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. We almost never keep AP photos, but this is one of those rare exceptions where the photo itself is notable (not just the subject of the photo), where the image is iconic, and where there is critical commentary in the article. – Quadell ^{(talk) (random)} 00:00, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Pig person.jpg[edit]

Reopening this issue due to the technicality that ifdc tag was not added to the caption in the article that uses the image -Nv8200p talk 00:06, 23 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Pig person.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by PeR (notify | contribs).

• Insufficient sourcing on image plus does not qualify as fair use. This is not one of the actual images in the Mohammed cartoon controversy. -Nard 19:40, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Agree with sourcing problems but disagree on fair use qualification. Image, while not actually one of the original published cartoons, was widely shown in the media (incorrectly) as such and thus noteworthy as contributing to the controversy. Kelvinc (talk) 00:05, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• I've added some source citations to the image description page. -- Avenue (talk) 08:45, 23 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Agree that the sourcing should be better, but this image was indeed part of the Akkari dossier used by the Danish imams in the Middle East, it was shown as such on Danish tv, and it was included in the official version of the dossier available for download. I can't remember ever having seen a copy of the dossier without this image. What is interesting about the photo is that it was not part of the images published by Jyllands-Posten, but it and two other offensive images were included in the dossier by the imams touring the Middle East, as an attempt to document that Danes generally mistreated the image of the Prophet. The other POV on this story (the one, you'll typically hear from a Dane) is that the imams probably didn't find the cartoons offensive enough, so they found something somewhere on the web and added it to the J-P cartoons to fan the flames. Due to this inclusion, this image was widely seen in the Middle East as proof that Danes generally ridiculed Muhammad, and no doubt millions of people in the Middle East must have believed that it was one of the actual Jyllands-Posten images. Valentinian ^{T / C} 21:31, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I don't see why this shouldn't qualify as fair use. It is included in an article that specifically discusses this image. It is sourced, and the poor quality means that the Associated Press is certainly not loosing any revenue. --PeR (talk) 21:09, 13 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Image deleted. Fair use image is not significant to article. -Nv8200p talk 13:44, 22 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep, and object to deletion and lack of information at Talk:Jyllands-Posten Muhammad cartoons controversy. Isn't it normal procedure that when an image is nominated for deletion that a message be posted on the article's talk page?

This image is important as documentation of the deceitful manipulating done by the "Danish imams", and can even be considered to be indirectly responsible for the deaths of many demonstrators, not to mention the demonstrations, product boycotts, flag burnings, etc. It is therefore very "significant to article". --RenniePet (talk) 17:16, 22 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Image does not meet WP:NFCC #8. The idea can be conveyed in text alone without using this Associated Press photo. -Nv8200p talk 00:11, 23 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep Image does meet WP:NFCC #8, and ditto object to deletion and lack of information at Talk:Jyllands-Posten Muhammad cartoons controversy.

This image /is/ one of the central items related to the controversy in that it was in the portfolio which helped trigger much of the uproar in the first instance and was referred to many times later on during that. Additionally, to state that the "idea can be conveyed in text alone" is inadequate as the original cartoons could also be treated likewise - yet those are clearly depicted to /illustrate/ what otherwise has to be guesswork in the mind of the reader. In this case, it would appear to be that actually seeing the "offending articles" is key to understanding the whole controversy. Regards, David. Harami2000 (talk) 00:38, 23 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Strong keep. Highly significant to the controversy, per Harami2000. It is also perhaps the most misleading of the images added to the Akkari-Laban dossier, since the image is innocuous in its original context, unlike the other images added. A high-resolution colour version of the original AP photo would not satisfy our NFCC, but I believe this one does. -- Avenue (talk) 08:09, 23 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've expanded on the non-free use rationale. -- Avenue (talk) 13:42, 23 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

One of the links provided is very relevant.[1] Here is the applicable quote:

"The three extra drawings were said to have been sent to Muslims in Denmark as insults. However one of them, apparently showing the prophet with the face of a pig, has been traced to a photo of the winner of a pig-squealing contest in the French Pyrenees last summer.

It remains unclear as to how this last picture, a grey photocopy, came to such prominence but it does seem to have played a role in the raising of the temperature.

The delegation spokesman, Ahmed Akkari, said they pointed out the status of the different pictures on their travels but the "pigface" photocopy was later filmed in Gaza at the end of January when gunmen took over EU offices, and so somehow it had been lifted out and given importance."

(My emphasis added.) --RenniePet (talk) 17:25, 23 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Strong Keep Per rationale of Harami2000. Also, I object to the way the image have been deleted, without any notification on the talk page. Poor form. The.valiant.paladin (talk) 17:12, 23 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. Image is discussed in the article and does meet WP:NFCC #8. - Mafia Expert (talk) 13:54, 24 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: I have discovered that Politiken hosts a high quality copy of the dossier on their website ([2], a 12 MB pdf file). This shows that the "pig person" photo the imams distributed was much less noisy than the version we currently show (which was sourced from the Ekstra Bladet website: [3]). This seems potentially misleading, so if this image survives the current deletion discussion, I am tempted to replace it with a less noisy version sourced from the Politiken copy. This would still be black and white, and of fairly low quality compared to the original. Discussion welcome. -- Avenue (talk) 10:05, 25 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think that would be a good idea. I think what should be done is to extract not just the picture but also the Danish text above it and the Arabic text below, i.e., capture a larger portion of the page, and don't try to rotate the image to make the picture horizontal, just leave everything exactly as it is. If this is the consensus, I can probably do the conversion; I have access to PDF extraction tools. --RenniePet (talk) 12:51, 25 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The n'th generation photocopy we have on display illustrates how the original dossier - which wasn't produced in that great amounts - was distributed. This could possibly be emphasized. MX44 (talk) 11:56, 27 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep MX44 (talk) 11:56, 27 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per basically everybody, though Valentinian articulates it well. -Hit bull, win steak^(Moo!) 15:09, 26 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. I'm uncomfortable with the encyclopedic value of the image, but it free and used in an encyclopedia article, so I can't find a reason to delete it. (There's certainly no consensus to do so.) – Quadell ^{(talk) (random)} 23:50, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Cool Timeline2.png[edit]

Image:Cool Timeline2.png (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Sprezzatury (notify | contribs).

• This image is confusing, not-NPOV, and arbitrary. It has no place in an encyclopedia. -Branddobbe (talk) 01:44, 23 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. The image is perfectly clear to me, and it serves to place certain cultural phenomena related to cool in chronological order. Nothing unencyclopedic about that. Perhaps Branddobbe should have considered raising the matter on the article talk page and giving editors and the image creators a chance to respond before moving to have it deleted -- so that whatever he finds troubling could have been discussed/explained. It's still not too late. What Branddobbe says here sheds very little light on his concerns. My only complaint about the image at this point is that I like the original, technicolor version better. ;)deeceevoice (talk) 06:33, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. wiki ain't paper and the image is easy enough to comprehend. Justforasecond (talk) 04:10, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Illustrates the subject of the article it is transcluded in well enough. Singularity 21:54, 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.