local computer history museum and photograph some ancient mainframes within an hour or so. Likewise, one could conduct a quick Google search for a particular antiquated IBM mainframe and email any one of many sources to request a free image license. I've searched somewhat extensively for another DFS3000 photo and thus far haven't come up with any images, let alone a free one. (Note that some unrelated products use the same title, so some filtering is needed.) The DFS3000 really can't compare with better-known products like, say, the IBM 7090. — xDanielx ^T/ _C\ ^R 22:35, 27 May 2008 (UTC) reply
• Thanks Daniel you have summed my situation perfectly. People seem to be forgetting that the item is very very rare and not mainstream and as such impossible to find a free photo. I accept the other two images deleted by Mangojuice can be replaced with free ones which I will do at some point. BackStagePass ( talk) 15:34, 30 May 2008 (UTC) reply

• Delete. This image is used to decorate a list in which it is present, in no fashion is is necessary for that purpose. As such, it is both replaceable, and non-complaint with the non-free content criteria. — pd_THOR ^{| =/\=} | 19:29, 26 May 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.  While I don't doubt that a well written article could demonstrate the need for all three images, as it exists, it certainly does not.  All three unfree images in 
Harry Potter and the Order of the Phoenix (video game) are being used for identification, which does fail NFCC 3a & 8; 
Wily
D 
14:55, 16 June 2008 (UTC)
reply

Image:Exploring_hogwarts.jpg & Image:Dumbledore_and_voldermort.jpg

This discussion was subject to a deletion review on 2008 June 19. For an explanation of the process, see Wikipedia:Deletion review.

Image:Exploring_hogwarts.jpg ( delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Gears_of_War ( notify | contribs).

Image:Dumbledore_and_voldermort.jpg ( delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Gears_of_War ( notify | contribs).

• Rationaled to "provide an article with a screenshot"; wholly unnecessary usage of copyrighted material, failing WP:NFCC#3a & #8. — pd_THOR ^{| =/\=} | 02:59, 26 May 2008 (UTC) reply
• KeepThe image was uploaded to meet the demand for a screenshot. If this image is deleted the deleter should help find a screenshot for the article, thank you- Gears Of War 12:49, 26 May 2008 (UTC) reply
  • Demand for a screenshot should be based on the need for a screenshot, not for decoration. For that matter, what "demand" are you referring to? — pd_THOR ^{| =/\=} | 23:27, 26 May 2008 (UTC) reply
• CommentI was refering to the fact that the article creator had asked for a screenshot for the article. Gears Of War 20:39, 27 May 2008 (UTC) reply
• Delete - Image fails #3a, burden is on the uploader to demonstrate that it does not, and they have not done so. Cumulus Clouds ( talk) 18:16, 26 May 2008 (UTC) reply
• Delete as per Gears of War's "keep" vote. "The image was uploaded to meet the demand for a screenshot" is the clearest admission one could get that this is not legitimate fair use and was never meant to be. Fut.Perf. ☼ 18:50, 26 May 2008 (UTC) reply
• Keep, a small selection of screenshots is perfectly appropriate for an article on a notable video game. Powers ^T 19:17, 26 May 2008 (UTC) reply
  • No, it isn't. It only is if it is used to illustrate a specific point of analysis made in the text. Fut.Perf. ☼ 19:23, 26 May 2008 (UTC) reply
    • You mean like "Hogwarts is completely explorable with the exceptions of some rooms leading off the Grand Staircase"? Powers ^T 22:59, 26 May 2008 (UTC) reply
      • Probably something more along the lines of "Harry, Ron and Hermione descend the Grand Staircase in a crucial plot point of the game, as demonstrated by this image." Since the image is not being used in this context it fails the NFCC. Cumulus Clouds ( talk) 23:02, 26 May 2008 (UTC) reply
      • The point being that copyrighted image use must be necessary for the understanding of the article. If the article is wholly comprehensible w/o the introduction of such media, or if the media doesn't increase readers' understanding of the article, it doesn't meet the non-free content criteria as defined by the English Wikipedia policy. An image for the purpose of having images handily doesn't meet muster. — pd_THOR ^{| =/\=} | 23:20, 26 May 2008 (UTC) reply
        • On the contrary, in a heavily visual medium such as video games or television, a small selection of still images is absolutely essential to the reader's understanding. Information about the game's graphics and visual environment can only be adequately illustrated by images, not by text. Powers ^T 13:01, 27 May 2008 (UTC) reply
          • Then where is that information about "graphics and visual environment"? Talk about it. Analyse it. In the text. Sourced. Is it too much to ask that if you claim you are using an image to illustrate something interesting, then your text should at least say what that interesting something is? Fut.Perf. ☼ 14:38, 27 May 2008 (UTC) reply
            • Clearly, the article in question remains somewhat inadequate. That just makes the images more important, as they serve to illustrate what the text does not. Once the article is filled out and sourced more than it is now, different screenshots may be selected to better illustrate the specific text. Until then, these do well. Powers ^T 15:37, 27 May 2008 (UTC) reply
              • No, it works the other way round. First write your article, then, if and when it turns out the article needs to talk about something that requires visual support, go and get an image for it. Fut.Perf. ☼ 15:40, 27 May 2008 (UTC) reply
                • First a comment to Cumulus Clouds, if the problem was what the the text under the pix, dont you think we would have changed it by now. Also, I dont understand it when knows what needs to be fixed and then just puts it up for deletion(I would fix it myself if I new what the bloody heck was wrong with it) the same goes for XFDs, for God's sake, if you know what wrong with the article, just fix it and not just put it up for deletion! Gears Of War 20:39, 27 May 2008 (UTC) reply
                  • Because that picture is fundamentally incompatible with the policy at WP:NFCC. Cumulus Clouds ( talk) 21:10, 27 May 2008 (UTC) reply
                    • Fundamentally incompatible? You mean there's no possible way it could ever comply with the policy? Powers ^T 01:26, 28 May 2008 (UTC) reply
                • But the subject of the article does need visual support. It makes no sense to delete an image that provides information text cannot just because the text that is there doesn't yet specifically reference the image. Powers ^T 01:26, 28 May 2008 (UTC) reply
                  • Information text cannot provide? In most cases that's just an excuse for poor writing skills and analytical laziness. Text can analyse things. If there's something the image is better at showing, at least the text can say what that something is, and link it with the context of the overall discussion. Fut.Perf. ☼ 02:08, 28 May 2008 (UTC) reply
                    • Of course a good article should do that. I still don't agree that that means this article cannot have images until it does. Powers ^T 12:57, 28 May 2008 (UTC) reply
• Keep. As noted above, graphics are a very significant aspect of most video games. No image is theoretically indispensable in an absolute sense -- any graphic can be described in natural language -- but the significance here is more than enough to satisfy WP:NFCC#8. (Try describing an intricate cell shading mechanism in terms that the typical reader could easily understand.) There is no requirement than a non-free image be explicitly referenced in the text; the connection is obvious enough. — xDanielx ^T/ _C\ ^R 03:29, 3 June 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

Speedy Deleted under criteria G7 (author request). 
UltraExactZZ  
Claims ~ 
Evidence  
13:35, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
reply

Image:PFA Team of the Year 08.png ( delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Dirk Valentine ( notify | contribs).

• The image contains various instances of copyright violation, from the use of the PFA logo in the background, to the use of club kits, sponsors and crests. – Pee Jay 17:49, 26 May 2008 (UTC) reply
• This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football related deletions. – Pee Jay 17:56, 26 May 2008 (UTC) reply
• Delete per nom; impressive as the image looks, it violates copyright. Giant Snowman 18:21, 26 May 2008 (UTC) reply

Sorry i didn't realise i was breaking copyright laws by placing the kits & logos within the image. I am happy for it to be deleted. -- Dirk Valentine ( talk) 18:39, 26 May 2008 (UTC) reply

• Comment - Does this mean that the IfD can be replaced by {{ db-g7}} (author requests deletion)? – Pee Jay 21:04, 26 May 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 - no need has been demonstrated for multiple uses of unfree images in 
more cowbell. 
Wily
D 
13:54, 16 June 2008 (UTC)
reply

Image:Cowbell.gif

Image:Cowbell.gif ( delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Arssle ( notify | contribs).

• Fails NFCC #3a & 8. There are already two nonfree images of the same skit in the article, neither of which are animated gifs. Image is also unencyclopedic and the uploader is long gone. Cumulus Clouds ( talk) 18:13, 26 May 2008 (UTC) reply
• Fails #3a no doubt, I don't think it fails 8 though. I do think the animated gif significally contributes in showing what the whole article is about a guy banging a cowbell which is, debatable, very funny. That being said there is the question if these kind of animated gifs or humor itself for that matter is desirable in an encyclopedia article. FelisLeo ^Talk! 11:36, 2 June 2008 (UTC) reply
• Keep the image...do not delete please. somody ( talk) 20:15, 15 June 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

Keep.  There are no other unfree images used in the article, the rest have been deleted. 
Wily
D 
13:55, 16 June 2008 (UTC)
reply

Image:Walken-Cowbell.jpg

Image:Walken-Cowbell.jpg ( delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Rolypolyman ( notify | contribs).

• Fails NFCC #3a & #8. There is already a nonfree image in this article depicting Christopher Walken as Bruce Dickinson. Cumulus Clouds ( talk) 18:59, 26 May 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

No consensus.  While this is a highly unusual result for an IfD, the image is freely licensed, and which image to use in an article is purely an editorial choice.  Leaving either image around unused is  no big deal, deletion is harder on the server than just leaving it anyhow. 
Wily
D 
13:59, 16 June 2008 (UTC)
reply

Image:Nemanja Vidic.png

Image:Nemanja Vidic.png ( delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Laughing Man ( notify | contribs).

• Scaled down and in my opinion inferior version of Image:Nemanja Vidić.jpg Kjetil r ( talk) 22:18, 26 May 2008 (UTC) reply
  • Agreed. Delete. Powers ^T 23:01, 26 May 2008 (UTC) reply

Please keep the image. This image is better than the other image refered to by the nominator (Kjetil r). If anything, the OTHER image should be deleted, not this one. // laughing man 07:08, 31 May 2008 (UTC) reply

other "high-res" image: this image:

I think it is clear from the image above that the image that has been nominated for deletion is the better quality version for use on Wikipedia. // laughing man 07:08, 31 May 2008 (UTC) reply

Several users seem to agree with me, as the locally uploaded image has been tagged {{ ncd}} three times [1] [2] [3]. -- Kjetil r ( talk) 12:45, 31 May 2008 (UTC) reply

They might seem to agree with you but your assumption is not accurate. Those users tagged the image as "NowCommons" incorrectly. I've explained to those users that NowCommons is NOT applicable to the image as the image is a bit-for-bit identical copy of the image per CSD I8. They have all agreed to use the higher quality image once they've reviewed the image comparison I've shown you above. // laughing man 14:57, 31 May 2008 (UTC) reply

Sorry, I still stand by my endorsement. Your preferred version is cropped too tightly on the top and right edges, and it is too dark, and its resolution is considerably lower. Powers ^T 22:19, 1 June 2008 (UTC) reply

The version that User:Kjetil r has updated by "22:14, May 26, 2008 2,044×2,497 (710 KB) Kjetil r (altering color levels & red saturation)" is his preferred version (obviously). I think it is disrespectful (although the image is creative-commons license) we should not abuse this privilege. The original photographer ( Austin Osuide) provided a mid-resolution image that is very suitable for the Nemanja Vidić article on the en.Wikipedia [4]. But please do not alter the original photographers vision. // laughing man 23:43, 2 June 2008 (UTC) reply

Color balance aside, there remains the cropping and resolution issues with the version you prefer. Powers ^T 13:11, 3 June 2008 (UTC) reply

Austin Osuide did not provide a mid-resolution image. Images at Flickr are uploaded in full resolution, and the Flickr software automatically scales them down. We always use the high resolution versions at Wikipedia. -- Kjetil r ( talk) 07:30, 7 June 2008 (UTC) reply

I believe it's more fair to not use the a full resolution image as it is not necessary for an encyclopedia. What the goals of the Commons are is another story. In any case I still feel very strongly that the original colors should not be altered to your liking, but rather retain what the photographer captured. // laughing man 17:30, 8 June 2008 (UTC) reply

The original colors were decided by the camera's microprocessor, as the metadata shows. I would agree with you if the colors / camera settings were deliberately chosen by the photographer, but I (as most active Commons users) am able to set the color balance better than most camera chips. -- Kjetil r ( talk) 23:43, 8 June 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 discussion was: Speedy Deleted under criteria I9 (Copyright Infringement). UltraExactZZ ^Claims ~ Evidence 13:37, 28 May 2008 (UTC) reply

Image:Monday_money.JPG ( delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by 0101CHONGmt ( notify | contribs).

• Orphaned, non-free. Kelly ^hi! 23:44, 26 May 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.