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. I believe the nominator is withdrawing the nomination. -Nv8200ptalk 03:03, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
This is a frame from a copyrighted movie. It is being used to illustrate the article Bigfoot. However, it is not a picture of Bigfoot. It is a picture of a human in a Bigfoot suit. This is not a joke. Steve Dufour (talk) 13:53, 14 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Intriguing argument, and perhaps you are right: it may need to be removed from Bigfoot. However, it should not be deleted, as it appropriately illustrates the article on the Patterson-Gimlin film.--MrFishGo Fish 17:04, 14 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The subject of the frame is irrelevant in this case. As it is claimed to portray Bigfoot (or at least, a member of an unknown species of primate as described at the article Bigfoot), and as it is probably the most well known purported image of (a) Bigfoot, it is absolutely relevant to the article in question. Also, as MrFish notes, it's relevant to the Patterson-Gimlin film article as well. PowersT 21:48, 14 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Sorry, but they still haven't proved the movie wrong. In fact, it almost is impossible to be a human. On MonsterQuest, they officially said that no human could imitate the movements of the creature. So it is almost impossible for a human to be that Bigfoot. I personally believe it is something other than human, though it still may be a hoax.–Sidious1701(talk • email • todo) 01:47, 15 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It's hardly "official"... MonsterQuest is entertainment, not science. They got a single athlete to try to replicate the movements, which failed; interesting, yes, but you can't disprove a theory with a single counterexample. That said, I still think this picture should be kept in the article, regardless of whether it's "real" or not, because it is the iconic representation of Bigfoot; you can no more replace this than the classic fake picture that adorns our Nessie article. Not that my vote really counts as I'm not logged in... 78.105.167.145 (talk) 23:18, 17 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Keep it until you find a better picture. It's better than nothing. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.67.35.214 (talk) 05:46, 15 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
You could use a photo of one of the statues of Bigfoot. (Here's one from Wikimedia Commons: Image:Bigfoot-at-socrates-sculpture-park.png) This would be a depiction of Bigfoot, which the opening sentence of the article says is a figure in folklore. It also would not be a copyright violation. Steve Dufour (talk) 13:03, 15 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, yes it is a copyright violation. It's a photograph of a sculpture that is presumably copyrighted, and thus is a derivative work. Worse, the sculpture itself is obviously a derivative work from the very film frame which we're discussing above. If that's a copyright violation, that photo of the sculpture is worse. PowersT 03:20, 16 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I studied up on copyright law a few years ago since my wife is an artist and she had some questions. I seem to remember that a photo of a sculpture (or a building) is considered a new work of art. So there would be nothing wrong with either the statue or the photo. Kind of the same as Andy Wohol's Campbell Soup cans. (I am not a lawyer however.) Steve Dufour (talk) 05:17, 16 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
You are correct that it is a new work of art. However, it is a derivative work of art, and thus those portions that are derivative are subject to the same copyright protection as the original. Now, some countries have freedom of panorama provisions in their copyright law, but in the United States it applies only to architecture, not sculpture. PowersT 15:43, 16 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
As the nominator I removed the deletion tags from the picture and the article since I see that the consensus of interested persons is to keep the picture. If you still want to vote delete please go ahead and do that. :-) Steve Dufour (talk) 21:00, 19 March 2008 (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.
This image appears to be advertising a Web site and is not on any article. The user (Spinningwheel) shares the same name with the Web site and has made no other edits. – Zntrip 03:56, 14 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
This image appears to be advertising a Web site and is not on any article. The user (Spinningwheel) shares the same name with the Web site and has made no other edits. – Zntrip 03:56, 14 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
This image appears to be advertising a Web site and is not on any article. The user (Spinningwheel) shares the same name with the Web site and has made no other edits. – Zntrip 04:01, 14 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
These images are unencyclopedic. They are have uploaded for the article about the hotel chain Intown Suites with the intention of giving an unverifiable negative portrayal of the chain. Two display a room that has been used but not cleaned, and one displays drug paraphanalia. The two displaying the room pictures are intended to make the chain's rooms look dirty, but really look more like normal room usage (I, the nom, used to be a hotel maid, and I saw that regularly). Besides being inappropriate, there is also no proof that the drug paraphanalia comes from an Intown Suites room. More appropriate images for this article would be the outside of an Intown Suites building, or the clean, unused interior of a room. Tatterfly (talk) 17:37, 14 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Clearly unfair. I also tagged the article POV. More than half was an attack by unknown persons. Steve Dufour (talk) 21:46, 14 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
