Wikipedia:Images and media for deletion/2007 October 12

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 keep. The main point in this discussion is whether the image satisfies the significance criterion, that is whether it increases the reader's understanding of the subject. Most illustrations often contain extra information that could not be adequately covered by text. Using pure text without the image would be difficult to express the situation, thus not having the same educational purposes as including the image (per point 3 of the resolution). It is up to the uploader to provide a convincing rationale on the image page to explain why this is so. And having read the description, they have done so. It isn't practical to ask for evidence to show a picture's significance, simple common sense should be preferred, since significance is extremely subjective. Some people in the world could understand the subject without the help of an image, many others cannot. I respect the opinions of the people who commented delete, but just because a number of people disagree with the explaination doesn't mean everyone else in the world would too. In fact, with a rationale clearly written, the benefit of the doubt is given to the uploader.--Alasdair 09:23, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Image:Time evolution wars.jpg

Image:Time evolution wars.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Kenosis (notify | contribs).

• Image of a Time magazine cover that was used in the featured article Intelligent Design and was deleted via a prior IFD discussion. Consensus at deletion review was that the closer properly identified the key issue of concern that the IFD had revealed, but the evaluation of that issue is a matter of community consensus and the closer improperly substituted their judgment on the issue for an evaluation of the community consensus thereon, which was not particularly obvious in the first IFD anyway. So DRV has sent it back for a community discussion on whether or not the use of this image in Intelligent Design#Controversy met WP:NFCC#8 and the other criteria for use. Due regard should be paid to the guideline WP:NFC. The article, as it was at the time of the original IFD, using this image, can be seen at this diff. WP:NFCC#8 says "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. Non-free media files are not used if they can be replaced by text that serves a similar function." This is a technical nomination on my part. Opiners both keep and delete are strongly encouraged to explain how and why the image fails or meets the criteria, not merely to assert that it does or does not. GRBerry 02:51, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
• Delete per WP:NFCC#8. As stated by several people supporting the use of the image, the image functions to emphasize the importance of the controversy. It is not used to "significantly increase readers' understanding" but rather for the image's impact. Plus, the article is already quite thorough in detailing the controversy over intelligent design, so there's already no need for an image to do so (especially since the cover is briefly mentioned in the article, and there's nothing there that's hard to understand without seeing the cover). 17Drew 05:33, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
• Keep as an obvious example of fair use. In theory, no image is strictly necessary to an article, since any image can be described in natural language. Applying WP:NFCC#8 to these cases where the image is obviously beneficial (albeit not necessary for the article's existence) is essentially akin to a blanket ban on fair use images, which is not reflective of communal consensus. As Neal himself noted, this is a rather subjective judgment call, and as such it should be left to the community. — xDanielx ^T/_C 06:06, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

  Neither "strictly necessary" nor "beneficial" is the threshold for including images. It must "significantly increase readers' understanding". 17Drew 07:40, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

  Yes; I'm familiar with the policy. I'm sure you could say "contributes insignificantly" a lot of times without running out of steam, and I could do the same with "contributes substantially." At the end of the day (or five days, rather), we can't just pull out the tape measure and see who's correct. Evaluating the significance of an image's contribution is a rather idiosyncratic process which relies on a subjective, nonquantitative metric and an arbitrary, also nonquantitative standard of significance. We could continue a proof by assertion-driven debate, or we could resolve it through analysis of editors' collective opinions. The former would result in an arbitrary decision; the latter would result in a consensus-based decision. — xDanielx ^T/_C 08:37, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

  Except you didn't address how it affects the readers' understanding at all. The arguments I've seen from people supportings its use is that it makes an impact on the reader, not that there's anything better understood because of it. 17Drew 20:48, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

  This is already addressed on the image page, as well as in the previous IfD. "The image shows an important public dimension of the controversy over intelligent design." "The image gives immediate identification for a reader of the section entitled "Controversy" in the article on intelligent design." "This image adds explanatory power through the intended first visual impact for the intended audience of the magazine." "The image of the magazine cover provides useful information for identifying and locating the magazine in a manner that prose cannot." — xDanielx ^T/_C 02:46, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

  None of that would be harder to understand without the image. The fact that Time had a cover story about intelligent design is well understood without having to see an image of the cover. "Immediate identification" does not increase the readers' understanding; it simply gives an initial idea of what the text is about, without actually providing specific information. The third sentence is almost meaningless. "Explanatory power"? All it amounts to is that the image makes an impact, not that anything is better understood because of the image's presence. The last one is simply confusing; why do people need to be able to find a copy of the magazine in order to understand the controversy over intelligent design? Presumably they should be able to do so by reading the article and never actually have to read the Time article. 17Drew 22:56, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

  Visual memory. Visual learning. Yay? — xDanielx ^T/_C 07:31, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

  Our policy favors learning from text; nonfree images that can be adequately replaced by text are not allowed regardless of whether they might support "visual learning". Also, readers can locate the Time article based just on its publication date; card catalogs don't reproduce the cover images of magazines... — Carl (CBM · talk) 01:35, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

  Again, such a stringent interpretation would mandate deleting virtually all fair use images, since it is virtually impossible to find an image that cannot be "adequately" described in text (and thus could "adequately" be replaced by text). Such an interpretation does not reflect the rough consensus of the community. In theory readers could go find the image themselves, but since (virtually) no one will do that, I don't think it's worth considering. — xDanielx ^T/_C 02:14, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

  We allow nonfree images only so that famous contemporary art like Guernica (painting) can be illustrated, and so that we can include corporate logos such as Microsoft. Otherwise we would allow no nonfree images at all. The point is that nonfree images are avoided unless the images themselves carry great significance. The fact that an image is relevant to an article doesn't imply its use is significantof that its omission is detrimental to the reader. Those latter criteria need to be established to keep the image. — Carl (CBM · talk) 14:48, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

  Funny, I don't remember reading "only if the image is famous or of great significance" in either the policy or the guidelines. I think Carl is exaggerating the point here. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk 15:19, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

  It's the entire motivation for the foundation resolution allowing us to use nonfree images. See point 3 of the resolution. — Carl (CBM · talk) 18:12, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

  "Their use, with limited exception, should be to illustrate historically significant events,..." -- such as the confluence in the ID debate of Kansas & Dover in 2005. No mention of "great significance" or "famous", so my point that Carl was exagerating would appear to be proven. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk 03:05, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

  This image doesn't illustrate an event at all. The photo Image:Tianasquare.jpg is an example of what that part of the resolution is referring to. The cover art on the Time article is nothing more than a decorative work intended to encourage readers to buy the magazine. No evidence whatsoever has been presented that the cover artwork itself drew any particular attention or commentary on its own (apart from the article), nor that the cover art itself is historic, iconic, well known, or anything beyond decorative. — Carl (CBM · talk) 13:40, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

  The historically significant event is the intelligent design controversy. TIME specializes in identifying historically significant events, which includes historically significant topics of discussion. The whole point of TIME putting a highly creative illustration of the controversy on the cover in the way they did was that it was significant. The Board didn't say "events with earthshattering global repercussions"; it said "significant events". And an event doesn't need to be a discrete confrontation that happened in one day or at one moment, but certainly includes protracted events that can be reduced to a single image, which is precisely what the Tienanmen Square student-standing-in-front-of-a-tank does, and precisely what this image does w.r.t. the intelligent design controversy. ... Kenosis 14:20, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

  (←) If this image is truly as notable as Image:Tianasquare.jpg, you should be able to provide some links to published sources who have talk about the cover image itself (not the article itself, but the actual cover art). A simple test would be ask whether this image has been reproduced by multiple magazines, as the Tienanmen Square image was. Has any other media source thought the cover art was important enough to reproduce and talk about? If not, this supports my contention that this is just a decorative illustration that Time included on their cover, but isn't actually notable on its own. The claim that the entire "event" of intelligent design is reduced to this image is quite a stretch, and would require some sort of source if we were to include it in an article. I doubt such a source exists. — Carl (CBM · talk) 14:55, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

  There's no requirement that this image be as notable as anything. That's CBM's new criterion, and if that wasn't the point of contention, something else would be. I don't expect to change Carl's mind or 17Drew's mind or any other regular image-deletion advocate's mind here, as the position is based on a much broader advocacy position that fair-use must be curtailed to the maximum achievable extent-- the [sometimes directly conflicting] arguments against this and other images didn't lead to this position, but rather follow from this pre-existing advocacy position. On the other side of the ledger here, those arguing for inclusion have looked at its use in the article and decided it's helpful, and that it meets the Board's resolution and meets WP:NFCC. So it ends up coming down to NFCC #8 as has already been observed repeatedly. If it didn't meet #8 in the judgment of those familiar with the topic and actually involved in writing and editing the article, it wouldn't be in the article in the first place. It wasn't thrown in there willy-nilly, but rather was a considered editorial decision that it helped the article's readers significantly enough to use it, and thus meets NFCC #8. Obviously the opponents of it disagree. So what else is new? ... Kenosis 15:46, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

  The idea "that fair-use must be curtailed to the maximum achievable extent" is completely correct - that's the policy, the point of the foundation resolution, and the goal of Wikipedia overall. Those "familiar with the topic" have yet to demonstrate how this image actually helps the reader understand the abstract concept of intelligent design. Merely making an impact, or being related to the topic, is not enough. It seems like the argument is "you just don't understand how it helps" - if that's the case, it should be possible to explain how the image helps readers understand. What part of the abstract concept of intelligent design does this image convey to the reader, above and beyond the fact that Time had a story about intelligent design? — Carl (CBM · talk) 20:36, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

• "Fair use" is not the determining factor here; WP:NFCC is, and it requires much more than a valid fair use claim. Arguments that only address fair use are insufficient to justify this image, as are arguments that the image is useful for its visual impact.
    The use of the image in the Intelligent design article fails WP:NFCC#8. The policy requires that images are only used if omission of the image is "detrimental" to readers' understanding of the topic, and the image cannot be replaced by text. The image was already been replaced by text when it was originally deleted, which is strong evidence that it is replaceable. The image itself does not help readers understand the topic of intelligent design; at best, it helps the reader understand what the Time cover looked like, but there is no evidence that this Time cover is any more well known than any other Time cover. Its omission does not make it more difficult for the reader to understand the abstract theory of intelligent design, which is the topic of the article. — Carl (CBM · talk) 14:22, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
• Delete, as explained elsewhere. Although it would be legally permissible to used this image (under "fair use"), it would go against our policy to do so. This is really a textbook case of fair-use counterexample #8. Some are arguing that this image is notable simply because it was the cover story of Time Magazine -- but if that's the case then counterexample #8 has no meaning. Further, there is no encyclopedic information about ID that is conveyed by the cover itself, that could not be conveyed just as well (if not as prettily) by simply saying it was Time's cover story. The cover image isn't designed to give information about ID; it's designed to look pretty and thought-provoking attract readers to the article. That's decorative. Of course the article itself is noteworthy and should be mentioned, but the image of the cover is just decorative. These sorts of images are routinely deleted, and literally hundreds of similar cases have been dealt with without controversy. Keeping this image would frankly require a change in policy ("We can use magazine covers, not otherwise notable, if the fact of the article itself is notable"), and this isn't the forum for changing policy. – Quadell ^{(talk) (random)} 15:17, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

• Quoting Quadell: "... would require a change in policy ("We can use magazine covers, not otherwise notable, if the fact of the article itself is notable")." Where is this stated, and in what context? ... Kenosis 18:42, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

• Oh for crying out loud - this image is being used as stock photography. ANY picture depicting the concept of intelligent design would serve the same purpose. For us to use a non-free image, there needs to be something inherently significant about THE IMAGE ITSELF. That's why for the Kent State shootings we use the famous photo - if someone says "Kent State shootings", the first thing that pops into your head is that photo. It is impossible to have a meaningful discussion about the topic without that particular photo. But that's obviously not the case here and so we don't need a non-free image. --B 16:11, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
  • Interesting. So, in other words, you are saying that the editors who have said that this is not being used as stock photography (e.g., Kenosis) are lying? Either remove your personal attack, or provide some solid evidence for your accusation. Guettarda 21:18, 16 October 2007 (UTC)
    • That doesn't even come close to making sense. --B 21:38, 16 October 2007 (UTC)
      • First you accuse us all of being liars. Then you attack the confronter. Nice. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 21:54, 16 October 2007 (UTC)
        • Uh huh. "This image is being used as stock photo." That is in no way, shape, or form a personal attack. --B 22:09, 16 October 2007 (UTC)
  • How many high-profile, representative media publications are public domain? This isn't just an introductory image that could go in any direction as long as it's loosely related to intelligent design; a substitute would have to be from a published and widely-circulated magazine or other document to fulfill the same purpose. — xDanielx ^T/_C 02:51, 13 October 2007 (UTC)
• Delete, per the previous discussion, which convinced me the article does not meet the fair use criteria (see my closing statement there for more detail). Neil ☎ 18:59, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
• Delete, per above.--Esprit15d 20:21, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
• keep meets NFCC#8. The ID article spends 2 sentences talking about this cover as one of the only times that a major US weekly had a cover devoted to ID/Creationism. As the article says: "Prominent coverage of the public controversy was given on the front page of Time magazine with a story on Evolution Wars, on 15 August, 2005. The cover poses the question: "Does God have a place in science class?"". As Criterion 8 says "if the cover itself is the subject of sourced discussion in the article, and if the cover does not have its own article, it it may be appropriate" and then directs people to the case of the Vanity Fair cover with Demi Moore. This case is similar, in that the event and controversy is wrapped up in the cover(not as strongly as in the Demi Moore case but still there). JoshuaZ 21:36, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

  You haven't stated what part of those sentences (which were only added after the image was nominated) is better understood with the picture. It seems pretty easy to understand that the sentence "Does God have a place in science class?" was on the cover of Time without seeing the cover. The Vanity Fair cover of Demi Moore, however, is used to illustrate interpretation of the cover and its message, controversy and public opinion of the cover itself, and subsequent parodies of the cover. These things are more difficult to understand without being able to see the cover. 17Drew 01:28, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

  • I don't see how the sentences being added in afterwords is relevant. On AfDs people improve articles during the discussions all the time, and we don't object. I don't see why doing a better job at making an explicit connection is somehow worse if it occurs after an IfD. The point about Demi Moore is a good one, as I said above it isn't as strong an example as the Demi Moore one. JoshuaZ 02:22, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

• Actually, JoshuaZ, it doesn't matter. Image opponents will argue this both ways. CBM has argued above and in the "deletion review" of this image that since text is already used in the article in reference to the relevant issue of TIME, the image is unnecessary and therefore can't be included. And other opponents of the image have argued that unless there is commentary on it in the body text, the image can't be included. Yet others, including those who are most active in formulating the current version of the guideline WP:NFC, have argued that it must be critical commentary, not just body text referring to the relevance of the magazine issue or cover. Yet another has stated that opponents of fair-use NFC only reluctantly tolerate any use of a non-free-licensed image. This all can be reduced to a simple statement by opponents of an image such as this, which is "we don't want the image there". ... Kenosis 02:40, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

Wait, so people opposing an image such as this...don't want to use the image? That sounds like a pretty useless tautology to me. No matter what people in previous discussion have said, the threshold is that "its presence would significantly increase readers' understanding of the topic". The comments were only added so that the image could be kept, and even with the sentences in the article, there's nothing that is better understood by using the image. Neither of you has shown that there's something that's harder to understand without the image. 17Drew 22:49, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

• Keep per JoshuaZ. Russeasby 23:23, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
• Keep: the image is iconic, graphically representing a dichotomy between an explicitly-creationist God (from the 'Creation of Adam') versus a chimpanzee (representing common descent of man from its common ancestor with apes). Per WP:NFCC#8, it would be extremely difficult to replace this visual impact with text that serves a "similar purpose". The image also graphically represents the high water mark of the controversy in the popular consciousness, in late 2005 (just after the Kansas evolution hearings and just before Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District). Hrafn^Talk_Stalk 04:42, 13 October 2007 (UTC)
  • Do you have any evidence from reliable published sources that the image is iconic? That would bolster the case that it is. Visual impact is not a consideration in WP:NFCC. The question is whether omitting the image would be "detrimental" to the reader's understanding of the abstract concept of intelligent design. — Carl (CBM · talk) 11:55, 13 October 2007 (UTC)
    • Do you have any evidence, likewise from a reliable published source, that I need such a source in order to credibly express an opinion on an IfD? You've tried this canard repeatedly, and its wearing very thin. People venture value-judgements on XfDs (and talkpages) all the time, almost always without citing a source for their personal opinions. "Visual impact" is not explicitly mentioned, but is clearly a factor in whether an image's presence will "significantly increase readers' understanding" (an image with little impact would tend to be overlooked and yield little effect), and whether words can yield a "similar function". The question of "detrimental" effect is derivative of this significant effect (or lack thereof). Hrafn^Talk_Stalk 04:17, 14 October 2007 (UTC)
      • You are free to express your opinion that this image is iconic, but there is no evidence that it actually is. Guernica (painting) is iconic, and plenty of evidence could be produced to support that assertion. — Carl (CBM · talk) 01:35, 15 October 2007 (UTC)
• Keep – A historically significant cover image that informs the reader both of the significance of intelligent design at that time, and combines iconic images used by ID to make its point. As the National Center for Science Education noted at the time, "The cover story of the August 15, 2005, issue of Time magazine is Claudia Wallis's 'The evolution wars' -- the first cover story on the creationism/evolution controversy in a major national newsweekly in recent memory."[1] Creationism in the political arena had been a huge media issue with the Scopes Trial in 1925, and Inherit the Wind publicised that trial as a warning about the evils of McCarthyism in the 1950s, but creationism had then been relatively low key until the public relations and political pull of ID from the late 1990s culminated in the Kitzmiller trial of 2005. The article notes the point, and describes the text on the cover, but the image conveys a great deal more to the reader. The puzzled chimpanzee symbolises the concern over shared human / ape ancestry that is a major issue to creationists, and is an iconic image also used by ID proponents, as in the Darwin's Black Box book cover. The upper right figure pointing at the ape is clearly God from Michelangelo Buonarroti's “The Creation of Adam” from the Sistine Chapel ceiling, an image used by the Discovery Institute as a banner when first promoting ID.[2] The cover image conveys both the significance of ID and its central question of divine creation of humans and animals. These poiints are more difficult to understand without being able to see the cover The Vanity Fair cover of Demi Moore serves a similar function in illustrating interpretation of the cover and its message, controversy and public opinion of the cover, and could be replaced by words simply describing the cover, which could be accompanied by a free image of a pregnant woman – sooner or later someone will make such an image available under a free licence, or a public domain image could be found. However, in both cases the image of the actual cover conveys more than words or a similar picture. .. dave souza, talk 09:49, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

  How does this image convey the significance of ID? It is completely expected that the cover will be related to ID, but I haven't seen any evidence that the cover itself, as a work of art, is significant or caused controversy. It's not more difficult to understand that the central question of ID is creation without seeing this cover; this is a simple fact to understand, and simple to state in words. — Carl (CBM · talk) 11:55, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

  Dave souza, all of that is original research. It's very unlikely that people will connect the image to Darwin's Black Box or the Discovery Institute, and adding text to that effect goes against WP:SYN. The fact that intelligent design is controversial and addresses "supernatural intervention in the origin of life" (as mentioned in the lead) is more than well-established in the article. Unlike the Intelligent design article, the Demi Moore article has sourced interpretation of the image, information on controversy and public opinion of the cover, and its image couldn't be replaced since a picture of a pregnant woman doesn't show how the Vanity Fair cover was "anti-Hollywood" and anything mimicking the image would be a copyrighted derivative work. 17Drew 23:07, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

  A source is given for the historical importance of this cover issue, the image itself is a secondary source commenting visually on intelligent design and so both aspects contribute to the reader's understanding of the subject. In giving my opinion I've described the image in a way which is easily verifiable by any reasonable, educated person without specialist knowledge who has looked at the rest of the article. Even without today's knowledge, it appears that those interested in the impact of images discussed this cover at the time,[3] though that's not an ideal source. Anything can be described in words, including all the interpretations of the Vanity Fair cover, but this purely visual comment from a historically significant source related directly to the subject of the article adds to understanding. .. dave souza, talk 20:31, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

• Delete under WP:NFCC#8. Specifically: "Non-free media files are not used if they can be replaced by text that serves a similar function." I contend that the image could be replaced by the following text:

In August 2005, Time Magazine featured a cover that juxtaposed a photograph of a chimpanzee with a detail of the Christian god from The Creation of Adam. The cover asked, "Does God have a place in science class?"

But the above is just the technical reason meant to adhere to the letter of the the NFCC policy. The spirit of the NFCC is that we make every effort to minimize our use of non-free content because we wish to be a free encyclopedia. Including this image (and others like it) is at best lazy and at worst contemptuous of that goal. Maybe I'm simply out-of-touch with current thinking and the goal of a free enyclopedia is gradually being abandoned; if non-free images such as this are retained then perhaps it is time to expunge 'free' from the sub-heading on the main page. CIreland 04:20, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

• Keep. per NFCC #8. This image significantly inceases readers' understanding of the topic, and its omission would be detrimental to that understanding. The image increases readers' understnding by the mere fact that it's included in the article and that the image speaks for itself. Any body text or image caption text associated with the image only adds to that explanatory power of the image. ... Kenosis 04:50, 14 October 2007 (UTC)
• Keep per Dave and Kenosis' comments above. 'Keep' per the previous 15-9 consensus in the face of a subjectively applied criteria. 'Keep' per the well thought out Fair Use rationale. Specifically agree with Hrafn's comment above wrt NFCC#8, "(that it) graphically represents the high water mark of the controversy in the popular consciousness. . ." For people outside the US, it's probably unfathomable that there is/was debate on this issue in 2005 (80 years after Scopes!). The Time cover uniquely captures, is evidence of, and highlights or portrays the resurgence of this debate in a way that words cannot. And finally, 'keep' based on the overwhelming consensus and expert determination of the editors who work on the article (a featured article 2 days ago). Keepishly, R. Baley 18:44, 14 October 2007 (UTC)
  • How exactly does this cover art (not just the fact that the cover exists, but its actual art) serve that purpose? — Carl (CBM · talk) 01:35, 15 October 2007 (UTC)
• Keep per all of the above. The image is significant historically, and a unique visual record of the ID controversy. No amount of text, no matter how well written, can replace the explanatory value that this image has, in giving the reader visual context the debate itself, and its penetration into popular discourse.  – ornis⚙ 22:19, 15 October 2007 (UTC)
  • No evidence has been presented that this image (not intelligent design, not the Time story, but this actual image) is historically significant. "Visual context", which I think means "decoration", is not a consideration in the NFCC. — Carl (CBM · talk) 13:40, 16 October 2007 (UTC)
• Keep as argued above.--Filll 00:12, 16 October 2007 (UTC)
• To the closer: please note that no reliable sources whatsoever have been produced in this discussion that speak directly about this cover art or claim that the cover art is important, notable, significant, or otherwise more than a passing illustration on the cover of Time. Such sources could certainly be provided for truly significant works like Guernica (painting) or Image:Tianasquare.jpg. The Time article is notable, but the claim the cover art itself is notable seems to be limited to a few editors of the intelligent design article who want to justify the use of this image there. The claim that no sources are required to use an image isn't at issue here - what is at issue is that no sources seem to exist to support the claims being made about this image. The arguments in favor of keeping the image appear to be based entirely on the opinion that the image is important, without any evidence to back up that opinion. — Carl (CBM · talk) 14:55, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but this is a bogus criterion, Carl. Now the issue is argued to be whether the cover art itself is notable? The only relevant issue here is whether the image significantly assists the readers' understanding of the topic, which it does. It also meets all the other NFCC. As to evidence demanded, there's no evidence one way or the other -- nobody did a national study to determine whether readers of the WP article on intelligent design felt their understanding was significantly enhanced by the use of this image as an illustration of the level of prominence the controversy achieved and as an illustration of how the debate was protrayed in the national media while the Kitzmiller trial was being conducted. This is inherently an editorial judgment, in which none of the opponents of the image participated in any meaningful way other than to advocate the removal of NFC/fair-use images. The editorial judgment by those who meaningfully participated in the article was essentially as follows: "If it doesn't significantly help readers' understanding of the topic per NFCC#8 and doesn't also meet all the other NFCC, don't use it". The article editors, those familiar with the topic, agreed it does significantly help -- not a little, but significantly -- and that's why it's in the article. ... Kenosis 16:16, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

My point is that the image has been called "significant historically" and "iconic" above, but there is no evidence that either of these descriptions is correct. More likely, it's just a normal Time cover. The idea that the article editors have special license to ignore the image policy isn't correct (and borders on WP:OWN). — Carl (CBM · talk) 20:31, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

• Keep per JoshuaZ, Kenosis, Dave Souza, Ornis, Hrafn, R. Baley and any other rational editors who voted keep. The rest of you need to stop finding excuses why the Wikiworld you envision should be image free. The arguments (if one wished to call the officious parroting of repetitive mantras "arguments") raised by the image deletion cabal are so illogical, inane and ill-formed as to be risable at best, downright sad at worst. •Jim62sch• 16:48, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

  I fail to see how this comment explains anything about how the image meets our policies. It could be added to any deletion discussion. — Carl (CBM · talk) 20:42, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

  Really? You don't understand what Jim said? Ok, in simple terms, Jim is saying that he agrees with the arguments made by "JoshuaZ, Kenosis, Dave Souza, Ornis, Hrafn, R. Baley" and others who voted to keep the image. Guettarda

• Keep per JoshuaZ, Kenosis, Dave Souza...oh hell, everyone who said keep. This photo is one of the "icons" of the war between rational science and right-wing Christian fundamentalist anti-intellectualism. Intelligent design, one of major battles lost by the forces of religious intolerance, is perfectly illustrated by the picture. By the way, I do understand Neil's point, but I think there has to be a point where we give a little. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 16:54, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

  As I have pointed out, nobody has yet produced any source that verifies this image is iconic in any way. How exactly does this image illustrate either the abstract concept of intelligent design, the fact it is a major battle, or the fact it was lost by intelligent design? — Carl (CBM · talk) 20:42, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

  Well, maybe if you took the time to familiarise yourself with the issue, you would understand it. The fact that you can't be bothered to educate yourself about the issue before weighing in is really only a comment on your willingness to pontificate about subjects you apparently don't understand. Willful ignorance isn't a criterion for deletion. Sorry. Guettarda 21:09, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

  I understand intelligent design (the abstract theory) quite well. I don't understand how this image is supposed to educate anyone about it. Are you saying there is no way to tell anyone how what the image is supposed to demonstrate unless they already know it? In any case, the image would have to be clear to someone who doesn't understand intelligent design in order to benefit the hypothetical reader. — Carl (CBM · talk) 21:25, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

• Keep. A solid case has been made by xDanielx, JoshuaZ, Kenosis, Hrafn... that the use of this image is in keeping with our fair use guidelines. The image has encyclopaedic value and contributes significantly to the reader's understanding. Apart from meeting our guidelines, it was pointed out in the DRV that TIME does not object to our use of their image covers. In other words, the image meets our fair use guidelines and poses no threat to the integrity of the project (which is more than can be said for GFDL and CC-by-SA images, which are based on licenses which have never been tested in court and where in most cases an editor whose real name we don't know says "trust me"). Guettarda 21:09, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

  We don't have "fair use" guidelines, because it takes much more than fair use for us to use an image. We have WP:NFCC. And, as I pointed out above, of course Time doesn't mind, since the image is free advertising for them. Rather than just repeating the claim that the image contributes significantly, can you explain how? What exactly does the reader gain from this image? — Carl (CBM · talk) 21:25, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

• This is all very interesting, but it kind of image is EXACTLY what the Foundation was trying to stop when it came out with the exemption doctrine policy. Sadly, ILIKEIT !votes from those who disagree with the policy are often able to keep obviously non-qualifying images like this one. If you don't like the GFDL or don't like the exemption doctrine policy, that's something to take up with the Foundation. --B 22:05, 16 October 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 is delete. WjBscribe 01:28, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Image:Masturbating.jpg

Image:Masturbating.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Pussycat1000 (notify | contribs).

• unneeded unused image of male genitalia WODUP 17:53, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
• Delete User could have at least uploaded a much better, wide angle shot. ha! -- ALLSTAR ECHO 20:25, 12 October 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 is delete. WjBscribe 01:29, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Image:Penis 005.jpg

Image:Penis 005.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Pussycat1000 (notify | contribs).

• unneeded unused image of male genitalia WODUP 17:53, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
• Delete Plenty of penis shots to be used in related articles are already available. This user looks like he/she went on a porn rampage. -- ALLSTAR ECHO 20:26, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
• Delete It's out of focus, and doesn't even show the whole of the penis anyway. I could take a much better picture of my own penis (although I'm NOT going to!). Timothy Titus ^{Talk To TT} 22:19, 16 October 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.