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.
Non-free photo of an expensive amp. I tagged it as replaceable, but the uploader said that, because it was very expensive, it isn't possible to replace this image. The closing admin agreed with the uploader, but I still think the image is replaceable, and I'd like to get more opinions here. –
Quadell(
talk) (
random)03:48, 22 December 2007 (UTC)reply
I remember an IFD discussion from a while back for a Cisco router where it was agreed that non-free use would be permissible because it was unlikely that a free image would be created because of their limited accessibility and price. Oh well, no big loss.
east.718at 04:08, December 22, 2007
You're probably thinking of these,
Image:Cisco-rs1.jpg and
Image:Cisco7600seriesrouter.jpg, internet backbone routers that cost over $100,000.00 each. The consensus was that we couldn't use them, so
User:Akc9000 managed to get permission from the copyright-holder to use the images under a free license. All the arguments people had been making that "it's impossible to get a free image of this!" were proved wrong. If we would have used the non-free image, we never would have acquired a free one, so the cause of free content (one of the
pillars of Wikipedia) is advanced by not allowing non-free images when it could be possible -- even if very difficult -- to replace them. –
Quadell(
talk) (
random)21:50, 22 December 2007 (UTC)reply
KeepA rare and expensive amplifier. It is doubtful that a free alternative will ever be available due to its rarity and expence. As the image is from the official webpate of Rockford Fosgate, the preseveration of this image will not results in lost revenue to the original photographer. Nor with the preseveration of this image, under fair use as is well documented on the image page, result in lost revenue for Rockford Fosgate.
Fosnez (
talk)
15:43, 23 December 2007 (UTC)reply
That isn't how things work. If an image is replacable it's deleted since amongst other things, this encourages people to find a replacement
Nil Einne (
talk)
13:01, 30 December 2007 (UTC)reply
Delete. I don't see why someone can't go to a high-end audio store and snap a photo of it using a cameraphone or something. If that's not feasible, surely at least one Wikipedian either owns the amp, or knows someone who does.
*** Crotalus ***13:13, 26 December 2007 (UTC)reply
Strong delete Insufficient attempts have been made to find a replacement. People are claiming it's irreplacable because the amp is expensive and/or rare but no one has tried contacting the copyright owners for the image for example or the makers of the amp. And even the claim the public is generally not able to view these amps seem suspicious to me since I found this image on
flickr which while copyrighted shows that the public does come across these amps (and no one has tried to get this released under a free license either). Furthermore, the image is only used in
Rockford Fosgate with absolutely no description of the amp the image shows in the article (which AFAIK is a violation of NFCC criteria anyway). Rockford Fosgate appear to make a lot of amps and the use of this expensive amp as a general image to show amps they make is unnecessary. Removing the image will NOT in any way harm the readers understanding since there are alot of different amps which could be used in it's place.
Nil Einne (
talk)
13:00, 30 December 2007 (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:
Kept, since it's clearly encyclopedic (since we have articles on the topic). No arguments have been made that show any policies this image violates (other than stating that it's unencyclopedic, which seems false on its face). I can't find any reason to delete this free image. –
Quadell(
talk) (
random)23:42, 3 January 2008 (UTC)reply
If it were really so useful, then it, or similar images, would already appear in such articles; they don't. Images appear in various sex-related articles, but rarely are they overtly pornographic, close-up, unprofessional colour photographs of sexual behaviour.
Exploding Boy (
talk)
23:07, 22 December 2007 (UTC)reply
I might add that, for whatever reason, Ah0000000ga's main objective appears to be to insert a sexual image of himself into as many Wikipedia articles as he possibly can. It's worth noting that this image has been removed from every article he's attempted to place it in.
Exploding Boy (
talk)
16:48, 23 December 2007 (UTC)reply
Delete - The picture doesn't improve the readers' understanding of the subject. That must be the acid test here, and I am starting to feel as if the editor who uploaded it is t5rying to make some kind of
WP:POINT here
Mayalld (
talk)
09:29, 24 December 2007 (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.
Non-free photo of an expensive amp. I tagged it as replaceable, but the uploader said that, because it was very expensive, it isn't possible to replace this image. The closing admin agreed with the uploader, but I still think the image is replaceable, and I'd like to get more opinions here. –
Quadell(
talk) (
random)03:48, 22 December 2007 (UTC)reply
I remember an IFD discussion from a while back for a Cisco router where it was agreed that non-free use would be permissible because it was unlikely that a free image would be created because of their limited accessibility and price. Oh well, no big loss.
east.718at 04:08, December 22, 2007
You're probably thinking of these,
Image:Cisco-rs1.jpg and
Image:Cisco7600seriesrouter.jpg, internet backbone routers that cost over $100,000.00 each. The consensus was that we couldn't use them, so
User:Akc9000 managed to get permission from the copyright-holder to use the images under a free license. All the arguments people had been making that "it's impossible to get a free image of this!" were proved wrong. If we would have used the non-free image, we never would have acquired a free one, so the cause of free content (one of the
pillars of Wikipedia) is advanced by not allowing non-free images when it could be possible -- even if very difficult -- to replace them. –
Quadell(
talk) (
random)21:50, 22 December 2007 (UTC)reply
KeepA rare and expensive amplifier. It is doubtful that a free alternative will ever be available due to its rarity and expence. As the image is from the official webpate of Rockford Fosgate, the preseveration of this image will not results in lost revenue to the original photographer. Nor with the preseveration of this image, under fair use as is well documented on the image page, result in lost revenue for Rockford Fosgate.
Fosnez (
talk)
15:43, 23 December 2007 (UTC)reply
That isn't how things work. If an image is replacable it's deleted since amongst other things, this encourages people to find a replacement
Nil Einne (
talk)
13:01, 30 December 2007 (UTC)reply
Delete. I don't see why someone can't go to a high-end audio store and snap a photo of it using a cameraphone or something. If that's not feasible, surely at least one Wikipedian either owns the amp, or knows someone who does.
*** Crotalus ***13:13, 26 December 2007 (UTC)reply
Strong delete Insufficient attempts have been made to find a replacement. People are claiming it's irreplacable because the amp is expensive and/or rare but no one has tried contacting the copyright owners for the image for example or the makers of the amp. And even the claim the public is generally not able to view these amps seem suspicious to me since I found this image on
flickr which while copyrighted shows that the public does come across these amps (and no one has tried to get this released under a free license either). Furthermore, the image is only used in
Rockford Fosgate with absolutely no description of the amp the image shows in the article (which AFAIK is a violation of NFCC criteria anyway). Rockford Fosgate appear to make a lot of amps and the use of this expensive amp as a general image to show amps they make is unnecessary. Removing the image will NOT in any way harm the readers understanding since there are alot of different amps which could be used in it's place.
Nil Einne (
talk)
13:00, 30 December 2007 (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:
Kept, since it's clearly encyclopedic (since we have articles on the topic). No arguments have been made that show any policies this image violates (other than stating that it's unencyclopedic, which seems false on its face). I can't find any reason to delete this free image. –
Quadell(
talk) (
random)23:42, 3 January 2008 (UTC)reply
If it were really so useful, then it, or similar images, would already appear in such articles; they don't. Images appear in various sex-related articles, but rarely are they overtly pornographic, close-up, unprofessional colour photographs of sexual behaviour.
Exploding Boy (
talk)
23:07, 22 December 2007 (UTC)reply
I might add that, for whatever reason, Ah0000000ga's main objective appears to be to insert a sexual image of himself into as many Wikipedia articles as he possibly can. It's worth noting that this image has been removed from every article he's attempted to place it in.
Exploding Boy (
talk)
16:48, 23 December 2007 (UTC)reply
Delete - The picture doesn't improve the readers' understanding of the subject. That must be the acid test here, and I am starting to feel as if the editor who uploaded it is t5rying to make some kind of
WP:POINT here
Mayalld (
talk)
09:29, 24 December 2007 (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.