Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Files for deletion/2009 April 12

< Wikipedia:Files for deletion
< April 11 April 13 >

April 12

edit

Hikari Kamiyo.jpg

edit
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. This is a tough one. The arguments for keeping the image were centered on the fact that it was the only image in the article, and those against it were based on its failing to meet WP:NFCC#8. A good solution would probably be to find an image which illustrates multiple characters from the list, not just this one. –Drilnoth (T • C • L) 16:26, 25 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:Hikari Kamiyo.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Angel,Isaac (notify | contribs).
  • This image does not add much significant value to the understanding of the reader. See WP:NFCC in particular criterion 8. NanohaA'sYuriTalk, My master 00:35, 12 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep This image is the sole image used in the article. It is appropriate fair use within this context for illustration within the article. Not having such an illustration is a hole in understanding the artistic component of a TV show. I oppose any additional images and a picture with more of the characters would be best to supercede this image. Until such a time: keep. — BQZip01 — talk 14:17, 18 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. As with TankPolice 11.jpg, below, this is a non-free image used to illustrate on character in a list, where the article is a list and is not specifically about this character. Fails NFCC#8, as such. And it invites other non-free pics of equally-important other members of the list. – Quadell (talk) 23:33, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Nothing wrong with having an image of items mentioned in a list as long as it's appropriate and well justified. How else are you supposed to 'see' what the article talks about. Without appropriate images, said articles are only partially effective. The article in question would benefit greatly with small images of each of the main characters. If wiki has a policy against images in list-articles (or in general, it seems), then ok. Otherwise, Keep. Benway (talk) 16:35, 23 April 2009 (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.

Ippei.jpg

edit
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; deleted by Quadell (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 06:04, 19 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:Ippei.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Sexuallady (notify | contribs).
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.

MegumiOka.jpg

edit
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; deleted by Stifle (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 19:25, 18 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:MegumiOka.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Sexuallady (notify | contribs).
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.

Richard_Poplawski.jpg

edit
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; deleted by Stifle (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 19:25, 18 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:Richard_Poplawski.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Grsz11 (notify | contribs).
Furthermore it is not his mug shot. It is an image provided by police to the press, that doesn't mean that it is a mug short, or that the police created the photo or that the image becomes part of the public domain. Please see his booking photo [1] for why the file considered here could not possibly be Richard Poplawski's mug shot. TharsHammar Bits andPieces 14:23, 14 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

:::I believe that image is a mugshot from a previous arrest, which was on this site until being replaced by the image I uploaded. This would lead me to believe they used the old image until this one was made available. Grsz11 23:31, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This article has an image which is labelled as having been taken while in police custody. I think it would be better for the article. Grundle2600 (talk) 23:43, 17 April 2009 (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.

IMAG0127.JPG

edit
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 delete (G7) –Drilnoth (T • C) 17:01, 12 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:IMAG0127.JPG (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Beno1000 (notify | contribs).
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.

TankPolice 11.jpg

edit
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. This was a close call, but I'm more convinced by the arguments against the image than those for it. –Drilnoth (T • C • L) 16:23, 25 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:TankPolice 11.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Benway (notify | contribs).
I'm attempting to show that the first incarnation of the "Think Tank" (described in the article) was in Tank Police (submitted image). Followers of both series would find this 'crossover use' informative. The image was flagged for deletion (wow!) before I had even finished all the references. Hopefully, everything is in place to Wiki's satisfaction.Benway (talk) 11:18, 12 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep but needs a caption that explains its significance. As I've stated before, a single illustrative, non-free image of an article on a copyrighted program is appropriate, but I think a better one could be found too. — BQZip01 — talk 14:25, 18 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thanks for the support. Before the deletion notice it had a descriptive caption, but I will improve it. There was only a couple appearances of this Think Tank in the Anime, and this was the best view. I will brighten it up a bit. Benway (talk) 16:15, 18 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Entry updated. Should be all set. Benway (talk) 15:42, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete, the trouble is, this is a non-free image used in a list, not in an article about the subject. Having one entry in a list illustrated with a non-free image just invites other, equally worthy entries to have their own non-free images... and indeed, I see that another non-free image has been added to a separate entry in the same list. – Quadell (talk) 23:31, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. The article is about GIS mecha that often do not have their own article. Where are we to have images of them? The article, itself, is about a collection, not a single item. These small images add immensely to the effectiveness of the article. The alternative would be to clog wiki further by breaking this article up into stubs. Benway (talk) 11:17, 23 April 2009 (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.

Derek O'Brien.jpg

edit
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; deleted by Skier Dude (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 02:01, 18 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:Derek O'Brien.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Dobrien91 (notify | contribs).
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.

Ebersberg district coa.jpg

edit
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; deleted by Stifle (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 19:25, 18 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:Ebersberg district coa.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Cordyph (notify | contribs).
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.

Statistics2.svg

edit
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 per G7 –Drilnoth (T • C) 21:59, 12 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:Statistics2.svg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by FlyingToaster (notify | contribs).
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.

Floberg_Villmark.jpg

edit
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; deleted by Quadell (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 06:04, 19 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:Floberg_Villmark.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Decltype (notify | contribs).
  • Living subject, therefore replaceable non-free image. PhilKnight (talk) 17:08, 12 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: It's also orphaned. –Drilnoth (T • C) 17:17, 12 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - the image was deleted by me earlier today, however following a request, I've restored the image, and opened a discussion here. Following your comment, I've restored the image's use in the Bjørn Floberg biography. PhilKnight (talk) 17:24, 12 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - I can only repeat what I said when I disputed the deletion. I truly believe this image is not replaceable by a free equivalent. It serves to illustrate Floberg's appearance in Villmark, one of his most significant later roles, a role which is specifically discussed in the accompanying text. Because this image is a screenshot or still from the film, no free equivalent could feasibly be created that would serve the same encyclopedic effect. Since a textual description of a character's appearance can not convey the same information as a visual representation, the image adds significantly to the reader's understanding of the subject.
    This type of fair use is extremely common in actor BLP's. Examples from featured articles: File:Chopper-Bana.jpg, File:KaDee Strickland in Train Ride.jpg, File:Loveserenade-MirandaOtto.jpg, File:Piratessiliconvalley.jpg, File:KHNHLS.jpg. Note that in many of these, the actor's appearance is not very different from their "real-life" appearance, and surely, obtaining a free image of the subject is feasible in all of these, since the subject is living. Nevertheless, because these pictures (and Floberg's) illustrate roles from films, and are used for critical commentary of such, a free equivalent image of the subject "out-of-character" would not serve the same encyclopedic purpose, and I would think that the fact that so many non-free images are used in FA's for exactly this purpose would indicate consensus that this is acceptable. I hope that covers NFCC#1, which was the original issue raised, and also NFCC#8. I don't see any potential problems with the others NFCC's. I'd also like to add that I believe the original FUR sufficiently covered these aspects.
    Cliff notes: The depiction of an actor in a role which is the direct subject of critical commentary in the article, is not replaceable by a free image of the actor. decltype (talk) 17:32, 12 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. The phrase "depicts a specific point in his career" is thrown around all too frequently to justify an otherwise untenable use of a non-free image to show what someone looks like. Stifle (talk) 15:04, 14 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • I have tried to address this issue by improving the FUR. But if you believe that any use of a non-free image in an actor BLP where the character remotely resembles the subject's actual appearance is a copyright infringement, I can only note that my interpretation is different, based on existing practice, and my understanding of the NFCC. Either way, I can assure you that my use of a phrase similar to the one you mention was based on a genuine belief that this was perfectly acceptable, and certainly not an attempt to "justify an otherwise untenable use ...", for what it's worth. decltype (talk) 18:17, 14 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • I don't think it's a copyright infringement, although I also think it will rarely comply with the NFCC. Regarding your final sentence, I did not intend to offend you in that, hope you were not offended, and apologise if you were. Stifle (talk) 14:18, 15 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Policy is pretty clear. This is a living person and, therefore, a free image is possible. In articles about a film, such an image could be appropriate, but not here. — BQZip01 — talk 14:29, 18 April 2009 (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.

Mesonychoteuthis hamiltoni 2003.jpg

edit
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; deleted by Stifle (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 19:25, 18 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:Mesonychoteuthis hamiltoni 2003.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Mgiganteus1 (notify | contribs).
Delete per nom. mgiganteus1 (talk) 16:54, 17 April 2009 (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.

Colossal Squid Ross Ice Shelf.jpg

edit
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: Deleted. It's a unique image, but it fails NFCC#2. Getty sells their images. They charge to use even a low-fi version. There's no way this could possibly pass NFCC#2.

File:Colossal Squid Ross Ice Shelf.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Mgiganteus1 (notify | contribs).
  • We already have a free image of this very same animal. The photo itself is not discussed, and shows nothing that needs to be shown. The use of a non-free image (especially of one from a source like Getty) is not at all justified. J Milburn (talk) 22:38, 12 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep This image shows the specimen in its live state, which is significant for a number of reasons. Firstly, it shows the most notable feature of this specimen (the largest cephalopod ever recorded): its size. The specimen shrunk considerably when it was frozen; it was originally estimated to be around 10 m long, but after thawing was found to measure only 4.2 m. Secondly, it shows the characteristic shape of the adult animal, with its greatly inflated mantle (which is completely collapsed in the preserved specimen). Thirdly, the delicate red skin of this specimen is still completely intact in this photo. As with the giant squid, this is always damaged during capture (see preserved specimens). Finally, the image shows the method of capture, with the use of spears. There is already a section in the colossal squid article dealing solely with this specimen and this explains the change in size and capture of the animal, but I have expanded the image caption to comment on the skin and mantle shape. mgiganteus1 (talk) 20:34, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep This kind of image is so very rare and cannot be replaced. Grundle2600 (talk) 23:48, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I have to concur that this is a very unique image and cannot possibly be replaced. If the FUR needs beefing up, in your opinion, please assist in helping. While the photo itself isn't discussed, the actions depicted in the photo certainly are and have 2 paragraphs devoted to it. — BQZip01 — talk 14:33, 18 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, fails WP:NFCC#2 and probably #1 as well. Stifle (talk) 18:20, 18 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The image is not replaceable for the reasons outlined above. I will upload a lower resolution version to satisfy WP:NFCC#2. mgiganteus1 (talk) 18:39, 18 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Image uploaded. mgiganteus1 (talk) 18:43, 18 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Alternatively a downsampled image of the same event may be sourced from the original press release. mgiganteus1 (talk) 20:32, 18 April 2009 (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.

Haliphron atlanticus.jpg

edit
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; deleted by Stifle (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 19:25, 18 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:Haliphron atlanticus.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by XQ fan (notify | contribs).
Delete per nom. mgiganteus1 (talk) 17:02, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. — BQZip01 — talk 14:33, 18 April 2009 (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.

Moroteuthis robusta.jpg

edit
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 old version only. Stifle (talk) 18:30, 18 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:Moroteuthis robusta.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Mgiganteus1 (notify | contribs).
Keep I have created a section on this image in the Robust Clubhook Squid article, which explains its significance and discusses it in detail. The animal was originally misidentified as a giant squid. If true, this would represent the first image of a live giant squid (taken over a decade prior to the "true" first image(s) in 2005). The image is discussed in The Search for the Giant Squid (1998) for this reason. The use of wide-angle photography exaggerated the size of the squid (such that it appears impossibly large for Moroteuthis robusta) and this is explained in the text and illustrated by the image. mgiganteus1 (talk) 11:58, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment New smaller version uploaded. Old version should be deleted. mgiganteus1 (talk) 16:09, 16 April 2009 (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.

Live giant squid first image.jpg

edit
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: keep. With the addition of specific commentary about the capture of the live specimen, use of the image of the while the squid is still alive seems significant to the article. There are currently only two non-free images in a rather lengthy article, so the non-free content does not seem excessive. -Nv8200p talk 01:41, 27 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:Live giant squid first image.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Mgiganteus1 (notify | contribs).
Keep I have created a section on this specimen and its significance as the first to be photographed alive in the giant squid article. mgiganteus1 (talk) 18:33, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
To add to my previous comment: the image is very significant as it is the first to show a live adult giant squid. It illustrates the specimen's size, method of capture (use of a rope), and muscular constriction around the eye. These points are explained in the relevant section/caption. mgiganteus1 (talk) 00:15, 18 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete...sort of... This image, while certainly historical, can be specified in text alone with better images (proposed for deletion below) to fill its place. I have no issue with a single non-free image (as all such images are currently copyrighted to capitalize on the sensationalism), but pick one of the last three used in the article. — BQZip01 — talk 14:38, 18 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
If I were to choose one image, then it would be this one. It is the most significant, being the earliest. mgiganteus1 (talk) 18:29, 18 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Fine by me. — BQZip01 — talk 05:18, 19 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
If the AP image below (which is somewhat less significant) is deleted, then the use of this image would not be excessive. I would like to avoid a situation where both images are deleted for constituting "excessive use of non-free content" when the removal of one image would remove this problem. mgiganteus1 (talk) 19:00, 18 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: I can't decide. On the one hand, it is a historic image, and it's not credited to a news agency. On the other hand, it could be described in text and replaced with a free image of the carcass which is still on display. So I don't know. – Quadell (talk) 04:35, 19 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
An image of the carcass of this specimen would not be a suitable replacement as the specimen itslelf is not extraordinary in terms of size or any other attributes; what makes it exceptional is that it was photographed alive. The image itself is notable, not so much the animal. Also note that this image is interesting in that it shows muscular constriction around the eye (in the image it appears much smaller than it actually is), which would be difficult to convey to the reader in text alone.mgiganteus1 (talk) 05:06, 19 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I have completely revised the fair use rationale using the Template:Non-free use rationale. mgiganteus1 (talk) 06:36, 19 April 2009 (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.

Live giant squid.jpg

edit
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; deleted by Stifle (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 19:25, 18 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:Live giant squid.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Mgiganteus1 (notify | contribs).
Delete per nom. Not enough is known about this sighting. mgiganteus1 (talk) 16:54, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment This image should be deleted for the same reason. mgiganteus1 (talk) 18:35, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Concur — BQZip01 — talk 14:39, 18 April 2009 (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.

Live giant squid video December 4 2006.jpg

edit
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: Deleted. As an AP image, it clearly fails NFCC#2

File:Live giant squid video December 4 2006.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Mgiganteus1 (notify | contribs).
  • Though the video is mentioned in passing, a non-free image is not needed to illustrate it. J Milburn (talk) 23:03, 12 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • there is no image on file that shows the size of the animal; being the largest of the species - it is important in the wiki entry to illustrate the size of the creature —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.38.98.221 (talk • contribs) 22:53, 14 April 2009
  • Keep Important image, one of the most significant in the history of giant squid research. Image shows the size of the animal, the method of its capture (it was attracted to the smaller, white squid seen in the photo), its eye (the eyes are almost always damaged in stranded specimens), the reddish skin (also never seen intact like this), and even countershading. I have expanded the section and image caption with sourced information explaining these details. mgiganteus1 (talk) 16:18, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep This is an extremely rare image that cannot be replaced. As long as it's low resolution, and a good faith attempt is made to provide proper credit, I think the fair use rationale will hold up. Grundle2600 (talk) 23:46, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete...sort of... see commentary two images up. — BQZip01 — talk 14:40, 18 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, AP image, fails WP:NFCC#2. Stifle (talk) 18:22, 18 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    The AP was the one that published it over the AP wire, the image appears to belong to Tsunemi Kubodera at the National Science Museum of Japan. They've released the image to the AP. Using it here under WP:NFCC doesn't replace its market role in this limited capacity as we annotate it is not a free image and is irreplaceable, therefore, I say keep...but if we agree to disagree... — BQZip01 — talk 03:14, 19 April 2009 (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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Files_for_deletion/2009_April_12&oldid=1138516105"