The result of the discussion was: Delete; deleted by PhilKnight ( talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) An image with this name on Commons is now visible. AnomieBOT ⚡ 19:11, 27 December 2008 (UTC) Just moved to commons. -- क्षेम्य Tranquility 21:42, 25 December 2008 (UTC) reply
The result of the discussion was: No consensus default keep Discussion ended 6 days ago. Recommend not IFDing this until it is orphaned. Consider discussing the merits of using an image of debatable origin on the articles that use it and possibly removing it from those articles. If it does become an orphan, then an IFD might go uncontested. The fact that this is a public domain image helped. Non-admin closure. -- davidwr/( talk)/( contribs)/( e-mail) 23:25, 30 December 2008 (UTC) reply
The result of the discussion was: Delete; deleted by PhilKnight ( talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 19:11, 27 December 2008 (UTC) reply
The result of the discussion was: Delete; deleted by PhilKnight ( talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 19:11, 27 December 2008 (UTC) reply
The result of the discussion was: Delete; deleted by PhilKnight ( talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 19:11, 27 December 2008 (UTC) reply
The result of the discussion was: Delete; deleted by PhilKnight ( talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) An image with this name on Commons is now visible. AnomieBOT ⚡ 19:11, 27 December 2008 (UTC) reply
The result of the discussion was: Delete; deleted by PhilKnight ( talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 19:11, 27 December 2008 (UTC) reply
The result of the discussion was: Delete; deleted by PhilKnight ( talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 19:11, 27 December 2008 (UTC) reply
The result of the discussion was: Delete; deleted by PhilKnight ( talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 19:11, 27 December 2008 (UTC) reply
The result of the discussion was: Delete; deleted by PhilKnight ( talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 19:11, 27 December 2008 (UTC) reply
The result of the discussion was: Delete; deleted by PhilKnight ( talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 19:11, 27 December 2008 (UTC) reply
The result of the discussion was: Delete; deleted by PhilKnight ( talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 19:11, 27 December 2008 (UTC) reply
The result of the discussion was: Delete; deleted by PhilKnight ( talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 19:11, 27 December 2008 (UTC) reply
The result of the discussion was: Delete; deleted by PhilKnight ( talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 19:11, 27 December 2008 (UTC) reply
The result of the discussion was: Delete; deleted by PhilKnight ( talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 19:11, 27 December 2008 (UTC) reply
The result of the discussion was: Delete; deleted by PhilKnight ( talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 19:11, 27 December 2008 (UTC) reply
The result of the discussion was: Delete; deleted by PhilKnight ( talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 19:11, 27 December 2008 (UTC) reply
The result of the discussion was: Delete; deleted as I8 by TimVickers ( talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 22:30, 21 December 2008 (UTC) reply
The result of the discussion was: Delete; deleted by PhilKnight ( talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 19:11, 27 December 2008 (UTC) reply
The result of the discussion was: Delete; deleted by PhilKnight ( talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 19:11, 27 December 2008 (UTC) reply
The result of the discussion was: Delete; deleted by PhilKnight ( talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 19:11, 27 December 2008 (UTC) reply
The result of the discussion was: Delete; deleted as I9 by Peripitus ( talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 12:06, 23 December 2008 (UTC) reply
The result of the discussion was: Delete; deleted as I9 by Peripitus ( talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 12:06, 23 December 2008 (UTC) reply
The result of the discussion was: Delete; deleted by PhilKnight ( talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 19:11, 27 December 2008 (UTC) reply
The result of the discussion was: Delete; deleted by PhilKnight ( talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 19:11, 27 December 2008 (UTC) reply
The result of the discussion was: Delete; deleted by PhilKnight ( talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 19:11, 27 December 2008 (UTC) reply
The result of the discussion was: Keep Keep, effectively withdrawn. Also, the February 17, 2008 review can't be ignored. Non-admin closure. -- davidwr/( talk)/( contribs)/( e-mail) 23:16, 30 December 2008 (UTC) reply
Caption in the article was removed by nominator and simply described the image, "Yuri Gargarin in Vostok 1". It seems that the historical context would be clear, and the lack of other similar pictures of the event, especially during the event, that this inclusion is warranted. The article is posted during the timeline which contains quotes from Yuri Gargarin's transmissions to the control station. -- Born2flie ( talk) 15:24, 21 December 2008 (UTC) reply
The primary element of the Vostok 1 article is that this flight was the first time a human went into space. This photo is of that human, while he was in space. The image shows his attire (a spacesuit) and some of the cockpit in which he was encapsulated. With due respect to those who have concerns in this regard, the NFCC#8 "significance" of the image to the topic does not need any explanation; it is self-evident. The image documents the most important aspect of the event. ( sdsds - talk) 02:11, 22 December 2008 (UTC) reply
WP:NFCC#8 does not require that the image be "essential", merely that "its presence would significantly increase readers' understanding of the topic, and its omission would be detrimental to that understanding". The terms "significantly" and "detrimental" are relative and subjective. I believe that placing the actual flight of Vostok 1 in a visual context satisfies the first part of WP:NFCC#8 and removing it would satisfy the second part. I also note that a review of the image on 17 February 2008 deemed it likely to meed all the criteria of WP:NFCC. Seth ze ( talk) 00:46, 23 December 2008 (UTC) reply
The result of the discussion was: Delete; deleted by PhilKnight ( talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 19:11, 27 December 2008 (UTC) reply
Author of photo and date are not specified, and the source link is dead. Papa November ( talk) 13:22, 21 December 2008 (UTC) reply
The result of the discussion was: Delete; deleted by PhilKnight ( talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 19:11, 27 December 2008 (UTC) reply
The commercial value you mention is subsumed by the fact that it was published in the paper and is widely available on the web. If you read the newspaper article you will see that this image is indeed their rationale for proof of the relationship, which was upheld by the PCC. To delete would be to deny the possibility for readers to make up their own mind. To mention the existence of a photograph, but not show it, is to deny the basis of a good and crucially accurate encyclopaedia, which we are all striving to create. I would strongly request that it is left intact. Captainclegg ( talk) 14:04, 21 December 2008 (UTC) reply
I agree with Captainclegg. These are both 'public' persona and famous in their own right. To have them linked like this and for it to be accurately sourced through a major newspaper is exactly what a good encyclopaedia is meant to be about. The commercial value argument surely does not work here as the photo has already been published (I too saw the article) and is widely available. And anyway, isn't our job as editors to show as much proof of a statement as possible? Wiki had a lousy reputation for accuracy. Don't lets hamstring ourselves by arguing that we shouldn't show proof when it is already in the public domain. Leave it in I say. Crowley666 ( talk) 14:30, 21 December 2008 (UTC) reply
Is it them? Yes. Is the story genuine? Apparently. Is it sourced? Yes. Does it back up the article? Yes. Has the image alraedy been seen worldwide? Yes (I saw it here in the US). Whats the problem? None. Leave it alone. Careinthecommunity ( talk) 14:40, 21 December 2008 (UTC) reply
I would say "Yes", why not? and according to other sources, I gather that it is considerably more than a "meeting that Mills has had". Its out there. It exists. Someone else ( a journo) has done the leg-work (excuse the pun!) It is not libellous or otherwise untrue. It is doing no harm and I would rather that proof was shown, than not. What's wrong with it being there? I think that there are other things more important to concern ourselves with. Let It Be and enjoy Christmas. I gather you lot are having a really bad time over there. Good luck. Careinthecommunity ( talk) 00:56, 22 December 2008 (UTC) reply
Personally, I am interested in the story and like the fact that the photo, that J Milburn has some objection to, which is in the public domain anyway, is there to be viewed. I have never read of a Wiki user/editor complaining about TO MUCH info before! Crowley666 ( talk) 01:02, 22 December 2008 (UTC) reply
The result of the discussion was: Delete; deleted by PhilKnight ( talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 19:11, 27 December 2008 (UTC) reply
The result of the discussion was: Delete; deleted by PhilKnight ( talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 19:11, 27 December 2008 (UTC) reply
The result of the discussion was: Delete; deleted by PhilKnight ( talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 19:11, 27 December 2008 (UTC) reply
The result of the discussion was: Delete; deleted by PhilKnight ( talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 19:11, 27 December 2008 (UTC) reply
The result of the discussion was: Delete; deleted by PhilKnight ( talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 19:11, 27 December 2008 (UTC) reply
The result of the discussion was: Delete; deleted by PhilKnight ( talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 19:11, 27 December 2008 (UTC) reply
The result of the discussion was: Delete; deleted by PhilKnight ( talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) An image with this name on Commons is now visible. AnomieBOT ⚡ 19:11, 27 December 2008 (UTC) reply
The result of the discussion was: Delete; deleted by PhilKnight ( talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 19:11, 27 December 2008 (UTC) reply
The result of the discussion was: Delete; deleted by PhilKnight ( talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) An image with this name on Commons is now visible. AnomieBOT ⚡ 19:11, 27 December 2008 (UTC) Just moved to commons. -- क्षेम्य Tranquility 21:42, 25 December 2008 (UTC) reply
The result of the discussion was: No consensus default keep Discussion ended 6 days ago. Recommend not IFDing this until it is orphaned. Consider discussing the merits of using an image of debatable origin on the articles that use it and possibly removing it from those articles. If it does become an orphan, then an IFD might go uncontested. The fact that this is a public domain image helped. Non-admin closure. -- davidwr/( talk)/( contribs)/( e-mail) 23:25, 30 December 2008 (UTC) reply
The result of the discussion was: Delete; deleted by PhilKnight ( talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 19:11, 27 December 2008 (UTC) reply
The result of the discussion was: Delete; deleted by PhilKnight ( talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 19:11, 27 December 2008 (UTC) reply
The result of the discussion was: Delete; deleted by PhilKnight ( talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 19:11, 27 December 2008 (UTC) reply
The result of the discussion was: Delete; deleted by PhilKnight ( talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) An image with this name on Commons is now visible. AnomieBOT ⚡ 19:11, 27 December 2008 (UTC) reply
The result of the discussion was: Delete; deleted by PhilKnight ( talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 19:11, 27 December 2008 (UTC) reply
The result of the discussion was: Delete; deleted by PhilKnight ( talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 19:11, 27 December 2008 (UTC) reply
The result of the discussion was: Delete; deleted by PhilKnight ( talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 19:11, 27 December 2008 (UTC) reply
The result of the discussion was: Delete; deleted by PhilKnight ( talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 19:11, 27 December 2008 (UTC) reply
The result of the discussion was: Delete; deleted by PhilKnight ( talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 19:11, 27 December 2008 (UTC) reply
The result of the discussion was: Delete; deleted by PhilKnight ( talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 19:11, 27 December 2008 (UTC) reply
The result of the discussion was: Delete; deleted by PhilKnight ( talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 19:11, 27 December 2008 (UTC) reply
The result of the discussion was: Delete; deleted by PhilKnight ( talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 19:11, 27 December 2008 (UTC) reply
The result of the discussion was: Delete; deleted by PhilKnight ( talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 19:11, 27 December 2008 (UTC) reply
The result of the discussion was: Delete; deleted by PhilKnight ( talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 19:11, 27 December 2008 (UTC) reply
The result of the discussion was: Delete; deleted by PhilKnight ( talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 19:11, 27 December 2008 (UTC) reply
The result of the discussion was: Delete; deleted as I8 by TimVickers ( talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 22:30, 21 December 2008 (UTC) reply
The result of the discussion was: Delete; deleted by PhilKnight ( talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 19:11, 27 December 2008 (UTC) reply
The result of the discussion was: Delete; deleted by PhilKnight ( talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 19:11, 27 December 2008 (UTC) reply
The result of the discussion was: Delete; deleted by PhilKnight ( talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 19:11, 27 December 2008 (UTC) reply
The result of the discussion was: Delete; deleted as I9 by Peripitus ( talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 12:06, 23 December 2008 (UTC) reply
The result of the discussion was: Delete; deleted as I9 by Peripitus ( talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 12:06, 23 December 2008 (UTC) reply
The result of the discussion was: Delete; deleted by PhilKnight ( talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 19:11, 27 December 2008 (UTC) reply
The result of the discussion was: Delete; deleted by PhilKnight ( talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 19:11, 27 December 2008 (UTC) reply
The result of the discussion was: Delete; deleted by PhilKnight ( talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 19:11, 27 December 2008 (UTC) reply
The result of the discussion was: Keep Keep, effectively withdrawn. Also, the February 17, 2008 review can't be ignored. Non-admin closure. -- davidwr/( talk)/( contribs)/( e-mail) 23:16, 30 December 2008 (UTC) reply
Caption in the article was removed by nominator and simply described the image, "Yuri Gargarin in Vostok 1". It seems that the historical context would be clear, and the lack of other similar pictures of the event, especially during the event, that this inclusion is warranted. The article is posted during the timeline which contains quotes from Yuri Gargarin's transmissions to the control station. -- Born2flie ( talk) 15:24, 21 December 2008 (UTC) reply
The primary element of the Vostok 1 article is that this flight was the first time a human went into space. This photo is of that human, while he was in space. The image shows his attire (a spacesuit) and some of the cockpit in which he was encapsulated. With due respect to those who have concerns in this regard, the NFCC#8 "significance" of the image to the topic does not need any explanation; it is self-evident. The image documents the most important aspect of the event. ( sdsds - talk) 02:11, 22 December 2008 (UTC) reply
WP:NFCC#8 does not require that the image be "essential", merely that "its presence would significantly increase readers' understanding of the topic, and its omission would be detrimental to that understanding". The terms "significantly" and "detrimental" are relative and subjective. I believe that placing the actual flight of Vostok 1 in a visual context satisfies the first part of WP:NFCC#8 and removing it would satisfy the second part. I also note that a review of the image on 17 February 2008 deemed it likely to meed all the criteria of WP:NFCC. Seth ze ( talk) 00:46, 23 December 2008 (UTC) reply
The result of the discussion was: Delete; deleted by PhilKnight ( talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 19:11, 27 December 2008 (UTC) reply
Author of photo and date are not specified, and the source link is dead. Papa November ( talk) 13:22, 21 December 2008 (UTC) reply
The result of the discussion was: Delete; deleted by PhilKnight ( talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 19:11, 27 December 2008 (UTC) reply
The commercial value you mention is subsumed by the fact that it was published in the paper and is widely available on the web. If you read the newspaper article you will see that this image is indeed their rationale for proof of the relationship, which was upheld by the PCC. To delete would be to deny the possibility for readers to make up their own mind. To mention the existence of a photograph, but not show it, is to deny the basis of a good and crucially accurate encyclopaedia, which we are all striving to create. I would strongly request that it is left intact. Captainclegg ( talk) 14:04, 21 December 2008 (UTC) reply
I agree with Captainclegg. These are both 'public' persona and famous in their own right. To have them linked like this and for it to be accurately sourced through a major newspaper is exactly what a good encyclopaedia is meant to be about. The commercial value argument surely does not work here as the photo has already been published (I too saw the article) and is widely available. And anyway, isn't our job as editors to show as much proof of a statement as possible? Wiki had a lousy reputation for accuracy. Don't lets hamstring ourselves by arguing that we shouldn't show proof when it is already in the public domain. Leave it in I say. Crowley666 ( talk) 14:30, 21 December 2008 (UTC) reply
Is it them? Yes. Is the story genuine? Apparently. Is it sourced? Yes. Does it back up the article? Yes. Has the image alraedy been seen worldwide? Yes (I saw it here in the US). Whats the problem? None. Leave it alone. Careinthecommunity ( talk) 14:40, 21 December 2008 (UTC) reply
I would say "Yes", why not? and according to other sources, I gather that it is considerably more than a "meeting that Mills has had". Its out there. It exists. Someone else ( a journo) has done the leg-work (excuse the pun!) It is not libellous or otherwise untrue. It is doing no harm and I would rather that proof was shown, than not. What's wrong with it being there? I think that there are other things more important to concern ourselves with. Let It Be and enjoy Christmas. I gather you lot are having a really bad time over there. Good luck. Careinthecommunity ( talk) 00:56, 22 December 2008 (UTC) reply
Personally, I am interested in the story and like the fact that the photo, that J Milburn has some objection to, which is in the public domain anyway, is there to be viewed. I have never read of a Wiki user/editor complaining about TO MUCH info before! Crowley666 ( talk) 01:02, 22 December 2008 (UTC) reply
The result of the discussion was: Delete; deleted by PhilKnight ( talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 19:11, 27 December 2008 (UTC) reply
The result of the discussion was: Delete; deleted by PhilKnight ( talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 19:11, 27 December 2008 (UTC) reply
The result of the discussion was: Delete; deleted by PhilKnight ( talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 19:11, 27 December 2008 (UTC) reply
The result of the discussion was: Delete; deleted by PhilKnight ( talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 19:11, 27 December 2008 (UTC) reply
The result of the discussion was: Delete; deleted by PhilKnight ( talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 19:11, 27 December 2008 (UTC) reply
The result of the discussion was: Delete; deleted by PhilKnight ( talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 19:11, 27 December 2008 (UTC) reply
The result of the discussion was: Delete; deleted by PhilKnight ( talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) An image with this name on Commons is now visible. AnomieBOT ⚡ 19:11, 27 December 2008 (UTC) reply
The result of the discussion was: Delete; deleted by PhilKnight ( talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 19:11, 27 December 2008 (UTC) reply