Wikipedia:Files for deletion/2009 February 14

< February 13	February 15 >

February 14

Maine_Turnpike_logo.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 ⚡ 05:56, 20 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:Maine_Turnpike_logo.png (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by 718_Bot (notify | contribs).

Non-free logo used as decorative icon in lots of articles. Clearly not fair use. Rettetast (talk) 05:29, 14 February 2009 (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:Azerbaijan map comparison.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 ⚡ 03:55, 20 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:Azerbaijan map comparison.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Baku87 (notify | contribs).

The map shows a comparison of presen-day Azerbaijan and the Azerbaijan Democratic Republic of 1918. The latter however had no de-jure recognised borders. The map shows disputed territories as Zangezur and Nagorn-Karabakh as part of Azerbaijan in 1918, which is not supprted by any sources. --Vacio (talk) 06:53, 14 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This map has de-facto recognition. If you imply that we should delete all non de-jure regonized borders, then perhaps we should start with NKR maps first? Baku87 (talk) 19:37, 15 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

NKR maps differentiate between recognized and unrecognized, your maps are simply nationalistic ejaculation. VartanM (talk) 22:23, 15 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per my above post. VartanM (talk) 22:24, 15 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Vartan.--Marshal Bagramyan (talk) 07:46, 16 February 2009 (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:Azerbaijan Democratic Republic 1918-1920 Map.jpg

This discussion was subject to a deletion review on 2009 February 23.
For an explanation of the process, see Wikipedia:Deletion review.

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: keep. There is no consensus to delete this image. -Nv8200p talk 03:36, 22 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:Azerbaijan Democratic Republic 1918-1920 Map.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Baku87 (notify | contribs).

The same map as File:Azerbaijan map comparison.jpg nominated for deletion above. --Vacio (talk) 07:03, 14 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Map is based on de-facto borders of ADR, to question its legitimacy is a matter of debate but certainly not a matter of nomination for deletion. Baku87 (talk) 19:39, 15 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Nationalistic wet dreams by Baku87. VartanM (talk) 22:24, 15 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Historic map, supported by reliable sources. Grandmaster 05:27, 16 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Which reliable sources assert that Tavush, Zangezur, Nagorno-Karabakh, Gegharkunik were Azerbaijani territories in 1918?? --Vacio (talk) 05:33, 17 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - This one: [1] Grandmaster 06:35, 17 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    - The source you refer to says nothing explicitly about the borders of the ADR, I can't find anywhere a mentioned that the aforementioned districts were part of it. You were asked for the quote but you failed to provide one here. --Vacio (talk) 06:47, 17 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      - It does say that, it shows the borders of Transcaucasian states in 1918 - 1920. Plus see Wilson's map, cited by Atabey. The borders of Armenia in Armenica are not historically valid. Armenia had no control of Nakhchivan. Grandmaster 07:55, 17 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        The map does nothing of the such, and you obviously can not ignore it. The eastern borders on that map (which is basically based on the Wilsonian map) had yet to be settled. The reason was because the rest of the land was not totally under the jurisdiction of the allied power, but was under the Russian territory. The only other borders were the preserved district borders and nothing more. Those of us who are against original research are still waiting for the source of the map by Baku87. Interpretations (particularly yours, when you have a history of misinterpreting maps) of yours or others are not allowed. We are waiting for a map, with the borders prepared by Baku87. If you don't have any to provide, I'm not interested in your opinions. VartanM (talk) 08:56, 17 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        I would add to these the following: the reference to the Wilsonian map is a clear evidence of OR and manipulation. You can just as well make a map of Nakhichevan were its eastern border would be the Kura River, and claim that your map is supported by the Wilsonian map. --Vacio (talk) 10:44, 17 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        The map is as good as this one: [2], used in the article about Democratic Republic of Armenia. The map of Armenia in 1918 cites as a source Armenica, and clearly contradicts the sources that I cited here. The map by Baku87, on the other hand, is quite in line with the aforementioned sources. Grandmaster 14:15, 17 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        That map you cited ([3]) is completely off-topic. It shows the WW1 period and territory ceded to Ottoman Turkey (NOT to Azerbaijan) after its invasion of Armenia. The two treaties that ceded those territories became void after Turkey's surrender. Meowy 03:21, 18 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        The map shows the boundaries of Azerbaijan. See the name of the map, it is called Caucasian frontiers, 1918 - 1920. It speaks for itself. Grandmaster 05:41, 18 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, map based solely on fantasies of historians from Baku.--Marshal Bagramyan (talk) 07:46, 16 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, original research. Stifle (talk) 11:40, 16 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Wikipedia:OR#Original_images --Vacio (talk) 05:30, 17 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Grandmaster. Parishan (talk) 06:40, 17 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, by the way, for doubts about Nagorno-Karabakh and other mentioned territories being part of ADR in 1918, check Wilsonian map used by Armeniapedia here: [4]. Atabəy (talk) 07:45, 17 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I really hope administrators are checking this and taking notes. A map which neither Baku87 nor any member who voted to keep have provided a source for. Even more intriguing is the source provided by Atabey (beside the fact he reappeared from a long time of silence for this). The Eastern borders on that map were not set (Wilsonian map provided the Turkish-Armenian borders, the rest had yet to be set), and it can be seen that there are no frontiers between Dagestan and Baku. Before making a choice, the closing admin should pay close attention to the fact that a source for the map is yet to be provided. A good faithed editor of course will not vote keep for something for which he can't provide a proper source. VartanM (talk) 08:27, 17 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Your accusations are false, it is clear to everyone that Grandmaster provided a objective source, if you have missed this part of the discussion then please try to keep more attention before reaching to any conclusion, see the map here. Baku87 (talk) 13:37, 17 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe Baku87 should actually look at the map. It shows the WW1 period and territory ceded to Ottoman Turkey (NOT to Azerbaijan) after its invasion of Armenia. The two treaties that ceded those territories became void after Turkey's surrender. Meowy 03:25, 18 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It seems to me that these arguments are not for the deletion of the map from Wikipedia, but for the removal of the map from articles. This should be done using the talk pages of any articles containing the map. Get the map removed from all articles and the map will be deleted as a matter of course, yes? Because it is in no articles, I vote for its deletion. Meowy 21:45, 17 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete since it is not currently used in any article, and it is not likely to ever be used in one, given its inaccuracy. Meowy 21:50, 17 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It is used in the article Azerbaijan Democratic Republic. Grandmaster 05:42, 18 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Using a lie as argument is awful, there is no map in the current version of the ADR article. --Vacio (talk) 09:21, 18 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - Please mind WP:Civil. Accusing others of lie is not nice. I presumed that the map was still there, but it has recently been removed: [5] But it was used in the article about ADR, and I believe it should be restored back. Grandmaster 11:51, 18 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Delete Unsourced, user-made, ultra nationalist map.-- Ευπάτωρ ^Talk!! 23:57, 17 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Compare this Wilsonian map used in armeniapedia with the one in question - they are same. Zitterbewegung ^Talk 06:22, 18 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Once again, Wilsonian map only set borders between Armenia and Turkey. Your argument is null. VartanM (talk) 07:36, 18 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - The Wilsonian map has the word Azerbaijan written in a certain ___location, which corresponds with this map. Grandmaster 09:12, 18 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    - That has to be the most laughable thing you have ever written! The only useful purpose to of all this is that it reminds us who the usual suspects are. Meowy 03:03, 19 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I hope the closing admin will see this attempt to mislead them. Wilsonian map had no Eastern border. Nakhichevan was part of the US de jure recognized Armenia, and controled by Armenia. From the way you are presenting the map, Baku will be in Dagestan. VartanM (talk) 07:57, 18 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - Nakhchivan was not controlled by Armenia. Hrant Avetisian, to whom you refer, is not a third party source. He wrote that section in the book, and he represents the views of the Armenian side on the history. Grandmaster 09:16, 18 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Not too complicated issue and the ADR borders are generally known. Besides, as far as I know, there was no certainly free map of ADR before. Brandспойт 08:37, 18 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Have you ever seen this map which just recently disappeared from the ADR article when Baku87 replaced it with his self-made map ?. Btw. can you please exoplain from where you draw on the "generally known" ADR borders? And about which borders do you speak at all? --Vacio (talk) 09:21, 18 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - That map was created by User:Aivazovsky, using certain Andrew Andersen as a source, and of course it is unreliable, as Andersen is a self-published source. Grandmaster 11:51, 18 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    - This is starting to become a really bad joke. A single source is yet to provided for the map, and all Azeri members are calling to keep it. Where in the world between Nakhichevan landed in Azerbaijan in 1918-1920? Nakhichevan was lost in the profit of Turkey, it was taken from Armenia [6], [7], [8], [9], [10]. It was only after Bolsheviks and Turkey came to a decision in 1920 that it was handed to Azerbaijan. From 1918-1920 Baku was still a disputed territory. I can't believe that I am actually the one providing sources, when the members who came to vote "keep" en mass, have not provided a single source which would substantiate this map. Where the in hell is Moreschi? VartanM (talk) 23:48, 19 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      - It is well known that Nakhchivan was controlled first by the Republic of Aras, and later after it was invaded by Armenia it came under the control of ADR. See this, for example: [11] And I provided a source for this map, which you keep on ignoring. Grandmaster 06:30, 20 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        Thanks for confirming that the map you want to keep is inaccurate. VartanM (talk) 08:30, 20 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        I would not be surprised if the file would be technically deleted, but the nomination reasoning is highly trite. Though the map was drawn in .jpg, the ADR article still shares no map and such bad faith nominations help little, if ever. Brand спойт 09:55, 20 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Strong delete: And if it is kept, I'm going to report this in the fringe theory noticeboard, Grandmaster attempt to mislead others by twisting maps should not go unoticed. It is basically the same users who wanted Anderson maps deleted. The map used by Baku87, is a map prepared by the republic of Azerbaijan, and placed on the site of several of their embassy. Few examples include these. [12], [13], [14]. The original can be found here too. [15]. I question those users interest here, when they are attempting to restrict the deletion of a fringe theory position maintained by the republic of Azerbaijan, which recently created and distributed those maps on several of their sites. The timing of Baku creation of the map here on Wikipedia is then fishy. We need more users uninvolved with AA subjects to vote. And with all saddness Moreschi is absent. This action should be kept for the arbitrators' viewing. No further comment required. - Fedayee (talk) 03:06, 19 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You can report wherever you want. A primary source, the ADR's map drawn up by the Information Department of Azerbaijan's Ministry of Foreign Affairs in 1920, also testifies that Zangezur, Nagorno-Karabakh and Nakhchivan in particular were within ADR by that time. It is not the Anderson case. Brand спойт 10:42, 20 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

LOL. Azerbaijan's Ministry of Foreign Affairs in 1920? are you serious? VartanM (talk) 10:55, 20 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yes: Azerbaijan_Democratic_Republic#Foreign_relations. Brand спойт 12:27, 20 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep We cannot use original maps due to copyright and this one has to be made based on the original 1918 maps developped by ADR. --Aynabend (talk) 13:09, 20 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete : no accurate source. Sardur (talk) 14:26, 20 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep historical map of Azerbaijan. Source http://www.azerbaijan.az/_History/Empty.html --Baki66 (talk) 00:03, 21 February 2009 (UTC) http://www.azerbaijan.az/_History/_HistoricalMaps/_historicalMaps_e.html see again http://www.azerbaijan.az/_History/_HistoricalMaps/_historicalMaps_e.html thanks --Baki66 (talk) 01:06, 21 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Quite witty : "Loading Photo ! Please wait... undefined". Sardur (talk) 00:31, 21 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

CommmentThe above "sources" by Brand and the recently appeared Baki just prove how pathetic your attempts have been to substantiate the map's historical basis, or lack thereof. I suppose showing a map created by the Armenian government in 1920 would cancel out Brand's weak argument. What we should do is simply use one of Robert Hewsen's maps from Historical Atlas. But of course, Grandmaster thinks Hewsen is only reliable when it comes to the ancient and medieval eras. Once we get to the modern era, Hewsen can no longer be considered reliable because he becomes an "Armenian nationalist", so Grandmaster's convoluted thinking goes.--Marshal Bagramyan (talk) 00:37, 21 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Besides the map is not from the Republic of Azerbaijan in 1920, since the original laid claims against Georgia and Iran, and had the decency to not cut recognized Western Armenia with the present borders between Turkey and Armenia. The Paris Peace conference-presented maps were those which were drawn by the delegation of Azerbaijan. They do not match. This map maintains the present borders between Iran, Turkey, Georgia and takes a large section of Armenia only. It is a recent creation as I documented above. The US de-jure recognized Armenia had those borders (map from National Geographic). The National Geographic map corresponds to those by Hewsen and several other sources. - Fedayee (talk) 05:56, 21 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:OI. Pocopocopocopoco (talk) 04:48, 21 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Stong delete: the website with historical maps of Azerbaijan cited by Baki66 does not give a specific source for the 1918-1920 map, so we do not know how reliable and neutral it is. Furthermore, the map under discussion contradicts other 1918-1920 maps of Azerbaijan I have seen, specifically Map 18 on p. 54 in Atlas of Ethnopolitical History of Causasus (1774-2004) by Artur Tsutsiev, "Evropa" Publishing House, Moscow (2006) (in Russian). --Zlerman (talk) 05:37, 21 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
How about this map here: [16], or this ones [17] [18]? Grandmaster 13:09, 21 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The first two are quite unclear. The third one specifies that it was made by Azerbaijan (hence the word "official") so it's just a piece of propaganda obviously but even that map is better than Baku87's fantasy since it shows a difference between claimed territories and legit territories.-- Ευπάτωρ ^Talk!! 20:40, 21 February 2009 (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.

Wa 2000.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 ⚡ 03:55, 20 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:Wa 2000.JPG (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Ominae (notify | contribs).

Another unfree weapon-image that uses non-free fair use, but where a free equivalent could easily be created. DavidDCM (talk) 09:21, 14 February 2009 (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.

MGP-15 SMG.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 ⚡ 03:55, 20 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:MGP-15 SMG.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Ominae (notify | contribs).

Another unfree weapon-image that uses non-free fair use, but where a free equivalent could easily be created. DavidDCM (talk) 09:27, 14 February 2009 (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.

BM 59 rifle.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 ⚡ 03:55, 20 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:BM 59 rifle.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Ominae (notify | contribs).

Another unfree weapon-image that uses non-free fair use, but where a free equivalent could easily be created. DavidDCM (talk) 09:27, 14 February 2009 (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.

Petewright.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 ⚡ 03:55, 20 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:Petewright.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Quercusrobur (notify | contribs).

No evidence of GFDL/ author's permission. Papa November (talk) 10:46, 14 February 2009 (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.

GoldFivePound1839.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: keep. I'll support the "slavish copying" idea. -Nv8200p talk 01:25, 22 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:GoldFivePound1839.jpeg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Hephaestos (notify | contribs).

The coin itself is clearly PD due to age. However, photos of three-dimensional objects acquire their own copyright. No source has been given for the photo. I guess we could very loosely argue that this is PD-ART, because the face of the coin is almost 2D. Any thoughts? Papa November (talk) 10:52, 14 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, no originality in the reproduction. Stifle (talk) 14:12, 20 February 2009 (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.

College-green-aerial-thumbnail.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 Stifle (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 15:13, 20 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:College-green-aerial-thumbnail.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Mav (notify | contribs).

No evidence given for permission/GFDL status. User:Jtdirl has been asked for assistance with this Papa November (talk) 10:57, 14 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delay - What form of evidence is needed? Would a copy / paste of the permission email on the image talk page be OK? --mav (talk) 14:48, 14 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It's probably OK to forward the permission email on to permissions-en@wikimedia.org and pop a {{OTRS pending}} tag on the image description page. There's more information here Papa November (talk) 18:50, 14 February 2009 (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.

Serp.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 as G7 by Peripitus (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 13:18, 18 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:Serp.png (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Jehochman (notify | contribs).

"Educational presentation and critical commentary on search engine results and attempts to influence them. This image shows Google's universal search results. It includes text, images, video, and paid listings. This illustrates the potential complexity of search results pages.". Invalid rationale, images from Star Wars are not discussed in this article. ViperSnake151 21:50, 14 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per my previous comments here. I'm a bit upset that nothing has been done about this yet. — CharlotteWebb 22:49, 14 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep to avoid damaging the encyclopedia with pedantic actions. I needed a picture of a search engine results page, so I Googled the first thing that came to mind (A Darth Vader action figure was standing on my desk at the time). This is classic fair use. The picture shows how somebody can Google an arbitrary topic, and get search results that include text, video and pictures. The image resolution is very low. There's no commercial damage to the copyright holder, and so on. Please stop these silly power games and go write an article. If you'd like to replace the image with something you prefer, I really don't mind at all as long as you choose a replacement that is suitably informative. I'd change it myself, except that somebody would probably shout at me for changing the image while this discussion was pending. Jehochman ^Talk 04:51, 15 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Did you have to google for something where you knew the top part of search result would be mostly non-free images? Do you not see how gratuitous that looks? How do you know you "needed a picture"? — CharlotteWebb 11:50, 15 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - In the real world virtually all content is copyrighted. It would be very, very difficult to construct a search the only brings up free content in the results. Any search results page we might choose to illustrate universal search would most likely include fair use content. There is no equally informative, free replacement for this image. Jehochman ^Talk 13:41, 15 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    - "Serps" are pretty formulaic. If you've seen one, you've seen them all. If you need a picture of a "serp" it would be easy to snap a real winner for Commons if you use free search engine software and search for something other than Star Wars photos. Or you could use an html editor to produce a page with 10–20 completely fake search results. It would be completely free and not convey any less information (as Darth Vader and the Google logo are completely superfluous at the moment). — CharlotteWebb 17:06, 15 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      - Actually, SERPs vary quite a bit from one to another. I think your proposal to create a fake page shows that you don't know what you are talking about and seem not to be interested in serious discussion. If you read the article, you might learn that search engine optimization targets the major search engines, Google foremost among them. It completely makes sense to show a picture of a Google SERP with all of its potential complexity. Jehochman ^Talk 14:06, 16 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
← You may be quick to accuse me of pedantry and trolling but you have not explained how this image illustrates the techniques or effects of SEO. It does illustrate how to find Star Wars pictures on the internet, but that doesn't have much to do with SEO. You mention that SEO people primarily target Google. While I don't doubt that for a second, I don't agree that this is an adequate rationale for including a random Google screenshot. I know I could say that hackers primarily target computers running Microsoft Windows (which is probably true also), but a picture of the Windows desktop wouldn't help the reader understand this, not unless it illustrated the act of hacking a Windows machine, or identified a particular Windows security hole, or showed what a Windows screen might look like after the computer had been hacked. The closest relationship I can see here is that the Google image suggests that one could potentially use SEO tactics to manipulate what pages appear when users search for "Darth Vader". This angle could work (see WP:NFCC#8 "significantly increase readers' understanding of the topic") if you include before and after SERPs to illustrate a change—attributable to SEO—in the search results. — CharlotteWebb 15:51, 16 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- It's a featured article. Go read it. SERPS are the target of SEO activities. It makes sense to show one in an article. To those who disagree, discussion about the content of the article would be appropriate. Attempting to delete several images from the article on flimsy grounds is needlessly provocative. When you engage in provocation, you should expect less than friendly responses. Jehochman ^Talk 16:05, 16 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - Should I expect you to insult my intelligence while not answering any of the questions (like I'm stupid for even asking)? I'm not trying to provoke you, but let me make a few things clear: 1. Image policy may be "flimsy" but not enough to waive it for FAs. 2. I have read the article. 3. The images didn't contribute to my understanding of it. I have suggested several alternative ways to illustrate this article, depending on whether you'd rather produce SERP screenshots that can be defended under fair use policy—helping the reader understand SEO, what it is, how it works, etc.—or ones containing only free content which need not illustrate anything. So far you've assumed bad faith and mocked every idea I've offered you. — CharlotteWebb 17:13, 16 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    - Disrupting a featured article by deleting the lead image is not a way to get people to assume good faith. If the roles were reversed, I'd go to the article talk page, express concerns, and then suggest suitable replacement images. Jehochman ^Talk 21:16, 16 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      - Where do you get these accusations? Nobody is disrupting or threatening to disrupt your article, or to "damage the encyclopedia" as you suggested earlier. It's a fine article and it does improve my understanding of SEO, but the screenshot you have chosen does not. You can disagree all you want but stop framing this as a personal dispute. I'm only stating my belief that this image fails criteria 1 and 8 of fair use policy on the basis that just showing what a SERP looks like doesn't show an example of SEO or help readers understand how it's done, and that one does not need to use non-free content to show readers what a SERP looks like. I would further argue that it violates the spirit of 3(a) "minimal use" due to the embedment of Darth Vader. While I'll admit the exact wording is less clear-cut, to me this aspect seems comparable to choosing a non-free picture of a celebrity wearing a T-shirt with another non-free picture on it, as it needlessly multiplies the number of copyright holders one must address when defending one's use of the image (while not furthering the intended purpose of using it). — CharlotteWebb 15:58, 17 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Defendable in SERP although I would suggesting choosing a search term that doesn't result in so much lucasarts IP coming up. I suggest "abrams". SEO is more problematical. The image doesn't show any obvious example of SEO and the article doesn't talk about it. Might be able to defend File:Google Bomb Miserable Failure.png in SEO though.Geni 19:56, 16 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I am fine with replacing the image with any search that shows a variety of search results: text, image, video, maps, products, news. Any search that returns varied content would do. However, I'd prefer a discussion at the article talk page rather than this heavy handed deletion process. Jehochman ^Talk 21:16, 16 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - I agree that changing it to a gallery of Abrams battle tanks would be an improvement as these are likely to be be public ___domain U.S. Army photos (we can replace any that aren't), but it would still be decorative in the SEO article (that would be fine if the screenshot could in some way be made completely free). I noticed there was a discussion on the article talk page (see Talk:Search engine optimization#images) where the image use was defended by discrediting the complainant, appealing to the featured article process, and abdicating the burden of proof. I don't know whether there is a page on which we could seek the opinion of image policy experts, but that should probably be the next step. I'm beginning to think an RFC might be productive but I realize that it would—while less "heavy-handed"—it might over-correct by being too bureaucratic so if you don't want me to do that, I won't. — CharlotteWebb 15:58, 17 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    - I am fine with anybody replacing the image with another one that is less copyright challenged and equally or more informative. Changes could be discussed on the talk page if there are any doubts. That would be the first step before any RFC. It is my belief that every article should have some pictures. Wikipedia may be burned to CD or printed and distributed to kids in Africa who have never used Google. We should not assume that something is so commonplace that everyone has seen it. Jehochman ^Talk 16:37, 17 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      - Alright no RFC then. I think we both know this isn't about familiarity with a specific brand, but do you raise an interesting paradox; I probably wouldn't know where to begin explaining SEO to someone who's never used the internet. They'd probably need to read other articles first, but apparently the Wikipedia-on-CD releases do strip out non-free images. I'm guessing this is so they can be exported to countries whose copyright law does not allow material to be used without permission of the copyright holder (or allows it to a much lesser extent than in the U.S.). Whatever the reason it is something to keep in mind when thinking of the children in Liberia or Sierra Leone or any of the twenty other African countries where English is widely spoken (that is, not to make the article depend heavily on something your target audience might not see). Of course one could always distribute a parallel "deluxe edition" at their own peril, in fact for the sake of those kids I hope somebody does (as long as they disavow any direct affiliation with Wikipedia). After all, breaking laws is the sometimes the most effective way to get them changed. — CharlotteWebb 17:40, 17 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as replaceable by a screenshot with fewer copyrighted images. Stifle (talk) 15:13, 17 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Done Go ahead and speedy as a non-controversial clean up. Jehochman ^Talk 15:26, 17 February 2009 (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.