Image talk:Santorum splash.JPG

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

[edit] Fails fair use rationale criteria

WP:NFCC requires the following criterion be met:

• "Significance. 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."

The image is essentially mostly text. It does not increase understanding of the topic beyond the presence of the text itself, and omitting the image would not be a detriment to that understanding. If you disagree, please explain exactly how one's understanding is increased by keeping the image. --Dachannien^Talk_Contrib 19:52, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

This image was nominated for deletion and survived. There was a consensus that the image added to the article in a way that a mere description would not. Since then, the fair use rationale has been expanded, twice. The argument that the image doesn't add anything to the article has been talked through and dismissed. JDoorjam JDiscourse 22:14, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

From the IFD, User:SchmuckyTheCat says, "that splash screen is the primary vehicle defining the word under discussion. It is the most relevant screenshot from the site to the WP article contents," while User:howcheng states, "I'd never heard the term before, and when reading the article that gives a description of the splash page, I found it very helpful to have the image to reference. Given that the splash page may not stay there forever, it seems its use in the encyclopedia is warranted."

I hope you find these arguments by other established, long-time editors to be persuasive. JDoorjam JDiscourse 22:24, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

I don't find SchmuckyTheCat's argument persuasive, because neither the website nor the image is truly the motivator behind the term. The definition originated with a newspaper column, and the website came after the fact solely in an effort to promote the term. The image provides no more information than the definition itself, which is already referenced using the first reference in the reference list in the Santorum (sexual neologism) article.

I also don't find howcheng's argument to be persuasive. No explanation is given of how the image was helpful beyond the rest of the content of the article, and so that argument boils down to WP:USEFUL.

The image consists of two elements: the text, which is already present both in the article and in referenced third-party sources; and the splotch, which honestly doesn't really add any illustrative purpose beyond what the text already provides. The description of the website in the article makes it amply clear that the website was designed to promote usage of the term, and so any reasonable person would assume that, in a prominent location somewhere on the site, the definition would appear somewhere. The thing is, the image doesn't go beyond that. It doesn't provide any additional information whatsoever beyond what the text of the article already provides. If this were a free image, it would be a different matter, but there is a policy governing the criteria for fair use of non-free images, and this image fails to meet at least one of those criteria. --Dachannien^Talk_Contrib 22:46, 21 February 2008 (UTC)