Wikipedia:Files for deletion/2011 May 13

< May 12	May 14 >

May 13

File:NewYorkIslandersFisherman.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 Peripitus (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 03:13, 21 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Replaced by File:New York Islanders logo (1995–97).svg. Raymie (t • c) 01:41, 13 May 2011 (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:Islanders.gif

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 ⚡ 03:13, 21 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned non-free logo, superseded by File:NY Islanders.png.

I had to reduce the image size for the .gif, so I figured while I was at it I would change the file format over to one that wasn't horrid in almost every way (non-animated files should never be .gif because .gif kills the quality.) Sven Manguard Wha? 04:15, 13 May 2011 (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:Pdlmap.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 ⚡ 03:13, 21 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned low quality map with no description. Sven Manguard Wha? 05:18, 13 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I think its replacement was File:North America USL Premier League Map 2011.png Its coverage area is similar. Raymie (t • c) 01:50, 17 May 2011 (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:Hitachi SET exterior.jpg and File:Hitachi SET interior.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 Interior shot and No Consensus on the exterior - Peripitus (Talk) 11:54, 5 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This is an non-free image provided by the preferred bidder for a train that hasn't been ordered yet. The image was released two years ago, and specfifcation of the train as changed since then. I can't see how this image "its presence would significantly increase readers' understanding of the topic, and its omission would be detrimental to that understanding." and thus fails WP:NFCC#8 Edgepedia (talk) 06:15, 13 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete There's a nice free image on the page where this is used that does just as good a job. Sven Manguard Wha? 06:32, 13 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
No, because that's what the IEP is replacing. What you are effectively suggesting is that it's appropriate to have a picture of George Bush as the infobox image for Barack Obama. -mattbuck (Talk) 09:11, 13 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Not at all. In keeping with your example, I'm saying that you shouldn't put a picture of Obama into the infobox (and remove the one of Bush) for 'President of the United States' until Obama is sworn in. In other words, this is an image of an object that does not exist, but will exist in the near future. When the new trains are brought into service, then you can take a photograph of one of them, release it under a free license, and stick it into the article. Until that point, you're dealing in speculatives (what if the train ends up looking different? What if the whole thing gets canceled tomorrow? I'm not saying never, I'm saying wait for it to become real (and freely accessible). Sven Manguard Wha? 19:59, 13 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep (as uploader) - it has been well-established that artists' impressions of trains that haven't been built or were never built are acceptable - see British Rail Class 341 and 342. I fully agree that the images are replacable in time - but not yet, as the train hasn't been built and it is therefore impossible to have a free image of it. I say that both images here do help provide understanding - the interior shot can be used for critical commentary on seating arrangements and how much like a cattle truck it is; whilst the exterior shot, as well as giving an idea of what we're all talking about, helps for comparison to the Bombardier Voyager, Alstom Pendolino, and other Hitachi high speed trains. -mattbuck (Talk) 09:11, 13 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- "The internal seating arrangement is of XX rows per car of four seats, two on each side of the train, separated by an isle. Even numbered rows face towards the back, rather than forward, a common design feature among modern trains (draw a free diagram of that style of seating if you want). The color scheme is expected to be blue." That's pretty much what the internal image describes, so I'd say it fails NFCC#8. Your stronger case is the external view, however I addressed that above. Sven Manguard Wha? 19:59, 13 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  - As for British Rail Class 341 and 342, the artist impression there is acceptable because the train will never be built, so there is no free option, and never will be. In this case, there will be a free option, you just have to wait a while for it. Wikipedia does not have to be complete in a day, and not everything has to have an image. Just wait it out. Sven Manguard Wha? 20:11, 13 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep exterior, Delete interior. The exterior is certainly new and is the upcoming replacement. As such, it has not yet been constructed. Once it IS constructed, there is no viable FUR on WP as it is replaceable. The interior seems like any other train and does not enhance any description. — BQZip01 — ^talk 04:34, 16 May 2011 (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:REV.J.J.Ellis & Family.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 Peripitus (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 03:13, 21 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Unused image, very dubious PD-Self release. Sven Manguard Wha? 06:28, 13 May 2011 (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:Muammar Gaddafi speech, 22 Feb 2011.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 Peripitus (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 03:13, 21 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This irreplaceable non-free image shows a man on a irreplaceable event: A given speech. Non-free images should comply to all itens on WP:NFCC, and not just a few. No matter how good an image is passing one of the criteria, it can only be used if it passes all of them. This image fails WP:NFCC#8, since seeing this still frame from the discussion does not add much to the understanding of the text about the speech itself. PLEASE make sure you underantand what it's meant by NFCC is not multiple choice before ever commenting here. You can save us all lot of stress. Damiens.rf 17:32, 13 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I've half a mind to say "replace with File:ZengaZengaYouTubeClip.png" and build a little bit of support in article for that image.
- @Damines: Pre-empting people by assuming that they're going to fail to understand reliant policy dosen't seem advisable. I'd also advise you to keep in mind that different people can, with full policy knowledge and sound judgement, come to different conclusions as to whether or not a given image violates a given NFCC. For example, as I am sure you are aware, I have a less strict interpretation of NFCC#2 than you do, and a more strict interpretation of NFCC#8 as it applies to still copyrighted art than well... most anyone. Let's not beat contributors with a stick before they even say anything please. Sven Manguard Wha? 19:50, 13 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  - I'm not beating anyone, just warning about a common mistake. My experience tells me this is not only useful, but sometimes necessary. At the end of this FfD, please pay me 10 cents for each "keep! - irreplaceable" or "keep - <insert text about how it fulfill some criterion other than 8" we see. --Damiens.rf 20:03, 13 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    - I know the pain of dealing with people that don't know image policy. If it's a consistent problem, consider crafting a nice message and sticking it in the editnotice for the FfD group. Sven Manguard Wha? 20:09, 13 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      - I'll consider that. But next time take such concerns to my talk page since they are irrelevant for the deletion discussion in question (it's the deletion discussion that is relevant to them). --Damiens.rf 22:41, 13 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Nothing in this image is unique/historical. The speech itself is notable, but not the image. — BQZip01 — ^talk 04:37, 16 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep No words can convey body language. Just look at the defiant way his clenched fist is raised. So much can be garnered from this. Chesdovi (talk) 23:07, 16 May 2011 (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:Elyah Lopian.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 ⚡ 03:13, 21 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Nothing known about the origin or about the copyright holder of this photo. Uploader simply scanned it from somewhere. We can't safely claim fair use in this case. While NFCC#1 would most likely allow a non-free image of this man since he's dead, the other criteria must be met. Damiens.rf 18:08, 13 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Other images exist that can provide a clear copyright lineage. — BQZip01 — ^talk 04:39, 16 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note This image was taken from hewiki: [1] with a Creative Commons tag. Chesdovi (talk) 18:25, 16 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

So, it comes from another wiki but again there is no verifiable source, unless you can point us to one. ww2censor (talk) 17:07, 17 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Have left a note at the uploaders user page. Chesdovi (talk) 17:45, 17 May 2011 (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:Hurva Synagogue in Apocalypse Tomorrow.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: deleted. The standard given by NFCC #8 is "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." That the text of the article didn't even mention the photo makes it difficult to accept that this standard is met. --B (talk) 02:59, 14 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Non-free movie still from a youtube video barely mentioned in the article. Damiens.rf 18:10, 13 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The whole section "Rededication and response" revolves around this still. It illustrates comprehensivly the lenghts detractors went to to show their anger and pain at the rebuiling of the synagogue. Without this imagry, the understanding of the magnitude of the reaction is wholly diminished. Chesdovi (talk) 22:46, 16 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- No. The section didn't even mentioned the video until a recent edit (after the FfD start) moved the caption text to the last phrase in the section. The section now just mention the existence of the video: "In September 2010, Hamas released a propaganda video showing various Israeli landmarks, including the Hurva synagogue, ablaze after coming under missile attack.[62] The images were the result of special effects, as no such attacks had taken place.". This still does not significantly increases the readers' understanding of that phrase. --Damiens.rf 16:23, 17 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  - No. The image illustrates the whole anti-synagogue mood that prevailed at the time. "Khaled Meshaal of Hamas described the synagogue's opening as "a declaration of war" and called it a "falsification of history and Jerusalem's religious and historic monuments." The section has a whole host of anti-synagogue statements some made by those who support Hamas, the producers of the video. Chesdovi (talk) 16:33, 17 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    - If I may intervene, the photo illustrates the use of special effects to fictionalise the burning of a Jerusalem landmark. Such an image can be described in words, but without precision and certainly without impact. --Dweller (talk) 08:52, 18 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      - Well, there isn't much critical commentary about the techniques used in the special effects sequences... correct me if I'm wrong, but what is relevant for the passage is that a video was produced and distributed including fake scenes of important buildings being burnt. --Damiens.rf 15:13, 18 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - in addition to what Chesdovi says, I've tweaked the article so the relevant text is now in the body copy, not the caption alone. --Dweller (talk) 15:25, 17 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I've read through the article (nice read) and cannot see what significant understanding I am supposed to have gained by seeing this still. I understand what the synagogue looks like from the other images and have no issue imagining fake imagery of it damaged and on fire. Exactly how the fire/damage was depicted seems and irrelevant technical detail - the important thing is that the fake imagery was created and text alone can adequately cover this - Peripitus (Talk) 21:57, 22 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Commentary on image in article text. Meets fair use requirements. Jayjg ^(talk) 16:23, 23 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The inflammatory (literally) image serves no purpose whatsoever, as the verbal description of Hamas propaganda video is sufficient. That is unless you want Wikipedia to be a tool of terrorism.Eliyyahu (talk)
- Let the closing admin know hereby that not every one arguing for the deletion of this image agrees with the rationale above. --Damiens.rf 19:41, 29 May 2011 (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:DSC00475.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 Sven Manguard Wha? 04:36, 14 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

A nice image of an island, however there is no indication as to what island it is. A message was sent to the uploader two months ago, and there has been no response. As this is unidentifiable, it's really not usable.

Note to closing admin, please salt the file name, per existing policy on "DSC##" names. Sven Manguard Wha? 19:39, 13 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - it's Netrani Island - take a quick look at the guy's 4 contribs. -mattbuck (Talk) 20:45, 13 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Facepalm Shoulda checked there. File is now named File:Netrani Island, India.jpg. Withdrawn. As per above/below, don't be surprised at the redlink. Sven Manguard Wha? 04:36, 14 May 2011 (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:DSC00785.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 Sven Manguard Wha? 03:58, 14 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Image has no description, is unidentifiable. A message was left two months ago asking what this was an image of, and there has been no response.

Closing admin: Please salt this name on the way out, per it being a DSC## name. Sven Manguard Wha? 20:57, 13 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - identified based on contribs[2]. Calliopejen1 (talk) 01:10, 14 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for that Calliopejen.

Withdrawn. Image is now File:Ramakkal Mettu, Theni District, Tamil Nadu, India.jpg. Don't be surprised if the DSC name redlinks, those tend to get deleted and salted because DSC## style names are nondescriptive default names. Sven Manguard Wha? 03:58, 14 May 2011 (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:Kagan New York Times obituary.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 ⚡ 00:02, 23 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Unnecessary non-free scan of a newspaper. Damiens.rf 23:12, 13 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This is probably one of the most intersting clippings I have ever come across. There is no way to convey the style and layout of the article in writing. Chesdovi (talk) 18:18, 16 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Really? You could simply quote the entire thing and say it was written in "Times New Roman"? — BQZip01 — ^talk 20:41, 16 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Totally not. Since this is a clipping from 1933, it is necesarry to see how it looked in print then, very different layout and style. There are various typefaces in use and different sizes too, with interveing lines. This is a historic image for an extremally notable person. Chesdovi (talk) 22:42, 16 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Completely replaceable. — BQZip01 — ^talk 20:41, 16 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
No, we need to see how it looked to people who read it at the time, it giving an insight into the way things were repoted then. Chesdovi (talk) 22:42, 16 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The impact in using the newspaper article is that the NYT covered and gave as much space as they did to a Jewish rabbi in Poland. Does not convey in the text. Joe407 (talk) 03:22, 17 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Chesdovi's argument that we need to see "how it looked in print" is unconvincing and alarming in that accepting such an argument would open the door for many of Wikipedia's articles to start duplicating old non-free images of newspaper articles. --Pseudo-Richard (talk) 07:45, 17 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Per Joe407. Very illustrative. This is >50 years old, so how should it be protected by copyright law? JFW | T@lk 13:03, 17 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Are over-50s protected or not? Chesdovi (talk) 15:36, 17 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It's complicated. Basic homework for discussing the answer involves reading WP:COPYRIGHT and Wikipedia:Public domain and the fair-use rationale stored with the image itself. The short answer is that the image is likely copyrighted but could probably be used in a "fair-use" rationale. It would still be copyrighted if the NY Times renewed its copyright. I have no knowledge of whether it did that for this specific article. However, one would expect the NY Times to be very savvy about copyright law and to have renewed copyrights for everything that it could. So... it is copyrighted but it can be used in a "fair-use" context. :::The next question is whether we should keep it because it's "non-free". "Non-free" means that the image can only be used in a "fair-use" context. Wikipedia policy asserts that we should not have "non-free" images on our servers if a suitable free replacement can be substituted. There is no suitable "free" replacement since every replacement would still be a non-free picture of the same copyrighted article and thus subject to the same "fair use" restrictions. The only question left is whether we need to have non-free pictures of newspaper articles at all. I am opposed to opening the door to such a practice.

--Pseudo-Richard (talk) 16:40, 17 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: clearly fails WP:NFCC#8 as it is easy to replace the image with prose. What the New York Times layout looked like does not add anything to the reader's understanding of the topic. You can of cource use the specific NYT article as a citation to enhance the reader's understanding with the need to use a non-free image. ww2censor (talk) 16:59, 17 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Cite the article if it's useful. What it "looked like in print" really isn't important... J Milburn (talk) 00:04, 18 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. First, it almost certainly is under copyright; the New York Times began renewing periodicals dating back to April 1 1928; see [3]. Under U.S. copyright law, it will be copyrighted until 95 years after its first publication. Certainly we can convey any necessary information with text. The obituary is purely decorative. I agree with Pseudo-Richard about precedence; certainly, we can't replicate copyrighted obituaries for every deceased individual with an article on Wikipedia, and there is no exceptional reason given that this one is required. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 12:22, 18 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fascinating, and I'd love to read the rest of it, but really insupportable I'm afraid. --Dweller (talk) 09:13, 19 May 2011 (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:Wailing Wall, Palestine Post 1934.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 ⚡ 00:02, 23 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Unnecessary non-free scan of a newspaper. While the event reported on the news is notable, displaying a scan of a newspaper do not adds enough to the article to justify the use of a non-free image. Damiens.rf 23:25, 13 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I don't think in the text we would report that such occurrences made the newspapers. We have not used any newspapers as sources either. Showing a newspaper cutting shows how the seemingly insignificant action of blowing a ram’s horn made the headlines, itself illustrating a notable fact. Chesdovi (talk) 18:16, 16 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
"I don't think in the text we would report that such occurrences made the newspapers." Sure we can. We say, "Event XYZ was reported in the ABC newspaper on the (pg #)th page." — BQZip01 — ^talk 20:42, 16 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Would we, after the incident and reaction has been dealth with in the article? Adding such a extra sentence would be surplus to the textual flow. Giving undue weight to one report we happen to have would be rather strange. Chesdovi (talk) 22:37, 16 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Completely replaceable. — BQZip01 — ^talk 20:42, 16 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It's not. We need to see how it looked in print. Chesdovi (talk) 22:37, 16 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Chesdovi's arguments could be used to justify the scanning of just about any substantial newspaper or magazine article. This is clear copyright infringement. ---Pseudo-Richard (talk) 07:37, 17 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: clearly fails WP:NFCC#8 as it is easy to replace the image with prose. What the newspaper layout looked like, or how much space it took up in the newspaper, does not add anything to the reader's understanding of the topic. You can of course use the specific article as a citation to enhance the reader's understanding with the need to use a non-free image. Without critical commentary about the specific image justifying the use of the image, it cannot be used here. ww2censor (talk) 17:04, 17 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Cite the article if it's useful. What it "looked like in print" really isn't important... J Milburn (talk) 00:05, 18 May 2011 (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:Wailing Wall Road, 1967.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 Peripitus (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 00:02, 23 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

We don't have to show a non-free picture of Jordan road sign on the Western Wall to talk about the time when Jordan controlled the Wall. The relevant visual information is redundant to the free textual information in the article. Damiens.rf 23:31, 13 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I am not sure if this type of sacrilege could be conveyed sufficiently in writing. Chesdovi (talk) 18:11, 16 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The image doesn't purport to show any sacrilege. What are you talking about? — BQZip01 — ^talk 20:44, 16 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The wall's stones are considered holy in Judaism. Can you imagine a road sign plastered upon the Kaaba? Saying "Jordan placed a road sign on the wall" does not convey the visual shock and horror of such willful desecration. Chesdovi (talk) 22:31, 16 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No evidence of notability; completely replaceable with text (i.e. "Person A and Person B met at the Wall"). — BQZip01 — ^talk 20:44, 16 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Chesdovi's arguments for keeping the argument are original research. The picture might be useable in the way he describes IF it could be shown that a reliable source made the argument that Chesdovi makes and used that specific sign on the Wailing Wall as an example of "sacrilege". Absent a citation to such a reliable source, there is no apparent justification for keeping a non-free image such as this one.
Keep Chesdovi has provided two quotes which suggest that this particular image is notable due to an anecdote about Ben-Gurion's request for the sign to be removed. (see my dialogue with Chesdovi below)--Pseudo-Richard (talk) 07:34, 17 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Even in such case, we would not need a photo to explain they used road signs on the Wersten Wall. This is simply the kind of information that can easily be conveyed with text. --Damiens.rf 09:43, 17 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  - The "shock horror" effect would certainly be lost. PR asked for a RS. He obvioulsy has no idea of the veneration the wall is held in. Ben-Gurion specifcally asked that the sign be removed after the old city was taken in '67. Chesdovi (talk) 11:29, 17 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    - Please provide a link to article text with an appropriate citation that makes this point and I will reverse my position. --Pseudo-Richard (talk) 15:31, 17 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Which point exactly do you request? It is common knowlegae that Ben Gurion asked for its removal. His reason was obvious. Chesdovi (talk) 15:34, 17 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with Damiens.rf's comment below about not needing images to evoke an "emotional state on the reader". However, what I'm looking for in my comment above is proof that there is a specific Wikipedia article that needs to make this point about Ben-Gurion (it could be an article about the liberation of East Jerusalem, about the Wailing Wall or whatever). I just want to see that there is suitable text that needs this particular image to support it. If you cannot find such an article then your arguments above seem very hypothetical. If there is a concrete example where the editors of an article say "Yeah. We need to point out that this sign was on the Wailing Wall and it was considered a sacrilege to the point where the objections to it by people like Ben-Gurion were notable (i.e. the objections were documented in the press which I assume they were) AND we need to have an image of the sign in this article." I note that the image is used in Western Wall but there is no accompanying article text to explain what the image is depicting. The current caption "Jordan affixed a road sign to the Wall" is insufficient. I think we either need to delete the image or provide a fuller explanation of why it is relevant to the Western Wall article.--Pseudo-Richard (talk) 17:02, 17 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

There are two sources I have found:

"Ben Gurion saw his heart's desire of 1948 come true and hurried to the Old City. Near the Wailing Wall stood the Jordanian road sign in Arabic and English bearing the Arab name of al-Buraq. Al-Buraq was the legendary horse which the Al-Buraq was the legendary horse which the Prophet had ridden from that spot in his flight to heaven, and which is revered by the Muslims for that reason. Ben Gurion asked for an axe and knocked off the ceramic lettering of the word. "This is the greatest moment in my life." [4]

"I went with Ben-Gurion for a first visit to the Old City and was present when he asked that the street sign "Wailing Wall Road" in Arabic and English be taken down. It was the end of an era for Israel, as well as for me personally. (Thought this refers no doubt to the overall capture of East Jerusaelm, the Waling Wall and the act of purification the climax.) [5] ---Chesdovi (talk) 17:28, 17 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Excellent. Of course, my !vote won't necessarily save the image but I think what needs to be done is that the text you found needs to be presented in an article (either Ben-Gurion or Western Wall) and then the image will become more obviously needed. The current caption in the Western Wall article ("Jordan affixed a road sign to the Wall") is lame. The text that you provided above helps to explain the significance of the image. Put it into a Wikipedia article. --Pseudo-Richard (talk) 00:55, 18 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hope this does the job. Chesdovi (talk) 15:17, 18 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I do not doubt this was seen as a sacrilege. But still, this is a sacrilege that does not need an image to be understood. We don't use non-free images to provoke "shock horror" or to inflict any special emotional state on the reader. --Damiens.rf 16:30, 17 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

But we do use them to increase the readers understanding and appreciation of the issue. Chesdovi (talk) 16:34, 17 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Not in a significant way. --Damiens.rf 16:58, 17 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I've no doubt that this image displays something of significance, but, equally, I have no doubt that such a thing could be conveyed in words. J Milburn (talk) 00:09, 18 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per discussion between Pseudo Richard and Chesdovi. --Dweller (talk) 08:58, 18 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- That whole discussion failed to address the very point raised on the nomination: "The relevant visual information is redundant to the free textual information in the article." --Damiens.rf 15:18, 18 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  - The adage “a picture is worth a thousand words” comes to mind. Chesdovi (talk) 15:23, 18 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment
- I think the arguments posted by J Milburn and Damiens.rf ("The relevant visual information is redundant to the free textual information in the article.") are not relevant to the discussion. Most pictures can be described using text and thus, using Damien's argument, no non-free image should be kept on Wikipedia servers. I don't think that line of reasoning helps us here.
- However, Chesdovi's argument “a picture is worth a thousand words” does not provide any justification that the use of the image in this article falls under the "fair use" exception either since all pictures are worth a thousand words and thus Chesdovi's argument could be used to support all non-free images. That argument doesn't help us either.
- The metadata attached to the image file asserts no "fair use" justification than that "no opportunity now exists to create a free-licence variant of this image.". This assertion is true since the sign is gone and won't be replaced in the foreseeable future but I'm not sure if this fact is adequate to assert a fair-use rationale.
- The "fair use" licensing template says "Use of historic images from press agencies must only be used in a transformative nature, when the image itself is the subject of commentary rather than the event it depicts (which is the original market role, and is not allowed per policy)." The Wikipedia article comments on the event, not on "the image itself" and so it seems that our use of this image does not qualify as "fair use".
- I would like to point out that although the source is given as Vision Media Productions, that website attributes the photo as being "Courtesy Israel Government Press Office". I think it would be worthwhile to investigate what the copyright status of pictures provided by the Israel GPO is. I assume the photo is not in the public domain since Vision Media would not have been obliged to attribute the picture to the Israel GPO if it was.
- Here is the web page that outlines the rights asserted by the State of Israel's National Photo Collection. I'm guessing that this is where Vision Media got the image from. Sorry, Chesdovi, but I don't see how we can justify using this non-free image.
- Based on the above points, I'm reluctantly leaning towards "Delete". I'd like to hear what other editors think of these points.

--Pseudo-Richard (talk) 01:02, 19 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

- - Of course it's not the first, second or 103th time I hear this fallacy on a FfD discussion, but no, my argument does not implies the deletion of all non-free images. I'm not saying the image can be "described using text", as your failed understanding concluded I did. Not every pixel on the image and it's relative position is relevant to the article. What's relevant, even according to those voting keep above, is that a road sign was posted on the Wall, and this relevant information can be described by text. The shape of the sign, the position it was put on the Wall, the angle of the photography, the look on the face of the soldier... this is all not significant for the article. And that's why this photo, when used in this article as it's bing used, is replaceable by free text.--Damiens.rf 02:14, 19 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    - I intend to crop the image so we only have the sign, as I have now added text about the sign it events surroundong it. Chesdovi (talk) 16:53, 19 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Nothing in the various keep arguments can defeat the basic deletion argument that the precise visual details of the sign are simply not relevant to the issue. Chesdovi's edit that he said "does the job" [6] indeed does so: it renders the image superfluous. (At the same time, I notice that the actual image caption wasn't modified when the image was cropped recently, making the image caption blatantly nonsensical. The fact that apparently nobody noticed or cared about that also throws a negative light on the whole claim that the image is so terribly crucial.) Fut.Perf. ☼ 08:16, 21 May 2011 (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.