Orphaned, Unencyclopedic, Absent uploader Nv8200ptalk 01:59, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
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.
Invalid fair use. We already have a free image of Don Mattingly at Image:Don Mattingly.JPG. Uploader claims "The replacement in question is an image of Don Mattingly in the current era in his coach's status". However this argument does not work. We should not have ANY fair use images of a subject if a free image is available, even if the free image is slightly less relevant. This "golden years" image of Mattingly is not essential to the New York Yankees or Don Mattingly articles and therefore should be deleted. The image also fails NFCC #8, significance, and I am not sure that it shows respect for commercial opportunities to use this publicity image. Rhobite (talk) 03:51, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Free image is not suitable replacement for fair use image. Not only is it really a different subject (same person does not make it the same picture), but the free image is of very poor quality. You can't even see his face as it's covered in shadow. Replacing an image that actually shows the person with a side-view picture with 90% of his face shadowed is unacceptable. It's not an adequate substitution. As for the commercial uses of the publicity image, it is of small resolution, not big enough to really be useful.-Silent Wind of Doom (talk) 05:08, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as replaceable fair use. -- RG2 06:07, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The free image is not a suitable replacement for the fair use image, as stated previously.
Deleted, replaceable. Any photo of Mattingly would suffice to illustrate the article. – Quadell(talk) (random) 20:51, 5 December 2007 (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.
CV, AU - High resolution copyrighted magazine cover, likely stolen from Performance Auto website. No fair use rationale given. Absent uploader. Marginal use in article. Cumulus Clouds (talk) 05:21, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Copyright violation. Source gives no indication this image has been released under a Creative Commons license. -- RG2 06:06, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
As protected work I believe the serie's logo may not be altered without permission from owner. Therefore I believe the Free Art License is not valid. But if own work by uploader would it be free then..? |EPO|da: 17:47, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
