Wikipedia:Files for deletion/2010 November 26
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
November 26
[edit]
- 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. The keep !votes failed to adequately explain based on policy (WP:NFCC#8) about why we need to include a non-free image of the signing ceremony when the picture's specific details are neither discussed in the article nor in the caption. In addition, the replacement image was unsourced, and therefore had to be discounted entirely, as I would have had to delete the replacement image regardless of the outcome of this discussion (thus this close was made as if the original, sourced image were still the active image). SchuminWeb (Talk) 09:05, 4 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- File:Signing of the Maastricht Treaty.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) – uploaded by Ssolbergj (notify | contribs | uploads).
- Yes, the treaty was important, and yes, its signing was important, but it is not at all clear what this picture adds to the article. It appears to fail WP:NFCC#8, meaning it cannot be used. J Milburn (talk) 18:37, 26 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete you don't need this image to understand the concept of the EU, fails WP:NFCC Fasach Nua (talk) 19:10, 26 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I understand what you meant, but I want to clarify that the file is used in Maastricht Treaty, not European Union. Cheers, -- Black Falcon (talk) 23:08, 28 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep The aim of the image has never been to help people "understand the concept of the EU". This file is used in the Maastricht Treaty's article. The signing ceremony is described there, and the reader's understanding of the signing is clearly enhanced by the use of this one image. The image is very informative, and has by the way been nominated and kept before, which I think ought to be mentioned.- SSJ t 13:32, 27 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- What you say appears to be wrong. There is no discussion of this ceremony, only a discussion of the details about when different nations signed. J Milburn (talk) 19:38, 27 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep The signing of the Maastricht Treaty is a historic event that marks the inception of the European Union. The initiation of the deletion procedure seems to be nothing else than a vandalism act with no serious intention. Seniorfox (talk) 21:25, 27 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Well, that's the first time I've been accused of vandalism in a long time. The argument you make is a good one to keep the article Maastricht Treaty- it is not a good one to keep a non-free image of a room with chairs in. The fact something is important and warrants coverage does not mean we need to upload a load of non-free images to illustrate it. Please take note of our non-free content criteria. J Milburn (talk) 22:20, 27 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment You might say that it's been a long time since you've been accused of vandalism, but your past on Wikipedia is clearly irrelevant. Regarding what's being discussed in the article: the signing ceremony (and the exact location) was actually specifically described in the article. I've expanded it now. -SSJ t 01:47, 28 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Seniorfox, vandalism requires a purposeful attempt to disrupt or harm Wikipedia. No matter how much you think that the deletion of the image would be detrimental, nominating it is not vandalism unless you also believe that the nomination was made in bad faith. My request to you is: please do not assume bad faith in the absence of unambiguous evidence, consider retracting that portion of your comment, and let's focus on the image rather than the editors. Thank you, -- Black Falcon (talk) 23:08, 28 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Well, that's the first time I've been accused of vandalism in a long time. The argument you make is a good one to keep the article Maastricht Treaty- it is not a good one to keep a non-free image of a room with chairs in. The fact something is important and warrants coverage does not mean we need to upload a load of non-free images to illustrate it. Please take note of our non-free content criteria. J Milburn (talk) 22:20, 27 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per non-free content criterion #8: "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." (emphasis added) The inclusion of the image, particularly as it is fairly non-specific (i.e., nothing in the image itself clearly ties it to the Maastricht Treaty, and it could just as easily be some other international meeting), does not increase readers' understanding of the topic, and its omission would not hurt that understanding. All this image shows is the hall/room, filled with people, where the treaty was signed; it is no more informative than File:Provincial Government Buildings on the Meuse.jpg, but it does (apparently) happen to be non-free. -- Black Falcon (talk) 23:06, 28 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment "could just as easily be some other international meeting"? "nothing in the image itself clearly ties it to the Maastricht Treaty"? Well, the 12 EC member states' flags, the decoration and setting of the signing ceremony (e.g. flower decoration, the signing table in the middle with the plenipotentiaries sitting in an unusual circle around it and even the treaty itself) are all visible. This is not a general shot of a hall; this concerns a special event which had a specific, memorable look. A generic shot of the complex of buildings from 2005 simply can't be compared to a photograph illustrating what the 7 February 1992 leaders' signing ceremony of the Treaty looked like. - SSJ t 00:33, 29 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I see what you mean, but the image itself is so small that most of what you mention is barely visible. The flags are barely distinguishable, none of the individuals can be recognized, and the flower decoration is just a colorful blur. The image has two dominating features—the ceiling pattern (not unique to the meeting, I assume) and the attendees (as a group)—and neither one ties the image to the meeting or helps readers' understanding of the topic. In the context of "illustrating what the 7 February 1992 leaders' signing ceremony ... looked like", the image is just too small. Even a larger image would be borderline without a clear explanation of how, exactly, it improves readers' understanding of the topic. -- Black Falcon (talk) 01:17, 29 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I've uploaded an improved image, where the important things are more visible. - SSJ t 18:07, 29 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Why does it matter what these things look like? Was the setup of the room significant in any great way? The mere fact an event is important does not mean we need to use a non-free image to illustrate it. J Milburn (talk) 18:10, 29 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The signing ceremony is really the most iconic moment for each of the EU treaties. The signing is written about in the article, and a picture of the signing ceremony says 'more than a thousand words'. For people who care to learn about the Maastricht Treaty, this one shot embodies the history of the treaty. I'm aware that WP:OTHERSTUFF exists, but I'd like to say that it would be absurd to let articles of artists such as Michael Jackson to have snippets of the discography (in this case: Thriller among others), if the article of an historical treaty can't have the image which is quintessential to it, namely the photo of its signing. The photo of a treaty's signing is to the treaty what a film's poster is to the film or a book's cover is to the book. - SSJ t 18:33, 29 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Why does it matter what these things look like? Was the setup of the room significant in any great way? The mere fact an event is important does not mean we need to use a non-free image to illustrate it. J Milburn (talk) 18:10, 29 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I've uploaded an improved image, where the important things are more visible. - SSJ t 18:07, 29 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I see what you mean, but the image itself is so small that most of what you mention is barely visible. The flags are barely distinguishable, none of the individuals can be recognized, and the flower decoration is just a colorful blur. The image has two dominating features—the ceiling pattern (not unique to the meeting, I assume) and the attendees (as a group)—and neither one ties the image to the meeting or helps readers' understanding of the topic. In the context of "illustrating what the 7 February 1992 leaders' signing ceremony ... looked like", the image is just too small. Even a larger image would be borderline without a clear explanation of how, exactly, it improves readers' understanding of the topic. -- Black Falcon (talk) 01:17, 29 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment "could just as easily be some other international meeting"? "nothing in the image itself clearly ties it to the Maastricht Treaty"? Well, the 12 EC member states' flags, the decoration and setting of the signing ceremony (e.g. flower decoration, the signing table in the middle with the plenipotentiaries sitting in an unusual circle around it and even the treaty itself) are all visible. This is not a general shot of a hall; this concerns a special event which had a specific, memorable look. A generic shot of the complex of buildings from 2005 simply can't be compared to a photograph illustrating what the 7 February 1992 leaders' signing ceremony of the Treaty looked like. - SSJ t 00:33, 29 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry JMilburn, you clearly seem to have no serious intention here other than attacking or questioning valuable content to Wikipedia. The Signing Ceremony is a clearcut historic event specifically illustrating location and time of a new era in the history of the European Union. You arguments demonstrate that you have not understood the purpose of images at Wikipedia in general. Seniorfox (talk) 11:20, 30 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Look, non-free content can only be used (no matter how badly you feel I "have not understood the purpose of images at Wikipedia in general") if its usage meets the NFCC. I am saying I cannot see how this image meets point 8. What is it adding? J Milburn (talk) 01:21, 1 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Strong keep. It represent a pivotal moment in the history of the EU, i.e. the fundation of the EU, it is helpful to show the development of the EU and of the European institutions, it is important to understand the modern European Union. ----insilvis (talk) 05:28, 1 December 2010 (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.
- 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. The keep arguments failed to indicate via policy exactly how understanding of the concept would be hindered by not having this photo present. Just because an image is historic does not make it any more or less acceptable as a non-free image. In other words, one does not get a free pass on non-free by claiming "historic". I am not considering the presence of another, similar image that exists on Wikipedia, nor its uses. I am only considering this image in its use on European Union. SchuminWeb (Talk) 22:57, 4 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- File:Schuman Declaration 2.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) – uploaded by Ssolbergj (notify | contribs | uploads).
- Disputed speedy. The moment may be highly significant, but that is a reason to talk about it, not a reason to use a non-free image to illustrate it. This image adds nothing and fails NFCC#8. J Milburn (talk) 18:43, 26 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete you don't need this image to understand the concept of the EU, fails WP:NFCC Fasach Nua (talk) 19:10, 26 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep This concerns one isolated event that was crucial for the formation of the EU, and I would say that the reader's understanding of this episode is significantly enhanced by the use of this image. - SSJ t 13:38, 27 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Erm, ok, the event's important. It does not follow from that that "the reader's understanding of this episode is significantly enhanced by the use of this image". The image has to show something that needs to be shown, not show something which happens to be something important. There's a fairly clear difference between the two. Equally, for instance, the publishing of J. K. Rowling's first book is clearly "one isolated event" which was "crucial" for her career, but it does not follow that we slam in a picture of the book's cover, or a photo of her handing a manuscript over, or something like that; what these things looks like is not in and of themselves important. J Milburn (talk) 19:36, 27 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Historic event. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Seniorfox (talk • contribs) 21:25, 27 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- That has nothing to do with anything. You can't claim something is a historic event and that, therefore, we need a non-free image of it. We have a policy on this; non-free content is used as a last resort. J Milburn (talk) 22:20, 27 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - Unlike the photo being discussed above, this photo is not non-specific. It quite clearly shows a particular moment in history (and is perhaps even iconic), and could not just as easily be used to illustrate some other event or moment. However, the file may fail the requirement of "minimal usage" because of the existence of File:Schuman Declaration.jpg. Perhaps one of the two should be kept (I write "perhaps" because I have difficulty thinking how use of the image would increased readers' understanding of the topic), but probably not both. -- Black Falcon (talk) 23:30, 28 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Yeah, it shows a particular moment in history. Why does that moment need to be shown? Yes, it's an important event, so, by all means, discussion of it is warranted in the article in question, but that does not mean we need an image. Reader understanding is not furthered in any way by the use of this image. J Milburn (talk) 00:08, 29 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Yes, you're right. If no plausible explanation exists for how the image increases readers' understanding of the text, then I'm basically arguing myself toward a
(weak, semi-reluctant)delete, especially considering the issue of WP:NFCC#3. -- Black Falcon (talk) 01:22, 29 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Yes, you're right. If no plausible explanation exists for how the image increases readers' understanding of the text, then I'm basically arguing myself toward a
- Yeah, it shows a particular moment in history. Why does that moment need to be shown? Yes, it's an important event, so, by all means, discussion of it is warranted in the article in question, but that does not mean we need an image. Reader understanding is not furthered in any way by the use of this image. J Milburn (talk) 00:08, 29 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Strong keep. Historical moment, it is the beginning of the process of the European Integration, it is helpful to understand the development of the European institutions. ----insilvis (talk) 06:36, 1 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- How does it help to "understand the development of the European institutions"? Also, what reason is there to have two images: this one and File:Schuman Declaration.jpg? -- Black Falcon (talk) 21:47, 4 December 2010 (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.