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.
Non-free image overuse: duplicating another image showing the same actors/roles in Probe (1972 TV pilot); was also part of a non-free images gallery Search (TV series). No analytical commentary on any of these images in either article; no meaningful FUR, only a vacuous dummy phrase "use in article about the show". Fut.Perf.☼07:32, 2 August 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.
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.
Hidden Image: This is an animated gif, after a short time another image appears which is an odd collage of what appears to be spelunking, Hugh B. Cave himself and a speach bubble with the word "Patent." While this does not necessarily seem to be a copyright violation, it is not appropriate for an encyclopedia. I added a comment to the talk page but shortly afterwards decided that a deletion request was probably more appropriate. AdamBMorgan (talk) 19:26, 2 August 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.
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.
No source, no use in article as Roly Daniels isn't mentioned in the article and doesn't seem to warrant a mention (his cover never charted, there're very few sources on him, etc.). Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Many otters • One bat • One hammer)20:40, 2 August 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.
image is from unknown origin, copyright unclear, purpose unclear. entire work is used (likely publicity photo) where a screenshot is less infringing as it is only a partial image from a larger work. replace with screenshot, as done with several shows, i.e. Star Trek Ejfetters (talk) 23:39, 2 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The publicity photo is more infringing. The intent is unknown. A complete work is more infringing than a miniscule portion of the work, yes. 74.204.40.46 (talk) 05:39, 3 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
That guidance is specifically about which images to prioritise in lists. It is accepted that images of actors out of character are not a substitute for in-character representations of that character in articles solely devoted to the particular character. Jheald (talk) 16:00, 3 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
As stated before, screencaps are less infringing. Rememeber this image has 1 - no source, 2 - is of unknown origin (even if someone searches google images do we know who holds the copyright?) 3 - the purpose can be speculated but we can't be sure without evidence that its use here is permissable. Shows such as Star Trek (TNG, DS9 etc.) has mass nominations for its publicity images and the outcome was that the screencaps are less infringing because there are a miniscule portion of the entire work (one frame from an episode with thousands of frames) and the publicity image is the entire work. How would the arguments made for the numerous Star Trek publicity images be any different from The West Wing publicity images? Ejfetters (talk) 06:52, 5 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
.jpg){kind=link}
![[1]](https:/upwiki/wikipedia/en/d/d8/Zao_by_Rick_Yune.jpg){kind=link}
![[2]](https:/upwiki/wikipedia/commons/7/75/Rickyune.jpg){kind=link}