I'm going to argue against not just this, but that entire rule. This image only shows the illustraion from the MSoE entry in Who's Who. It does NOT show the actual text entry, and thus leaves plenty of reason to buy the original comic, not hurting the market value at all. Thanos6 (talk) 01:17, 24 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Unfortunately "content" is not limited to "just text" or "text and image". The prohibition is there to prevent the re-use material from other encyclopedias and like publications, period. Pulling a non-free image from one of those, especially if it was commissioned explicitly for that reference work, put Wikipedia in the position of directly competing with that reference work. Further, the Wiki article serves the same purpose as the original reference work: to delineate the members and use of the team of fictional characters. Saying that just pulling the image "leaves plenty of reason to buy the original comic, not hurting the market value at all" does not fly. Arguably, the image is going to be the only major difference between the article published by DC and the article on Wiki. Use of the image then dose reduce or eliminate the value of the other reference work. - J Greb (talk) 01:42, 24 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Non-free content is acceptable in some circumstances, but we shouldn't be taking material from other encyclopedias. -- RG209:09, 24 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Tell you what. Though I think this rule is stupid, and indeed will fight for it to be changed to my dying breath, in this case, I think we can make a compromise. Leave the image alone for a couple of days until I find a replacement, and I won't bother to argue this anymore. Deal? Thanos6 (talk) 02:46, 25 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Realistically, unless there is a clear, pressing copyright violation involved, material added to the IFD takes a minimum of a week to clear. Just like a CfD. So by all means, if you can find an appropriate image that isn't 1) from a reference source and 2) compiled from 2 or more other images, upload it under an appropriate, different file name. Substitute that for where this image is currently used. And orphan this one. It'll still run through the IFD process, and the notice tags need to be in place until that point, or the image is replaced. - J Greb (talk) 04:38, 25 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This is a previous image that appears to have been taken down, edited so that it includes the phrase "ACLU Bible Burning" on the movie theater's marquee (it clearly was not on the original marquee because it is in a different font than the other messages on the marquee), and then put up on Wikipedia, claiming to be an accurate portrayal of downtown Berkley, Michigan. It is also a "user-created" image as opposed to one from a reliable website; the user in question appears to be the previous account (stanthejeep) of the user who uploaded it. It should be deleted and replaced with a more accurate photo that includes no editing Beggarsbanquet (talk) 03:04, 24 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=delete){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=history){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
