Wikipedia:Files for deletion/2012 May 31

The printable version is no longer supported and may have rendering errors. Please update your browser bookmarks and please use the default browser print function instead.

< May 30	June 1 >

May 31

File:Album Tom Tom Club cover.JPG

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 Explicit (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 03:57, 8 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Invalid FUR--not discussed critically —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 00:28, 31 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Despite the file title and the description in the NFCC rationale, this is the back cover of the album involved. By practice/consensus, only the front cover, already displayed in the infobox, is sufficient, abseny unusual circumstances demonstrated by reliably sourced text. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 15:40, 31 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The article already has a different cover illustration. This one fails WP:NFCC#3a. --Stefan2 (talk) 10:41, 5 June 2012 (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.

File:EricClapton AlbumCover History of EC (back).jpg

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 Explicit (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 03:57, 8 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Invalid FUR--not discussed critically. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 00:36, 31 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep There is critical commentary on the album in The History of Eric Clapton (for example "The album is notable for helping both Clapton's career when he was battling a severe heroin addiction and making Clapton's magnum opus, Layla, famous"). There is also commentary on the cover although I do not think it amounts to critical commentary. However, critical commentary of the cover itself is not required according to WP:NFCI. The FUR is valid. Thincat (talk) 15:52, 31 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Response WP:NFCC requires that "Non-free content is used only if its presence would significantly increase readers' understanding of the topic, and its omission would be detrimental to that understanding." Can you say this is the case with this? —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 01:42, 1 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Unfortunately, I see a back cover of images from previous years and track listing that is already covered in the article. Nobody says anything about back cover of it. According to #1 of NFCI, the cover art must be used "for visual identification only in the context of critical commentary of that item (not for identification without critical commentary)". We already have the front cover that identifies the topic, which is the article's main commentary. Any other non-free image, including this one, is not needed. --George Ho (talk) 16:12, 31 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. I am sympathetic with what you say. In my view NFCI#1 makes no sense at all because, logically, it is commentary about the cover that should be relevant. However, that is not what the guideline says and it is clear from the archives of the guideline's talk page that that is where consensus led. The back cover may well fail "minimal use" (NFCC #3a) but that is not clear cut to me nor was it a rationale in this nomination. Thincat (talk) 18:40, 31 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. By consensus and established practice, a single image of the front cover of an album is generally allowed to illustrate the article about the album itself. (When appropriate, images of an external gatefold cover are also allowed. However, discrete back cover images are not allowed under this standard because they do not serve the identification function described in NFCI. The terms of NFCI should be read in conjunction with the parallel terms of WP:NFC#UUI, which list as an unacceptable use "An album cover as part of a discography, as per the above" [where "the above" refers to NFCI). The use of an album (front) cover as an identifying image in an individual article on the album itself, even when the article does not (yet) include critical commentary, falls between the NFCI and NFCUUI rules, and has been treated by the community as an acceptable use. This use is consistent with WMF policy, which allows projects "to include identifying protected works such as logos" as well as using nonfree content "to complement (within narrow limits) articles about copyrighted contemporary works." I believe our EDP should be rewritten to expressly codify current practices concerning identifying images used to complement coverage of copyrighted works, but right now that is very much a minority viewpoint. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk)`
Delete The subject of the article is already sufficiently identified by a different cover illustration. This one fails WP:NFCC#3a. --Stefan2 (talk) 10:43, 5 June 2012 (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.

File:Kenneth Pinyan.jpg

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 Explicit (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 03:57, 8 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Image is currently used under a claim of fair use. However, the idea behind fair use is that the image should somehow contribute qualitatively to the article. This image contributes nothing useful to the article it is in, is not necessary to any critical commentary or related prose in the article (and so the FUR is invalid), and is in fact not an image of the "case" itself, but simply (allegedly) someone who participated in it. The uploader claims this "originally appeared on DocVader's Yahoo profile". Who is "DocVader?" DocVader is not mentioned in the article at all. Then it shows it was subsequently taken from a wordpress page, however Wordpress is not a reliable source and there is nothing reliable to confirm this is even a photo of the participant, so does not even meet WP:VERIFIABILITY. Image is unverifiable and has no value to the article. The Garbage Skow (talk) 02:02, 31 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete due to the sourcing issues; the underlying identification comes from an SPS and the danger that the person depicted is not the article subject, leading to a potentially major BLP violation, more the outweighs the image's low encyclopedic value. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 15:44, 31 May 2012 (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.

File:Conduit.jpg

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 Explicit (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 03:57, 8 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Invalid FUR--not discussed critically, but used for ornamental purposes. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 04:07, 31 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete this one. However, a good image would be the image of the girl made out of binary code. It is discussed in the production section. Glimmer721 ^talk 20:40, 31 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Per Glimmer's suggestion.--Gen. Quon (talk) 22:07, 31 May 2012 (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.

File:The Jersey Devil.jpg

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 Explicit (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 03:57, 8 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Invalid FUR--not discussed critically, but used for ornamental purposes. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 04:07, 31 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Not significant.--Gen. Quon (talk) 00:01, 1 June 2012 (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.

File:Eve 1x10.jpg

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 Explicit (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 03:57, 8 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Invalid FUR--not discussed critically, but used for ornamental purposes. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 04:07, 31 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete-A shot of the two young "Eves" would be better, due to the fact the twins who played them are mentioned in the article.--Gen. Quon (talk) 22:24, 31 May 2012 (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.

File:E.B.E. X-Files.jpg

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 Explicit (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 03:57, 8 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Invalid FUR--not discussed critically, but used for ornamental purposes. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 04:08, 31 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete-Not significant. The special effects shot of the EBE would be better.--Gen. Quon (talk) 22:23, 31 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete useless image, really. Sven Manguard Wha? 21:45, 3 June 2012 (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.

File:Miracle man samuel.jpg

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 Explicit (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 03:57, 8 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Invalid FUR--not discussed critically, but used for ornamental purposes. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 04:08, 31 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Not significant.--Gen. Quon (talk) 00:01, 1 June 2012 (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.

File:X files shapes.jpg

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 Explicit (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 03:57, 8 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Invalid FUR--not discussed critically, but used for ornamental purposes. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 04:08, 31 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Not significant.--Gen. Quon (talk) 00:01, 1 June 2012 (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.

File:Darknessfalls.jpg

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 Explicit (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 03:57, 8 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Invalid FUR--not discussed critically, but used for ornamental purposes. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 04:08, 31 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Not significant. Shots of the bugs would be better.--Gen. Quon (talk) 22:22, 31 May 2012 (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.

File:The Blessing Way TXF.jpg

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 Peripitus (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 11:09, 28 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Invalid FUR--not discussed critically, but used for ornamental purposes. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 04:08, 31 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - There are two central plots: one on Mulder; other on Scully. This image helps the readers visualize the scene that contributes to one of central plots. Without the man's help, what would have happened to Mulder? Even the plot itself is part of article's critical commentary and a source to the scene. --George Ho (talk) 06:38, 31 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - agree with above. The whole Native American ritual thing was derided by critics. Glimmer721 ^talk 20:31, 31 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Doesn't help me understand the subject of the article. The image is already sufficiently replaced by text. --Stefan2 (talk) 14:56, 8 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, I don't see enough critical discussion of these plot elements in the article to make this kind of illustration necessary. Fut.Perf. ☼ 21:08, 8 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - The Native American ritual is discussed critically in the article. The scene is the main plot of the episode, and concisely summarized its contents. Arguing that something isn't described enough by critics to render it valid is silly. If a scene is derided by critics, it automatically becomes critically discussed. But that's really not the main point of this pic. Like, I said, it illustrates the idea of the episode (plus the whole critical examination thing).--Gen. Quon (talk) 01:51, 10 June 2012 (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.

File:Tooms (X-Files).jpg

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 Explicit (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 03:57, 8 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Invalid FUR--not discussed critically, but used for ornamental purposes. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 04:09, 31 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - The entire sequence, including the muck, is discussed in the production section.--Gen. Quon (talk) 21:41, 31 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

However, Tooms covered in bile is probably more wildly discussed. Glimmer721 ^talk 01:13, 1 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Opps, you're right. I thought this was a bile pick. A pic of him covered in bile is much better.--Gen. Quon (talk) 15:38, 1 June 2012 (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.

File:DPOX-Files.jpg

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 Peripitus (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 13:08, 22 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Invalid FUR--not discussed critically, but used for ornamental purposes. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 04:10, 31 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - This image illustrates the central focal of the episode. Also, the episode and third-party commentary themselves are part of the critical commentary. No other scene surpasses that. --George Ho (talk) 19:47, 31 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Per rationale. Definitely illustrates the episode concisely, and is discussed.--Gen. Quon (talk) 21:42, 31 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The central idea here (a human figure covered in lightning) can easily be covered in words alone. If there's anything more than that that needs to be covered, e.g. about the details of the style of the visual effects etc., then the article isn't currently talking about it. Fut.Perf. ☼ 21:13, 8 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - This concisely talks about the plot of the episode. Furthermore, creating the scene is critically discussed in the "Production" section.--Gen. Quon (talk) 01:48, 10 June 2012 (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.

File:The List TXF.jpg

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 Explicit (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 03:57, 8 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Invalid FUR--not discussed critically, but used for ornamental purposes. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 04:10, 31 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Not needed shot of a minor scene.--Gen. Quon (talk) 22:06, 31 May 2012 (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.

File:Seven-three-one XF.jpg

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. Anomie ⚔ 02:32, 13 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Invalid FUR--not discussed critically, but used for ornamental purposes. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 04:10, 31 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The production section talks about the making of the scene. Also, the critical reception sections says that actor Steven Williams considers that scene one of the ones that made his character X more popular with viewers. Glimmer721 ^talk 20:33, 31 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Per the production section.--Gen. Quon (talk) 21:14, 31 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete' - Talking about making the scene is about 100 miles from the significant increase in reader's understanding required to meet NFCC#8. "X carried Mulder while a train blew up in the background" - for me that text alone carries sufficient information. As for the critical commentary - the commentary is not specifically about this image and I really do think it's use is largely decorative. - Peripitus (Talk) 09:16, 28 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - gives the reader a visual representation of a scene apparently of importance to this episode. Such a representation does in fact add to the reader's understanding IMO. Magog the Ogre (talk) 09:15, 4 July 2012 (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.

File:Revelations TXF.jpg

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: withdrawn by nominator. --George Ho (talk) 04:38, 3 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Invalid FUR--not discussed critically, but used for ornamental purposes. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 04:10, 31 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - The scene as well as creating the "religious magic" is discussed in the article and well as "Purpose of Use" section.--Gen. Quon (talk) 21:18, 31 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Withdrawn You're right--this one is clearly reasonable. I got a little hasty with these X-Files nominations, but I think most of them are solid. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 02:50, 1 June 2012 (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.

File:War of the Coprophages.jpg

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 Peripitus (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 14:05, 13 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Invalid FUR--not discussed critically, but used for ornamental purposes. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 04:11, 31 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Per the production section that mentions the use of cockroaches as well as the tag on the "Purpose of Use" section that describes the use.--Gen. Quon (talk) 21:15, 31 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Image doesn't help in understanding the text. This is just an image of a hand holding a cockroach. We know what cockroaches look like. Again, the criterion is not that the use of cockroaches is "mentioned" in the text, but that the illustration is needed for understanding that reference. Fut.Perf. ☼ 17:07, 9 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Changed my mind. Delete--Gen. Quon (talk) 01:47, 10 June 2012 (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.

File:Syzygy TXF.jpg

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 Peripitus (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 13:08, 22 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Invalid FUR--not discussed critically, but used for ornamental purposes. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 04:11, 31 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The critical reception section discusses how critics and fans were displeased with the scene. Glimmer721 ^talk 20:35, 31 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - per the above rationale--Gen. Quon (talk) 21:18, 31 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Nothing in this image helps me understand the critical discussion of how the relationship between these characters was portrayed. This is just two talking heads. From the looks of the image, they might be making small-talk; they might be joking with each other; they might be fighting – there's simply nothing in the image that tells me anything relevant about the scene. Fut.Perf. ☼ 17:10, 9 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - The scene was critically commented on by critics, who noted their displeasure with the scene. In addition, this summarized the main conceit of the episode (catty arguments between Mulder and Scully), which is mentioned in both "Reception" and "Production". The shot shows Mulder and Scully arguing, thus it concisely illustrates the main idea and is critically commented upon. You could use the "they might..." argument for truly ANY image.--Gen. Quon (talk) 01:46, 10 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Just two people looking at each other. I fail to see how this would help me understanding the topic any better. --Stefan2 (talk) 13:37, 19 June 2012 (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.

File:Grotesque TXF.jpg

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 ((non-admin closure)) CyanGardevoir ^{(used EDIT!)} 23:12, 23 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Invalid FUR--not discussed critically, but used for ornamental purposes. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 04:11, 31 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - The inspiration for the villain as well as creating the sketches is discussed in the production section of the article and well as "Purpose of Use" section.--Gen. Quon (talk) 21:19, 31 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - per above. Glimmer721 ^talk 17:02, 9 June 2012 (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.

File:Apopcrypha TXF.jpg

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 Skier Dude (talk) 01:02, 2 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Invalid FUR--not discussed critically, but used for ornamental purposes. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 04:12, 31 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - The making of the scene, most notably, the black oil effects, in discussed in whole in the article's body, including production as well as the "Purpose of Use" section.--Gen. Quon (talk) 21:43, 31 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - per above. Glimmer721 ^talk 01:15, 1 June 2012 (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.

File:Hell Money TXF.jpg

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 Skier Dude (talk) 01:05, 2 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Invalid FUR--not discussed critically, but used for ornamental purposes. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 04:12, 31 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Per the rationale of the "Purpose of use" section, I wrote: "Also, the make-up receives critical commentary: the scene was created by using molds to create a fake human torso that was then placed over an actor." In addition, the screenshot captures the episode by showing that what Mulder and Scully are up against is not supernatural at all. This is hardly used simply for "ornamental purposes"--Gen. Quon (talk) 21:16, 31 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - images has been replaced with a better one. Glimmer721 ^talk 17:06, 9 June 2012 (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.

File:JoseChungsFromOuterSpaceX-Files.jpg

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. Anomie ⚔ 02:34, 13 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Invalid FUR--not discussed critically, but used for ornamental purposes. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 04:12, 31 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - An illustration of the titular book as well as an illustration of the Whitley Strieber parody that is discussed in the production section of the article.--Gen. Quon (talk) 21:21, 31 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - The main subject of the article and illustrates the parody. Also, provides a very quick explanation of the title: at first glance some may take the apostrophe to be possessive (Jose Chung is From Outer Space). Glimmer721 ^talk 01:21, 1 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

'Delete - it's just her reading a book with a particular title. Fails WP:NFCC#8 by a huge margin and can adequately be replaced with either text describing this simple, repeatable, scene or even a free image of Gillian Anderson and a note that in this scene she sat down and read the book with the book title clearly visible. - Peripitus (Talk) 09:19, 28 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - gives the reader a visual representation of a scene apparently of importance to this episode. Such a representation does in fact add to the reader's understanding IMO. Magog the Ogre (talk) 09:15, 4 July 2012 (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.

File:Avatar TXF.jpg

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 Peripitus (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 13:08, 22 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Invalid FUR--not discussed critically, but used for ornamental purposes. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 04:12, 31 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Illustration of the titular "Avatar".--Gen. Quon (talk) 21:44, 31 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - main concept of the episode. Glimmer721 ^talk 17:09, 9 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. It doesn't matter if it's the "main concept" of the episode. What matters is whether the illustration helps the reader to better understand that main concept. It doesn't. This is just a woman in a red coat standing in a street. Whatever is significant about this figure is conveyed purely by the text, not by the image. Fut.Perf. ☼ 06:38, 10 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Using the blanket argument that EVERY picture can be conveyed by word (and therefore it doesn't help you to understand the use of picture and obviously it doesn't help everyone to understand) is rather silly. With a proper caption, the purpose of the picture becomes clear.--Gen. Quon (talk) 18:12, 10 June 2012 (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.

File:Quagmire TXF.jpg

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 Peripitus (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 14:05, 13 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Invalid FUR--not discussed critically, but used for ornamental purposes. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 04:12, 31 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

According to the FUR and critical reception, the scene was praised by critics. Glimmer721 ^talk 20:22, 31 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Per the above rationale.--Gen. Quon (talk) 21:16, 31 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. It doesn't matter if the scene was "praised by critics". What matters is whether the illustration helps the reader to understand the reasons for that praise. It doesn't. This is just two people sitting somewhere. Whatever it was that the critics found noticeable in that scene, it must have been in the dialogues, in the acting, or whatever; the illustration tells me nothing about it. Fut.Perf. ☼ 06:42, 10 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - The production of designing the set is discussed in the "Production" section, writing the dialogue is discussed in this section, and the scene was praised by critics, which is discussed in "Reception". This fulfills the requirements needed for the picture to be uploaded. I'm getting annoyed with the argument that "it's just two people sitting". This is true for every picture, but in the context of the page, it helps to explain the situation in the episode, what the set looked like, etc. Per the rules for keeping a non-free file, the shot must be of something that is "the subject of sourced commentary", (And let me count them again, the production section quotes, the various reviews, etc) which this image is.--Gen. Quon (talk) 18:14, 10 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, unfortunately. This is replaceable, and Mulder and Scully could have kissed in this image... if it happened in this episode. It needs an irreplaceable image that could help readers understand the text. --George Ho (talk) 22:21, 11 June 2012 (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.

File:Wetwired TXF.jpg

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 Peripitus (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 13:08, 22 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Invalid FUR--not discussed critically, but used for ornamental purposes. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 04:12, 31 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Anderson's performance as an unhinged Scully is praised by a critic in the critical reception section. Glimmer721 ^talk 20:49, 31 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - per the above rationale--Gen. Quon (talk) 21:23, 31 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Also, Comment, that's the main conceit of the episode, and thus it illustrates the episode perfectly..--Gen. Quon (talk) 15:23, 4 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, same as the previous case above. Fut.Perf. ☼ 06:44, 10 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - Again, just reiterating, per the rules for keeping a non-free file, the shot must be of something that is "the subject of sourced commentary", which this image concisely does. It illustrates to the reader the state of Scully's instability, which was praised by critics.--Gen. Quon (talk) 18:23, 10 June 2012 (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.

File:Pusher TXF.jpg

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 Explicit (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 03:57, 8 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Invalid FUR--not discussed critically, but used for ornamental purposes. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 04:13, 31 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Not significant. A picture of the titular "Pusher" would be much better.--Gen. Quon (talk) 22:21, 31 May 2012 (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.

File:Biogenesis TXF.jpg

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 Explicit (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 03:57, 8 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Invalid FUR--not discussed critically, but used for ornamental purposes. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 04:13, 31 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - A shot of the alien space ship is better used to illustrate this article.--Gen. Quon (talk) 22:03, 31 May 2012 (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.

File:Colonization TXF.jpg

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 Skier Dude (talk) 01:07, 2 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Invalid FUR--not discussed critically, but used for ornamental purposes. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 04:13, 31 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - The scene as well as creating the creating the scene digitally is discussed in the production section article.--Gen. Quon (talk) 21:24, 31 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - per above. However, I don't think it needs to be used in Colonist (The X-Files). Glimmer721 ^talk 17:15, 9 June 2012 (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.

File:The Sixth Extinction TXF.jpg

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 Explicit (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 03:57, 8 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Invalid FUR--not discussed critically, but used for ornamental purposes. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 04:13, 31 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Not significant.--Gen. Quon (talk) 22:21, 31 May 2012 (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.

File:Closure TXF.jpg

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 Explicit (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 03:57, 8 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Invalid FUR--not discussed critically, but used for ornamental purposes. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 04:14, 31 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - a picture of Mulder with Samantha is better suited for the article.--Gen. Quon (talk) 22:01, 31 May 2012 (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.

File:All things.jpg

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 Skier Dude (talk) 01:08, 2 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Invalid FUR--not discussed critically, but used for ornamental purposes. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 04:14, 31 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - The scene is used to illustrate Scully's acceptance of spirituality. In addition, creating the scene is discussed in the production section of the article.--Gen. Quon (talk) 21:25, 31 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per the FUR, pretty strong. Glimmer721 ^talk 17:19, 9 June 2012 (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.

File:X-Within.jpg

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. Anomie ⚔ 02:36, 13 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Invalid FUR--not discussed critically, but used for ornamental purposes. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 04:14, 31 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - The scene is definitely poignant: this is the first interaction between Scully and Doggett which is definitely critiqued by commentators in the reception sectionn.--Gen. Quon (talk) 21:28, 31 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - it's just a random shot that adds little or nothing to reader's understanding. Just the two actors sitting down near each other. Where is the poignancy ? - Peripitus (Talk) 10:24, 8 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I think Scully throwing water on Doggett was more widely discussed in the article. Glimmer721 ^talk 17:21, 9 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- I could try and find that. It might be hard to get a screen shot of that.--Gen. Quon (talk) 01:43, 10 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  - Pulling it straight from the DVD would be simple enough, pause it and skip frame by frame to get a decent still. If the quality's a bit off then that's still fine as the low resolution required by a solid FUR would mask that to a degree. GRAPPLE X 01:45, 10 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    - Good point. I'd vote for a switch then.--Gen. Quon (talk) 01:52, 10 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      - I tried, but the best I could get is a blurry shot of Scully's hand holding a cup right in front of Doggett's face. This pic, IMO, illustrates the scene better. As for the poignancy, its the first introduction to a new main character, which is extremely important to the series.--Gen. Quon (talk) 22:07, 10 June 2012 (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.

File:Without TXF.jpg

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 Skier Dude (talk) 01:10, 2 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Invalid FUR--not discussed critically, but used for ornamental purposes. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 04:14, 31 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Making the scene and building the "alien chair" set is discussed in great length in the article under the production section.--Gen. Quon (talk) 21:29, 31 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - per above. Glimmer721 ^talk 17:21, 9 June 2012 (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.

File:Via Negativa TXF.jpg

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: withdrawn by nominator. --George Ho (talk) 04:43, 3 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Invalid FUR--not discussed critically, but used for ornamental purposes. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 04:14, 31 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - The entire dream scenes are discussed critically in the article: "The 'eerie' atmosphere [of the dream sequences] was praised by critics, with one referring to it as a 'superb X-Files episode.'".--Gen. Quon (talk) 21:32, 31 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Withdrawn This is another one that's legitimate. Some of these are arguable as really constituting fair use, but I see your point with this one. Sorry. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 02:51, 1 June 2012 (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.

File:Alone TXF.jpg

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 Explicit (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 03:57, 8 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Invalid FUR--not discussed critically, but used for ornamental purposes. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 04:15, 31 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Needs a better image than this, as this article does not discuss this scene. If many non-primary sources discuss this scene, then it is valuable. Otherwise, delete. --George Ho (talk) 23:47, 31 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
No, it isn't discussed. I agree, Delete.--Gen. Quon (talk) 23:58, 31 May 2012 (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.

File:Nothing Important Happened Today.jpg

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 Explicit (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 03:57, 8 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Invalid FUR--not discussed critically, but used for ornamental purposes. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 04:15, 31 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete-Not significant.--Gen. Quon (talk) 22:21, 31 May 2012 (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.

File:Born again xfiles.jpg

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 Skier Dude (talk) 01:12, 2 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Invalid FUR--not discussed critically, but used for ornamental purposes. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 04:16, 31 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This image is actually discussed by one of the critical reviews quoted in the article:

Zack Handlen, writing for The A.V. Club, felt negatively towards the episode, feeling that its plot was too reminiscent of earlier episodes, such as "Eve" or "Shadows". However, he found the scene in which an image is found in the static of a video recording to have been a highlight, calling it "a cool combination of hard science and the inexplicable".

I'm not going to be too beat-up if the file is deleted but the reason given for deletion is not entirely accurate. GRAPPLE X 04:24, 31 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Per the above rationale.--Gen. Quon (talk) 21:28, 31 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - per above. Glimmer721 ^talk 17:23, 9 June 2012 (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.

File:Roland 1x22.jpg

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 Explicit (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 03:57, 8 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Invalid FUR--not discussed critically, but used for ornamental purposes. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 04:17, 31 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete-No significant.--Gen. Quon (talk) 22:20, 31 May 2012 (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.

File:Daemonicus TXF.jpg

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 Skier Dude (talk) 01:13, 2 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Invalid FUR--not discussed critically, but used for ornamental purposes. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 04:17, 31 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - The discussion of creating and filming the episode, particularly the vomiting, is discussed in the production section.--Gen. Quon (talk) 21:45, 31 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - per FUR. Glimmer721 ^talk 17:24, 9 June 2012 (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.

File:Home TXF.jpg

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: withdrawn by nominator. --George Ho (talk) 04:44, 3 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Invalid FUR--not discussed critically, but used for ornamental purposes. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 04:17, 31 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The episode is notable for being very graphic which is commented on in the critical reception section. Maybe there is another, more graphic image that was mentioned by several critics? (I haven't seen this one yet). Glimmer721 ^talk 20:52, 31 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - This is the scene that the ratings board objected to as well as many critics commented upon. Discussed in article.--Gen. Quon (talk) 21:33, 31 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Withdrawn You're completely correct here--that was sloppy of me. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 02:53, 1 June 2012 (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.

File:C Cut003.JPG

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 Skier Dude (talk) 01:15, 2 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Invalid FUR--not discussed critically, but used for ornamental purposes. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 04:17, 31 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Sequence of the death of a hugely important character. The ramification are definitely discussed in the reception section.--Gen. Quon (talk) 21:34, 31 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - very important scene, death of Deep Throat is discussed in reception. Glimmer721 ^talk 17:26, 9 June 2012 (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.

File:Unruhe.jpg

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 Skier Dude (talk) 01:19, 2 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Invalid FUR--not discussed critically, but used for ornamental purposes. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 04:18, 31 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - The conceit of "psychic photography" is expounded upon in the production section quite a bit. Thus, this photograph illustrates the episode in the most effective manner.--Gen. Quon (talk) 22:20, 31 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - main point of the episode. Glimmer721 ^talk 19:31, 9 June 2012 (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.

File:Musings of a Cigarette Smoking Man TXF.jpg

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. Anomie ⚔ 02:40, 13 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Invalid FUR--not discussed critically, but used for ornamental purposes. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 04:18, 31 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - The scene, used by Glen Morgan "to show that the Cigarette Smoking Man (William B. Davis) was the most dangerous human being alive", [Production Section] is extremely important to the article. The actuality of the scene, among others, is discussed in the Reception section. Granted, the various previous versions of the picture can be deleted.--Gen. Quon (talk) 21:35, 31 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - per FUR. Glimmer721 ^talk 19:33, 9 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

DElete - "a standing man aims a rifle out of a window, from a darkened room" - covers it sufficiently well for me in text alone. The assertions by Gen. Quon are unsupportable - this image does not show that someone is dangerous or really have any other emotive result. - Image fails NFCC#8 and NFCC#1 as it could be covered by text alone. - Peripitus (Talk) 09:34, 28 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - gives the reader a visual representation of a scene apparently of importance to this episode. Such a representation does in fact add to the reader's understanding IMO. Magog the Ogre (talk) 09:09, 4 July 2012 (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.

File:Sleepless (X-Files).jpg

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 Explicit (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 03:57, 8 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Invalid FUR--not discussed critically, but used for ornamental purposes. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 04:18, 31 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Shot of Mulder and Kyrcek would be much better.--Gen. Quon (talk) 22:13, 31 May 2012 (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.

File:Duanebarry.jpg

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 Explicit (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 03:57, 8 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Invalid FUR--not discussed critically, but used for ornamental purposes. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 04:19, 31 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Shot of Duane in the alien's hands would be better, as its explained in the article.--Gen. Quon (talk) 22:12, 31 May 2012 (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.

File:Scullyouroboros.jpg

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 Explicit (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 03:57, 8 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Invalid FUR--not discussed critically, but used for ornamental purposes. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 04:19, 31 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Not needed.--Gen. Quon (talk) 15:45, 1 June 2012 (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.

File:X-filesascension.jpg

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. Anomie ⚔ 02:41, 13 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Invalid FUR--not discussed critically, but used for ornamental purposes. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 04:19, 31 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The image is referred to in the production section; it is something graphic the network originally did not want to air. Glimmer721 ^talk 20:28, 31 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Again, per rationale. Mentioned in the article.--Gen. Quon (talk) 21:36, 31 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - neither referred to or mentioned come within shouting distance of the required "significantly adds to reader's understanding". Purely decorative and fails WP:NFCC#8 - Peripitus (Talk) 11:14, 22 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - It's not merely "mentioned"... "Series creator Chris Carter commented that both the censors and the producers were reluctant on showing Scully in the trunk, but he "fought for that image" as he considered it conveyed the sense of danger to the character." This is directly from the article. The image helps the reader SEE what the issue the network had. Otherwise, it's just up in the air.--Gen. Quon (Talk) 03:50, 1 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - gives the reader a visual representation of a scene apparently of importance to this episode. Such a representation does in fact add to the reader's understanding IMO. Magog the Ogre (talk) 09:10, 4 July 2012 (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.

File:OneBreathX-Files.jpg

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 as F5 by Explicit (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 01:01, 19 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Invalid FUR--not discussed critically, but used for ornamental purposes. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 04:19, 31 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - The picture illustrates the supposed death of a main character. The entire subplot was created due to Gillian Anderson's pregnancy, which is discussed in the article.--Gen. Quon (talk) 21:37, 31 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - the idea would be better shown in a shot of her lying down in one of the dream sequences, which critics weren't a huge fan of. Glimmer721 ^talk 19:34, 9 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Changed my mind. Delete--Gen. Quon (talk) 01:41, 10 June 2012 (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.

File:Firewalker TXF.jpg

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 Explicit (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 03:57, 8 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Invalid FUR--not discussed critically, but used for ornamental purposes. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 04:19, 31 May 2012 (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.

File:RedMuseumX-Files.jpg

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 Explicit (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 03:57, 8 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Invalid FUR--not discussed critically, but used for ornamental purposes. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 04:20, 31 May 2012 (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.

File:Zero Sum TXF.jpg

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 Peripitus (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 13:08, 22 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Invalid FUR--not discussed critically, but used for ornamental purposes. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 04:20, 31 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - The picture's themes are discussed in whole in the article's body, including production, reception, as well as the "Purpose of Use" section.--Gen. Quon (talk) 21:39, 31 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - per FUR. Glimmer721 ^talk 19:36, 9 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Whatever it is that is of critical interest in this scene, the image doesn't help me understand it over and above what the text does, or easily could do. This is just two guys looking at each other. I don't even know which of them is supposed to be which, and who is threatening whom. Fut.Perf. ☼ 10:09, 17 June 2012 (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.

File:Aubrey TXF.jpg

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 Explicit (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 03:57, 8 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Invalid FUR--not discussed critically, but used for ornamental purposes. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 04:20, 31 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Not really that important.--Gen. Quon (talk) 15:42, 2 June 2012 (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.

File:DieHandDieVerletztX-Files.jpg

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 Peripitus (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 13:08, 22 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Invalid FUR--not discussed critically, but used for ornamental purposes. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 04:20, 31 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - The ramifactions of Mrs. Paddock and the themes she represents are expounded upon in the "Themes" section as well as the reception section.--Gen. Quon (talk) 21:48, 31 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. While the character is discussed in the article, the creative choices apparent in the visual details of this shot are not, so the image does not contribute to the discussion in a crucial way. While I can imagine that some such critical discussion might be feasible (there are some significant effects there that might have attracted critical attention), as long as it's not in the article, the issue is moot. Fut.Perf. ☼ 10:16, 17 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Actually, I've changed my mind to agree. If a picture is wanted, the "demon snake" or "frogs raining from the sky" is better for this purpose.--Gen. Quon (talk) 03:41, 20 June 2012 (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.

File:Irresistible TXF.jpg

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 Peripitus (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 13:08, 22 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Invalid FUR--not discussed critically, but used for ornamental purposes. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 04:20, 31 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Donnie Pfaster, the episode's main antagonist, and illustrated in this picture, is discussed in the reception section. Nick Chinlund, who played Pfaster, is critiqued in the production section. The hallucination itself (this scene) is discussed as well.--Gen. Quon (talk) 21:59, 31 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - main concept and theme of the episode, and the halluciantion was criticized by at least one critic. Glimmer721 ^talk 19:37, 9 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The critical discussion mentioned by Glimmer721 consists of a single sentence saying that somebody found "the scenes where Scully hallucinates Pfaster shapeshifting", "pretty silly". In the image, I cannot see "Pfaster shapeshifting" (in fact, the image is so small and indistinct I can hardly figure out what it shows), so there is no way the image can make a crucial contribution to my understanding of why the critic found the scene silly. Fut.Perf. ☼ 10:21, 17 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- How can you see someone shapeshifting in a still image? This is the scene in question, and its low resolution is preferable to a high resolution image, but a higher resolution shot could be put in the article. In addition, the image is based on accounts of Jeffrey Dahmer, turning into a devil (for lack of a better term), which is elaborated in the production section: it has its whole 1/2 a paragraph. Furthermore, what I find frustrating, is that this is referenced by outside commentary (Both in "Production" and "Reception"), is hard to describe in words, but it is still a "invalid FUR". It hardly lacks critical commentary AND its rather difficult to describe in words.--Gen. Quon (talk) 03:43, 20 June 2012 (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.

File:Colony TXF.jpg

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 Skier Dude (talk) 01:21, 2 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Invalid FUR--not discussed critically, but used for ornamental purposes. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 04:21, 31 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

~~Weak~~ keep - This image truly identifies the central point of the episode, even when the subjects themselves are not discussed often. If this is not the case, it needs an image of Samantha clones. --George Ho (talk) 23:55, 31 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
~~I would argue that the Samantha clones would be better.~~--Gen. Quon (talk) 23:57, 31 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
But the Samantha clones don't show up until "End Game". Glimmer721 ^talk 01:25, 1 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Opps, you're right. I'd argue Keep for this one then.--Gen. Quon (talk) 13:29, 1 June 2012 (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.

File:End Game (The X-Files) - submarine in antarctica.jpg

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. "Keep" rationales don't seem to reach WP:NFCC#8. Anomie ⚔ 02:50, 13 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Invalid FUR--not discussed critically, but used for ornamental purposes. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 04:21, 31 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - The use of ~~an actual navy ship~~ of the set and stage used for the episode is discussed in the production section. "One hundred and forty tons of snow and ice were trucked into a soundstage to create the scene with the submarine towards the end of the episode, and the stage had to be refrigerated for five days. The control tower scenery was able to rise or lower only five feet, leading to restrictions such as filming on black backdrops." etc. etc.--Gen. Quon (talk) 21:55, 31 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Response Then why not have a free image of a sub? This is a perfect example of where free media will work as a substitute--we don't need this sub image. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 02:54, 1 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I made a mistake. See above. Shots of the actual boat were used in a different article, but that article has a different pic that's FUR rationale is satisfied.--Gen. Quon (talk) 15:51, 1 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - gives the reader a visual representation of a scene apparently of importance to this episode. Such a representation does in fact add to the reader's understanding IMO. Magog the Ogre (talk) 09:10, 4 July 2012 (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.

File:Syndicatexfiles.jpg

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 Explicit (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 03:57, 8 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Invalid FUR--not discussed critically, but used for ornamental purposes. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 04:24, 31 May 2012 (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.

File:Opening Sequence TXF.jpg

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. Anomie ⚔ 02:52, 13 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Invalid FUR--not discussed critically, but used for ornamental purposes. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 04:24, 31 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - The sequence is discussed in detail in both articles, and thus fulfills its FUR rationale.--Gen. Quon (talk) 21:54, 31 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Response Do we really need a picture to understand that the credits changed? I can't see how this greatly aids in understanding as I can pretty much get the point of the text without seeing the actors name in the credits. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 02:55, 1 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- See George Ho's response. It aids in the commentary and is discussed in both articles.--Gen. Quon (talk) 15:53, 1 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - The Season 8 theme is part of critical commentary from sources primarily affiliated with the opening sequence. Also, the sequence is too hard to describe in words, especially with the fetus, the planet, and the "man falling into an eye-hole". The primary affiliates used opening sequence as a self-reference. --George Ho (talk) 05:12, 1 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Aids understanding perhaps but my understanding of the subject was far from significantly increased by seeing this. I am also very dubious of the text next to the image in the article, sourced as it is to commentary DVDs rather than a printed source......is it or is it not original research ? - Peripitus (Talk) 09:09, 28 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- 1) Is there some sort of objective "Understanding"-meter that we measure whether YOUR personal understanding is "significantly" rather than "slightly" increased. That makes no sense: you yourself said it helps understand, so boom. It's fulfilled its purpose. 2) How the hay does something being sourced to a DVD make it original research? Just because you have to hear it doesn't make it unreliable (also, there are things called sub-titles). You know, you could have just said you didn't understand the image without trying to discredit the project's research. That seriously offends me. Sheesh.--Gen. Quon (Talk) 23:10, 28 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - per George Ho. This title sequence actually does receive quite a bit of commentary. Magog the Ogre (talk) 09:12, 4 July 2012 (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.

File:Shadows-X.jpg

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 Peripitus (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 03:01, 10 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Invalid FUR--not discussed critically, but used for ornamental purposes. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 04:25, 31 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - The supernatural elements are commented upon in the reception section, with one critic calling them "a little corny". Furthermore, the effects are commented upon too.--Gen. Quon (talk) 22:11, 31 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Nothing in that illustration helps me to understand the text better. In fact, the illustration makes me understand absolutely nothing – I can't even figure out what it is supposed to show – which means I need the text to help me understand the image, not the other way around as it should be. Fut.Perf. ☼ 11:08, 9 June 2012 (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.

File:Gender Bender 1x13.jpg

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 Explicit (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 03:57, 8 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Invalid FUR--not discussed critically, but used for ornamental purposes. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 04:25, 31 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Not needed.--Gen. Quon (talk) 15:53, 1 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete- Image is replaceable. The inverted image looks cool, but there is no significance from non-primary sources. --George Ho (talk) 16:49, 2 June 2012 (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.

File:F-emasculata-xfiles-episode.jpg

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 Explicit (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 03:57, 8 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Invalid FUR--not discussed critically, but used for ornamental purposes. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 04:26, 31 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The boils are discussed in the production section. However, perhaps there is a clearer image of it. Glimmer721 ^talk 20:26, 31 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

There are clearer ones, so I will say, for this shot, Delete.--Gen. Quon (talk) 22:07, 31 May 2012 (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.

File:Emily TXF.jpg

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 Explicit (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 03:57, 8 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Invalid FUR--not discussed critically, but used for ornamental purposes. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 04:26, 31 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Sure, it indicates the guest character's funeral. However, this image is not very significant enough, but at least it identifies the episode. Nevertheless, this image is replaceable. I would suggest an image of Emily, which is significant, because the casting is mentioned in this article. --George Ho (talk) 16:43, 2 June 2012 (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.

File:BadBloodScreenshot.jpg

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. Anomie ⚔ 02:54, 13 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Invalid FUR--not discussed critically, but used for ornamental purposes. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 04:26, 31 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Ronnie's role as well as the effects are discussed in the production section.--Gen. Quon (talk) 21:52, 31 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - his appearance is only mentioned in a long unsourced section of the article. There is no (sourced) critical discussion of this character's appearance that this image is required, for significant reader's understanding, to support. - Peripitus (Talk) 01:16, 10 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - Ummm, unsourced? The entire section is sourced...--Gen. Quon (talk) 01:40, 10 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Deux - I would like to apologize, the info I thought was there wasn't, but I added it, and now the FUR rationale is truly satisfied. Also, the section isn't unsourced, it is ALL sourced to the ending reference, which is allowed, per sourcing rules, if sentences use the same source.--Gen. Quon (talk) 22:30, 10 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - This image is commented by sources and indicates that neither text nor image replace each other. --George Ho (talk) 23:42, 10 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Discussion of "funny fangs" and green eyes is cited and sourced (offline ref). Shouldn't the caption beneath the image also refer to the fangs/eyes in order to fully justify its use? -- Trevj (talk) 08:00, 29 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Response - Done.--Gen. Quon (Talk) 03:52, 1 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Special effects shown in the image are discussed (and sourced) within the article, mentioned in infobox beneath image and included in FUR. -- Trevj (talk) 06:55, 1 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - gives the reader a visual representation of a scene apparently of importance to this episode. Such a representation does in fact add to the reader's understanding IMO. Magog the Ogre (talk) 09:13, 4 July 2012 (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.

File:The Beginning TXF.jpg

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 Explicit (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 03:57, 8 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Invalid FUR--not discussed critically, but used for ornamental purposes. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 04:27, 31 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I think a shot of a gutted Rick Millikan would be better because it is actually described in the article's production section.--Gen. Quon (talk) 21:53, 31 May 2012 (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.

File:Two Fathers.jpg

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 Explicit (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 03:57, 8 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Invalid FUR--not discussed critically, but used for ornamental purposes. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 04:27, 31 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Shot of either the destruction of The Syndicate or Smoking Man killing Spender would be better illustrations.--Gen. Quon (talk) 22:08, 31 May 2012 (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.

File:Release TXF.jpg

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 Explicit (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 03:57, 8 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Invalid FUR--not discussed critically, but used for ornamental purposes. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 04:27, 31 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Adds nothing.--Gen. Quon (talk) 22:09, 31 May 2012 (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.

File:TheOfficePilot01.jpg

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 Explicit (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 03:57, 8 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Invalid FUR--image is not discussed critically, but used as decoration. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 07:09, 31 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Unless it is used in Michael Scott (The Office), I vote delete. This image adds nothing to the pilot episode of The Office and to help readers understand the pilot. Even captions and descriptions do not help at all. --George Ho (talk) 07:57, 31 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Why should we have two non-free images about a character on same article? §§AnimeshKulkarni (talk) 15:13, 31 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Adds nothing much to the Pilot episode. Of no use elsewhere also. §§AnimeshKulkarni (talk) 15:13, 31 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: It was there before I promoted it.--Gen. Quon (talk) 22:09, 31 May 2012 (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.

File:White rose.png

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 Explicit (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 03:57, 8 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Non-usable so-called free file. Looks like a screenshot of some non-notable website or a non-notable company. §§AnimeshKulkarni (talk) 15:09, 31 May 2012 (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.

File:Nikki in ollerton.jpg

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 Explicit (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 03:57, 8 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Orphan image. Description is not very specific. Is uploader = photographer? MGA73 (talk) 16:10, 31 May 2012 (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.

File:Noteworthysproul101705.JPG

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 Explicit (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 03:57, 8 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Orphan image related to the deleted article Noteworthy (a cappella group). MGA73 (talk) 16:16, 31 May 2012 (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.

File:Noteworthy0506hall.JPG

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 Explicit (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 03:57, 8 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Orphan image related to the deleted article Noteworthy (a cappella group). MGA73 (talk) 16:16, 31 May 2012 (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.

File:Noteworthy0304sproul.jpg

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 Explicit (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 03:57, 8 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Orphan image related to the deleted article Noteworthy (a cappella group). MGA73 (talk) 16:16, 31 May 2012 (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.

File:Noteworthy0304halloween.jpg

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 Explicit (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 03:57, 8 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Orphan image related to the deleted article Noteworthy (a cappella group). MGA73 (talk) 16:17, 31 May 2012 (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.

File:GreenLeft-2002.jpeg

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 Explicit (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 03:57, 8 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I do not understand how this image is supposed to meet the wp:NFCC. It is one of four similar non-free political posters used on the same page (3a, minimal use?). Of the subject (Paul Rosenmöller) several free images are available, and the slogan can just as easily be conveyed in text (1, no free equivalent)? I am also failing to see how this meets wp:NFCC#8, seems just for illustration purposes to me. Yoenit (talk) 19:33, 31 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete- Either available free image is fine for me. --George Ho (talk) 23:58, 31 May 2012 (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.

File:HousepetsHeader.png

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 as G7 by Skier Dude (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 02:03, 3 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Non-free image for deleted article Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 19:49, 31 May 2012 (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.

File:TheOffice(US)1-02.jpg

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 Explicit (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 03:57, 8 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Invalid FUR ---- Jrobb525 21:19, 31 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I don't know if this image indicates a central focus of this episode. Nevertheless, this image is too insignificant to influence the reader's mind. --George Ho (talk) 00:15, 1 June 2012 (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.

File:TheOffice(US)1-04.jpg

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 Peripitus (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 03:01, 10 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Invalid FUR -- Jrobb525 21:23, 31 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as a body image. I have moved it from infobox to Production section, so it makes more sense. This scene is discussed by the writer himself, a reliable primary source... or someone affiliated to the topic. Should have been reviewed first in WP:NFR --George Ho (talk) 00:08, 1 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I agree. This is mentioned in-depth in the production section.--Gen. Quon (talk) 15:54, 1 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The criterion is not whether the scene is "mentioned" or "discussed". The criterion is whether the illustration is required to make the discussion understood. It obviously isn't. This is just plain old cardboard box, for chrissake. Nothing in the picture helps me to understand the role of that plot element better than the text itself does. Fut.Perf. ☼ 11:05, 9 June 2012 (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.

File:TheOffice(US)1-03.jpg

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 Explicit (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 03:57, 8 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Invalid FUR -- Jrobb525 21:25, 31 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Not that significant in either the episode article or the character article. It comically identifies his office, but neither article discusses the character's office itself. Moreover, there is a free image in the character article. Therefore, this image is not needed. --George Ho (talk) 00:17, 1 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Agree.-Gen. Quon (talk) 15:54, 1 June 2012 (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.