Wikipedia:Images and media for deletion/2007 August 25

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the media below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the media's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was

[edit] Image:KaiserPerm.jpg

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

• UE LO This picture is a nondescript street scene. It is a mediocre snapshot, poorly composed, and does not illustrate in an encyclopaedic way the minimal description. I would support the replacement of this picture by one that is well composed and executed and that is capable of adding true value to the article(s) it may be intended for. If this were a paragraph in an article instead of a picture it would have been re-copywritten almost at once. Fiddle Faddle 07:38, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

Keep I disagree that the image is worse than no image at all. Until a newer, better image is present, it should stay. That's pretty much the long and short of it. - Richfife 15:20, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

• kepp it is not a nondescript scene, its a hospital. there is not present alternative this is an amateur collaboration, the removal would detract significantly from the illustration of downtown Richmond, Richmond, and Richmond Medical Center articles. its not a world class picture but unless your expect it to be its great for wikipedia. its like to including pictures of the san francisco earthquake because they are in black and white, color shots are just not available, if a bettwe image comes along we can replace it but until then it should stay. no image would be zero value, this image a lot of value.no it would not be copywritten at once. if it were an essay i would give it a B+.Cholga^talK! 23:13, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

• Comment It is currently in use in Richmond, California to illustrate "Shopping". To me that emphasises my view that it is a nondescript street scene. If you peer very hard you can just make out some lettering on the building. I fear your B+ would be unduly generous and would fool the student into believing their work was substantially better than reality. We do not strive for mediocrity on Wikipedia, we strive for greatness. Fiddle Faddle 23:28, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

• Keep. Not really a nondescript image since it clearly show the subject. Also I found your comment extremely pov. Greatness is different for everyone. Just because you think it is ugly, doesn't mean it shouldn't be in the article. Chris! _{my talk} 02:24, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

• Comment This part of Wikipedia is where a point of view is expressed. This is a discussion about whether a picture is to be kept or deleted, thus everyone's opinion here is a point of view. This picture is not ugly. It is, instead, badly composed, and does not show in any meaningful way, the subject material. It is not a picture that would be included in any print media, nor framed in this manner by, for example, news media running a story on the hospital. It's a snapshot of the "This will do" variety. Fiddle Faddle 06:45, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

no not really, image to be deleted should be deleted on the basis of arguements rooted in policy, altho the addition of your opinion is just fine, i believe straw man arguements are not allowed.71.142.84.165 00:20, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

• Keep If we need a better picture, I recommend requesting one here or on the article's talk page. 17Drew 02:55, 26 August 2007 (UTC)
• Keep - If Fiddle Faddle doesn't feel it is up to standard, s/he is welcome to take a new one to replace it. But until s/he does, this photo serves quite nicely to illustrate the Kaiser article. Jeffpw 10:14, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

• Comment If I lived anywhere nearby I would do just that, I'd have replaced the picture in the article(s) and not felt the need to suggest strongly that this one be deleted and replaced with a better one. However I am separated from the place by several thousand miles. The point is to create a better encyclopaedia by striving always for the best and realising that sometimes serious pruning creates a better end result. Fiddle Faddle 10:54, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

• Comment You keep saying that you want to create a better encyclopedia here. But this deletion proposal is doing the opposite. Wasting our time discussing this nonsense is not the right way yo improve wikipedia. Chris! _{my talk} 00:34, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

• Keep, it's public-domain and potentially encyclopedic. If it's at some point superseded by a better free image, we can always consider deletion then. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 20:25, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

the kaiser article has not been deleted yet, that is simple under discussion furthermore, it is used on the Richmond, California article and I high doubt a city with 103,000 people which is projected to have 130k+ people by 2020 will have it's article deleted anytime soon.Cholga^talK! 00:22, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

• Keep No reason to delete until a better photo is made available.--Knulclunk 00:54, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

Image kept per consensus. -Nv8200p talk 17:42, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the media's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the media below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the media's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result is delete. This use fails WP:NFCC#8. — Carl (CBM · talk) 14:24, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Image:Caen.jpg

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

• Image is a logo, but is used in the San Francisco article to illustrate a brief blurb mentioning this journalist. The history and culture of San Francisco is amply illustrated by the multitude of free images in that article, a nonfree logo is not a significant addition, and the journalist's role is explained perfectly well by text. Therefore fails nonfree image criteria #1 and #8. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 08:18, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

• Keep This is, in fact, the sole image used in the subsection on the city's Media. It is valuable to the article for illustrating the style and sense of humor conveyed in what the article describes as "northern California's most widely circulated newspaper" and its "famous" columnist Herb Caen. No reasonable amount of text could convey with any precision the information about style and tone that this image does.—DCGeist 16:34, 25 August 2007 (UTC)
• Keep Image and its caption uniquely conveys the fame and humor of Caen, as well as his connection to San Francisco and the San Francisco Chronicle. This is especially true for anyone who lived in San Francisco Bay Area from 1940 until Caen's death in 1997 and read his columns. The whimsical bending of the skyline in the logo together with the quote also uniquely convey the style and mutual love between Caen and the City to non-San Francisco residents. Image is well known in San Francisco, and is now tied to its culture. It appears in a F-line trolley car that is dedicated to Caen, and along the Embarcadero, a portion of which has been named "Herb Caen Way...". Image adds substantially to other parts of the San Francisco article besides the media section, by increasing understanding of San Francisco's quirky style and the love the city receives from its long time residents.--Paul 20:26, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

• Delete, this logo isn't mentioned in the article, and neither the article nor the subsection is about the journalist. – Quadell ^{(talk) (random)} 13:59, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

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 article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the media below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the media's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was

[edit] Image:Donniedarkoskelcostume.jpg

Image:Donniedarkoskelcostume.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Extraordinary Machine (notify | contribs).

• This non-free image doesn't significantly increase readers' understanding of the topic of the article (fails WP:NFCC #8). The performance of Jake Gyllenhaal in Donnie Darko is significant for the article, but the screenshot is used only to decorate the article. The fair use rationale explains the image is used to represent the artist in action, but not why this significantly increase readers' understanding of Jake Gyllenhaal. There is already a free image used to show what Jake Gyllenhaal looks like and the looks of Jake Gyllenhaal in Donnie Darko are not discussed in the article. Ilse@ 09:38, 25 August 2007 (UTC)
• Keep - I have no doubt that you're a well meaning Wikipedian, Ilse@, but your argument for deleting is ill founded. The image is used to illustrate the paragraphs dealing with Jake Gyllenhaal's breakthrough in this film. Two paragraphs deal in total or part with the film. It's not just "decorative". Jeffpw 10:11, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

  I think one can't interpret "significantly increase readers' understanding" the way you do. I also think you shouldn't have removed the "ugly tag" from the caption of the image, just because the article is a FA. – Ilse@ 10:44, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

  I removed the tag not only because it was ugly (which it is), but also because it is redundant. As the image itself is tagged, and assuming you followed Wiki protocols and etiquette regarding notifying involved editors (you did do that, didn't you?) then there is no need to place the tag on the article page itself. Jeffpw 11:25, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

  I followed the procedure to nominate an image for deletion. – Ilse@ 20:01, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

• Keep The image illustrates the sentence "Gyllenhaal manages the difficult trick of seeming both blandly normal and profoundly disturbed" pretty well. 17Drew 11:37, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

  If that is the purpose of use of the image this should be mentioned in the fair use rationale. Also, if this is the purpose, the text of the image caption should be more specific. – Ilse@ 11:58, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

  {{sofixit}}. Adding that would be just as easy as commenting here. And there's no need to have it in the caption. The image is to illustrate all of the discussion from the article, not just that sentence, so identifying the image so that readers can read the corresponding part of the article is sufficient. 17Drew 13:23, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

  The text referred to here doesn't mention the looks of the actor. – Ilse@ 20:01, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

  Who said anything about Gyllenhaal's looks? 17Drew 19:51, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

  It is mentioned in the last sentence of my nomination. – Ilse@ 20:23, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

• Keep I am one of the people who has been editing the Gyllenhaal article recently, and no, I didn't get notification of this. The image, with the skeleton shirt, does reflect the covert disturbance of him in this breakthrough performance, which is discussed in the paragraph above. If you think that the caption should be more specific, then by all means, help yourself, the edit button is available. Wildhartlivie 12:02, 25 August 2007 (UTC)
• Delete, nonfree images are not allowed in living person articles, and that's the only thing this is used in. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 14:10, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

  Was there some recent change to the policy? Last I checked, copyrighted images are allowed in articles about living people, just not ones "of a living person that merely shows what s/he looks like". It even gives Billy Ripken and Demi Moore as examples of articles where copyrighted images are properly used. 17Drew 14:26, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

  In the case of Ripken and Moore, exceptions are generally warranted, because the images themselves are iconic, and there's plenty of source material which discusses the specific image. If you can show me the source material that discusses this specific image (not the concept it represents, that's the difference!), I'll happily change my mind. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 15:07, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

  The sources don't need to discuss this image; nothing in WP:NFCC says that they should. The sources discuss his role in the film, and any depiction of him in character is going to be copyrighted. 17Drew 15:17, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

• Keep Crucial image depicting actor in one of his most notable roles, if not the most notable. The image does not show Gyllenhall in his daily life, but in character--with a particular and remarkable costume, a particular demeanor, and in the context of the film in which that character appears. The image directly provides us information about a certain type of character Gyllenhaal was cast to play and, specifically, about his breakthrough role. No free image or text could adequately convey the variety of information that this image does.—DCGeist 16:40, 25 August 2007 (UTC)
• Keep, per - wtf?--Esprit15d 21:01, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
• Keep, There is a Wiki license tag provided for screenshots, but no clear explanation of why a screenshot can be used. This nomination for deletion is just one example of the destructive atmosphere on Wikipedia, that instead of helping improve what is added in good-faith, too much time is wasted trying to delete, destroy, and cover the tracks of any attempts to refute it. Rugz 00:12, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
• Comment – When information about the looks of the actor in Donnie Darko would be added to the article text and when the text of the image caption would point out the significant information in the image, then I believe the image should be kept. As long as this is not the case, the image is only decoration and should be deleted. – Ilse@ 20:24, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

  Wikipedia:Non-free content criteria says that the image must "significantly increase readers' understanding of the topic". It's wikilawyering and patronizing to the reader to say that the purpose of the image must be explicitly stated in the caption. 17Drew 20:54, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

  I don't think anybody wants to patronize, but I think the caption should establish the relevance for the article. A quote from Wikipedia:Captions: "A good caption explains why a picture belongs in an article." – Ilse@ 21:48, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

  The caption already does that. It establishes the relevance of the image by linking it to a section of text discussing his role as Donnie Darko. 17Drew 04:21, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

  We should be strict here, because this image is used in a featured article for which supposedly "no further editing is necessary". In the previous is suggested that the image's purpose of use is to show the actor's looks or the specifics of his performance. The image caption does not refer to his looks and/or the specifics of his performance. Furthermore, his looks are not even mentioned in the article, and the specifics of his performance are mentioned in the article only once in a single sentence quote (N.B.!) from Dan Kois ("Gyllenhaal manages the difficult trick of seeming both blandly normal and profoundly disturbed"). The image doesn't makes me understand better what is meant in the text (the quote), it only decorates it. Therefore it fails WP:NFCC #8. – Ilse@ 12:44, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

  Could you point out where it was stated that the purpose of the image was to show how Gyllenhall looks (or how his character looks)? You're the only person I've seen state that in this discussion (and the fair use rationale didn't say that before or after you nominated the image). From the comments here, it seems there is a consensus that the image does a good job of showing what Gyllenhaal's breakthrough role was and why it was a breakthrough (his ability to contrast being disturbed with appearing normal). The article discusses his role, and the image helps convey to the reader why Gyllenhaal's role as Donnie Darko was significant, regardless of whether or not the caption does; Wikipedia:Non-free content criteria mentions media in the context of the article, not the caption. 17Drew 04:26, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

  How can the image's purpose be not to show what Jake Gyllenhaal looks like in the film Donnie Darko and at the same time show Gyllenhaal's breakthrough role? You contradict yourself here. The reason why it was a breakthrough role is based on one quote, which should remain a quote (text) because otherwise the purpose of use of the image is POV / original research. – Ilse@ 23:35, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

  [outdent] I didn't say that the purpose of the image was limited to showing "what Jake Gyllenhaal looks like in the film Donnie Darko". I said it shows what his character was and why it was his breakthrough role. Also keep in mind that an image of an actor is not the same as an image of a character. Were it just illustrating what Gyllenhaal looks like, it'd be replaceable. But it's not; it's being used to illustrate discussion of a character he plays. 17Drew 00:37, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

• Comment Since Jake Gyllenhaal is protected, this image has not been able to have its caption edited to reflect its status as a deletion candidate here. It seems to me that this discussion should run until a reasonable period has elapsed after an admin has added that to the caption within the article, or this discussion runs the risk of building an improper consensus. Fiddle Faddle 21:54, 3 September 2007 (UTC)
  • The correct "in article caption" addition has now been placed in the article Fiddle Faddle 06:51, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

Kept. The informed consensus seems to be that the image contributes important, encyclopedic information that could not be portrayed with text or free images, therefore passing NFCC #8. – Quadell ^{(talk) (random)} 14:04, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the media's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the media below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the media's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result is delete. — Carl (CBM · talk) 14:32, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Image:Gwenharlow.jpg

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

• This non-free image doesn't significantly increase readers' understanding of the topic of the article (fails WP:NFCC #8). There are already many free images for this article to identify the various looks of Gwen Stefani. The performance of Gwen Stefani in the film The Aviator is significant for the article Gwen Stefani, but the image only decorates the article. The article doesn't discuss the looks of Gwen Stefani in the film. The fair use rationale mentions "used for informational purposes" and to "illustrate major points in the subject's career", – can be said of any image – but doesn't specify the purpose of use for this particular article. Ilse@ 10:03, 25 August 2007 (UTC)
• Keep The presence of free images in other sections has little effect on whether or not this image contributes to discussion of her acting appearance. This picture shows how her casting was influenced by a Marilyn Monroe-inspired photo shoot, which is discussed in the article; if you'd like me to add that to the rationale, I can. 17Drew 11:35, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

  If this image is used to show to the similarities between Gwen Stefani in the Teen Vogue photo shoot and Marilyn Monroe, it should be replaced by a photo from that shoot (and placed next to a Marilyn Monroe photo). If the image is used to show the similarities between Gwen Stefani in the Teen Vogue photo should and her role in The Aviator, then a photo from the Teen Vogue shoot should be added for comparison. It is a good idea to add more information about the similarity to the image caption. – Ilse@ 20:18, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

  Adding an image from the Vogue photo shoot would go against Wikipedia:Non-free content criteria#3: "Multiple items are not used if one will suffice." The Vogue shoot is discussed much less extensively than her role as Jean Harlow, and this image illustrates her similarities to the blonde bomshells well enough. Adding details to the caption narrows the usefulness of the image since it only connects it to smaller portions of the text, rather than how it is currently connected to most of the second paragraph in that section. Regardless, that's an editorial concern that shouldn't matter in whether or not to delete this image. 17Drew 04:34, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

• Delete This is a nonfree image in a living person article, and said article is already full of free images. Image is not only replaceable but replaced, doesn't get any clearer than that. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 14:09, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

  Replaced with what? "An image of a living person that merely shows what s/he looks like" is replaceable. That would apply if the image were being used, say, in the infobox. However, this one is not being used to show how she looks but rather to illustrate her film appearance, with discussion of how/why she was cast for it. If you think you it's possible to take a picture of her in character, please let me know. 17Drew 14:24, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

  That could be possible, sure, it depends if she still does it. But even if not, we have plenty of images to illustrate what she looks like, we don't need one of her for every way she's ever looked. We don't need a replacement for that exact image, just free images which will be adequate to illustrate the article or the possibility thereof, and the free images here are more than adequate. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 15:01, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

  You're right that there are many images of how she looks; they don't affect how much this image contributes to this article. This image shows the character that she played for discussion of the role. Most of the others are simply decorative, showing her performing a song mentioned in the text. The only irreplaceable one would be Image:Gwen-Stefani.jpg (which is decorative), since one can just take a picture of her performing the songs while she's on tour right now. That doesn't have any effect on the fact that this picture is being used to illustrate discussion of her acting role. 17Drew 15:23, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

• Keep Again, this is a valuable image depicting the performer in her notable film role. The image does not show Stefani in her daily life, but in character--with a particular sartorial style, demeanor ,and in the context of the film in which that character appears. The image directly provides us information about a certain type of character Stefani was cast to play and, specifically, about this important role. Note also that she plays Jean Harlow, a famous Hollywood actress--sensible readers understand that Stefani's appearance in the role is particularly significant. The article's reference to her casting in the role and its relation to a "a Marilyn Monroe-inspired photo shoot" only further underscores the value of this imageto the article. No free image or text could adequately convey the variety of information that this image does.—DCGeist 16:53, 25 August 2007 (UTC)
  • I would like to hear an argument why the image – we can agree on the significance of the film role – is significant for the article Gwen Stefani. The image is not from the photo shoot for Teen Vogue and the article doesn't mention a direct connection between this image and the photo shoot (only indirect), although a sensitive reader might speculate about such a connection. – Ilse@ 21:37, 1 September 2007 (UTC)
• Deleted This picture is not free. The principe of WP is Free Encyclopedia to be agree with only on solution DEL. Mikani 22:34, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

  The fact that the image is copyrighted is not a reason to delete; as I'm sure you've noticed copyrighted images are allowed with several restrictions. If you believe that the image does not meet one or more of the requirements, please explain why. 17Drew 01:39, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

• Weak delete. In an article about the character or the role, we all agree that the image would pass our criteria. If this particular role were significant enough to have its own section in the Gwen Stefani article, then I would say this passes. But this image is used in a section that describes all of her non-musical projects, including movies, games, doll marketing, etc. I think this use (barely) fails NFCC#8. – Quadell ^{(talk) (random)} 14:10, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

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 article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the media below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the media's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was

[edit] Image:Musharraf on the Daily Show.jpg

Image:Musharraf on the Daily Show.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Klingoncowboy4 (notify | contribs).

• This non-free image doesn't significantly increase readers' understanding of the topic of the article (fails WP:NFCC #8). The image doesn't contain any significant information not already in the text of the article. Ilse@ 20:46, 25 August 2007 (UTC)
• While image may not contain information not already contianed it text it does help the reader. A long page of text can seem difficult for a reader. A healthy level of images (not used to access) can make an article for user friendly. While this alone probably does not make this particular image qualify under policy it is still worth being said. Kc4 17:18, 26 August 2007 (UTC)
• Keep Image is valuable per se, illustrating the notable appearance of a foreign head of state, the president of a nation that plays a crucial role in U.S. foreign and military policy, on an American comedy/news show. In fact, the image does contain significant information additional to the text of the article--it demonstrates how the Pakistani president chose to present himself--both in style of dress and demeanor--in this significant media context.—DCGeist 17:35, 26 August 2007 (UTC)
• Delete Klingoncowboy4's comments essentially establish that the image does a nice job of decorating the article and doesn't fulfill any informational purpose. The things that DCGeist states that the image illustrates aren't mentioned anywhere in the text; it includes his name in a list and later says, "Musharraf has to date been the only sitting head of state to appear on The Daily Show." The article doesn't discuss what he did on the show at all, so the image only illustrates the fact that he made an appearance, which is adequately conveyed through text. 17Drew 07:11, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

• Indeed, the things I state that the image illustrates aren't mentioned in the text. They're illustrated by the image. That's one of the purposes of an image such as this--to convey certain sorts of information that are transmitted and understood much more effectively via visual content than textual content. A student who comes to this article will learn valuable information about the intersection of contemporary media and politics and the presentation of political leaders within that context simply by looking at the picture within the context of this article. In this way, the image adds definite value to the article specifically and to Wikipedia as a whole; deleting the image impoverishes the article and the encyclopedia. If text was the best means for expressing everything, we wouldn't need images at all...indeed, we really wouldn't need eyes.—DCGeist 07:24, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

A student would learn these things if it were discussed in the text and illustrated with the picture. But they're not, and the image essentially illustrates the fact that he appeared on the show, which is adequately conveyed through text. I also fail to see how the image illustrates "bomb-sniffing dogs and a bulletproof facade for the anchor desk". 17Drew 21:58, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

On your first point, such explicit discussion in the text of the article would be both inappropriate and unnecessary. We trust our readers to make connections and draw inferences from visual content just as we do from textual content. If we didn't trust our readers on the latter, we would have to write on, say, a third- or fourth-grade reading level. We presume a bit more of our readership. Likewise, we can rely on our readers to derive information from visual content that isn't laboriously spelt out--in fact, by judicious inclusion of pictures such as this one, we indicate to the reader that it has information of value beyond that which immediately relates to the article text. On your second point, the visual representation of Musharraf's demeanor clarifies that the "bomb-sniffing dogs and a bulletproof facade for the anchor desk" were fully intended as jokes.—DCGeist 22:39, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

• Delete, the text perfectly well conveys what the picture conveys, that he appeared on the Daily Show. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 07:49, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

• Follow-up/Action taken For what it's worth, section has been edited and a quote added to explain show's political significance that further details Musharraf's appearance.—DCGeist 08:05, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

Image deleted per non-free content criteria #8. The image is decorative and not needed to explain the show's political significance. -Nv8200p talk 14:04, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

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.