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 Stifle (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 00:00, 13 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:Watch Out single.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by User:Brandmeister

• Speedy delete, my flaw, noticed site's label. Uploaded alternative cover. --Brandспойт 20:12, 12 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.

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) An image with this name on Commons is now visible. AnomieBOT⚡ 08:10, 16 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:Topless DJ.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by User:JIP

• UE Was removed from DJ a long time ago, no forseeable purpose Ipatrol (talk) 02:06, 12 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep but move to commons. While it may not have a home in DJ, Nudism looks a fair place. Good quality high res shot that we don't have a home for at present - good Commons candidate - Peripitus (Talk) 02:40, 12 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete They are too sma No encyclopedic value. --Damiens.rf 20:29, 12 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.

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: - Withdrawn - Sorry folks but I stupidly missed the discussion section on the artwork - this is clearly one I should not have put up. - Peripitus (Talk) 21:16, 12 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:ScorpionsInTrance.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Death2 (notify | contribs).

• Additional non free image used to illustrate an article with an almost identical non-free already used The small differences (almost none visible) can easily be described with (free) text and as such this image fails WP:NFCC#1 Peripitus (Talk) 02:29, 12 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep While I disagree in most instances with what appears to be a wide-scale campaign against alternate album art by Periputus, I understand the position and rational he is attempting to use. Assuming one agrees with that rational many of the images he nominates in these broad IFD campaigns would be warranted. However in this particular image's case, I believe that even those that agree with the blanket rational he uses for these alternate album art deletions should recognize that it does not apply in this case. Periputus cites WP:NFCC#1. I argue that this image does not fail NFCC#1 because no free equivalent is available or could be created and that the difference between it and the original album art cannot be easily described with simple text. The reason being that unlike many alternate album covers that are typically uploaded, this is not a simple alternate cover for an international version or special edition with no supporting commentary in the article. The alternate cover is the result of a controversy over the bare breast shown on the original version. Additionally the music band Scorpions whose album this represents are widely documented as one of the bands that push the envelope with controversial cover art, of which this particular cover is the first to generate such controversy for them. The controversy, including references to both versions of the cover, are documented in the article and include citations. Simply describing the imagine in text will not give the reader sufficient understanding of the exact censoring of the cover and would lead to misunderstanding of the steps taken by the record company to quell the controversy. Periputus argues in this post that a "great example of a good use of a second image is the recently controversial Virgin Killer - there each of the two images are discussed at length and without them the text is far less meaningful. See also Beatles White Album." I argue that this image is good use of a second image for the same reasons as Virgin Killer (which community consensus has clearly argued in favor of on several occasions, including it's defense by Mike Godwin). Additionally I argue that this image is actually more defensible than the White Album's alternate image which is mearly showing an embossed Beatles logo rather than a printed Beatles logo in the primary image, and has no citations in the article. If Periputus believes the alternate While album cover is good usage, than I submit that this also should be considered good usage. In summary I submit this is good and acceptable usage of alternate album art passing all NFC criteria. Jeffreybh (talk) 06:14, 12 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - sourced discussion of the subtly different cover. PhilKnight (talk) 18:50, 12 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.

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 - as lacking a verifyable source so that the licence cannot be confirmed - Peripitus (Talk) 00:47, 18 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:Clinton-riady-huang.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Jayzel68 (notify | contribs).

• Unverifiable source information. No source url. Just a "contact" link that leads to a 404 error. Damiens.rf 14:36, 12 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• It is easy to find the link via Internet Wayback. Current URL of the contact is here: http://www.disa.mil/contact/ I don't see any reason to doubt this image is as decribed, a screen capture from a US Gov't work. Crypticfirefly (talk) 16:33, 12 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Contact should be made and an OTRS ticket created. --Damiens.rf 18:45, 12 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Go for it! Crypticfirefly (talk) 19:53, 12 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Damiens.rf isn't the one who wants to keep it... why don't you? Calliopejen1 (talk) 13:36, 13 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Because I have better things to do with my time, and I disagree that emailing the White House Press Office is necessary in this instance. If you or anyone else thinks that it is, then I think that person should get off his or her fanny and do it rather than complain about it. Crypticfirefly (talk) 01:29, 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.

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
Just a note first up that I have no opinion, nor interest, in either the image or the subject. I am specifically only looking at the policy based arguments below. This longer than usual closing statement results from what I can see is a very controversial subject that is generating much heat, and participants deserve all of the closing admin's reasoning on such a subject. I do note that the number of editors on the keep and delete side is largely evenly split, also (for reference only) that there has clearly been canvassing on the issue – though the action and effect of that canvassing is not a deciding factor here.

Many of the opinions below have all largely argued not on the basis of NFCC requirements for the current use but that this deletion debate is out-of-process and/or forum shopping. From what I can see this is not a valid argument—this debate is part of the normal process for proposing an image be deleted. That there is ongoing heated argument on various pages does not put on hold the start or conclusion of a deletion debate. The nomination is on the basis of NFCC#8 – item must significantly increase readers’ understanding and its omission must not significantly decrease such understanding. With further people noting NFCC#1 (image being replaceable with text alone). And I have looked through at how the two sides have argued solely on this basis.

Based on this, I can see significantly stronger arguments on the side of deletion. As noted above, a significant number of those seeking to keep the image have presented arguments that are not showing how the image meets the NFC/NFCC requirements – just that they disagree with it being nominated at this time or at all. That there is sourced commentary within the article about the magazine article seems not in dispute. This debate is about whether the image itself is, above that covered by the text, significantly increases reader’s understanding and cannot be replaced by free text. I see here that the consensus, whether measured by strength of argument or a simple nose-count of those arguing on the basis of policy, is that the image fails NFCC#8 in that it does not significantly increase reader’s understanding and that it’s removal would not be detrimental to such understanding. - Peripitus (Talk) 01:23, 19 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

• Doesn't significantly add to the reader's unserstanding. PhilKnight (talk) 15:59, 12 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep; part of a highly charged content and policy discussion. If the image is removed by consensus at the end of the dispute, that will be time to delete. This timing is akin to forum shopping; attempting to end the dispute by deletion will only escalate the dispute and not in any way resolve it. KillerChihuahua^?!? 16:05, 12 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep: image gives arresting visual context to the ID controversy, juxtaposing "The Creation of Adam" and a chimpanzee (evoking echoes of the Huxley Memorial Debate‎ and Scopes Trial‎, as well the contemporaneous Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District‎/Monkey Girl: Evolution, Education, Religion, and the Battle for America's Soul) with Time's own logo (indicating the level of prominence of the controversy), thus adding significantly to the reader's understanding. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 16:27, 12 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I agree that Time has done wonderful job to illustrate the subject. But I fail to see the relevance of this in the light of our policy. The public attention the controversy received can be explained with text alone, and the image serves at best as a navigational aid. --Damiens.rf 20:09, 12 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment: Didn't the nominator check the IfD/DrV history of this image first? This image has already been through two IfDs, noted at Talk:Intelligent_design#Time_cover_image_history.2C_in_brief. Both had a significant majority of participants in support of keep. In between, there was also a DrV where the first IfD was deemed improperly closed. A third IfD (FfD) on the same file is, quite frankly, tendentious and excessive. I assume it was a simple oversight where the prior proceedings weren't noticed by the nominator. Or am I wrong about this assumption? ... Kenosis (talk) 16:37, 12 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, ths image itself is not discussed in the article and does not aid the reader in any significant way. I'm sure Hrafn's analysis is accurate (and I'm sure someone was paid a lot of money to come up with the cover) but unless such a discussion of the image is worthy of discussion in the article, then the argument is invalid. I will remind editors here of the sheer volume of AfDs regarding Daniel Brandt before it was finally (improperly, in my eyes) closed as delete. New arguments have been raised, new editors are involved in these discussions, consensus can change. J Milburn (talk) 16:49, 12 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Obvious delete. The cover isn't really discussed in the article. It's replaceable too, and already has been replaced by text with "The public controversy was given widespread media coverage in the United States". On any article that deals with a topic covered widely in the media, we don't include samples of covers of magazines and newspapers to emphasize that it was covered in national media. There's no point to this image for this article. Also, this isn't forum shopping. It's a clearly stand alone case on its own merits. --Hammersoft (talk) 16:52, 12 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • The idea that non-free images must be discussed in articles is a guideline, one that isn't followed in a large proportion of reviewed fair use. The policy only speaks of the issue of "significance". Which is subjective. And which is subject to discussion. Guettarda (talk) 17:01, 12 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • It's a guideline, so therefore it shouldn't be followed. Understood. --Hammersoft (talk) 20:01, 12 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • Actually, if you look at the "Images: Acceptable use" part of WP:NFC, the only category where policy requires commentary on the image itself is #8, "Images with iconic status or historical importance". Those images (alone) have the requirement that they must be "subjects" of critical commentary. This is because it is specifically for those images that our usage otherwise might not qualify as transformative use. For other classes of image, they merely must advance the critical commentary of the subject in general - which they will do, if they "significantly improve understanding of the topic", as those who support keeping these images are arguing that these images do. Jheald (talk) 21:46, 12 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. The image is used in an article, where its use is currently subject to discussion. Dependent on the outcome of the discussion, the image will either remain in the article (in which case, it will meet our requirements for inclusion), or it will be removed from the article, in which case it will meet our criteria for speedy deletion. Forum-shopping is unhelpful. Guettarda (talk) 16:56, 12 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • If that was true, this page would only deal with free images that weren't suitable for transwiking to the commons. As it happens, that's an interesting idea, however that isn't how the process currently works. PhilKnight (talk) 17:05, 12 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Phil, disputes over fair-use rationales are specifically listed as things that are not supposed to be listed at this page. Guettarda (talk) 18:36, 12 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • No, that only applies to images that can be speedy deleted. PhilKnight (talk) 18:39, 12 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete since the reader don't need to see the cover to understand the few (poorly sourced) paragraphs about the "cover story" in the article. That said, I'm almost convinced it was a bad idea to start an IFD at this time, given the ongoing dispute on the articles talk page. --Damiens.rf 18:43, 12 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • The test isn't whether you need the image to understand the text. The test is whether the image provides additional understanding, beyond what is in the text. Please address yourself to what the test actually requires. Jheald (talk) 21:53, 12 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per Damiens, J Milburn and per nom. --John (talk) 18:57, 12 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Does not significantly increase the reader's understanding of the topic (NFCC #8) and what information it does convey about the rise of Intelligent Design in US social consciousness can be replaced with an explanation of such by free text (NFCC #1). CIreland (talk) 19:01, 12 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep -- this is already part of a content dispute so why is it being forum-shopped as an end-around? Knight was told of this issue and chose to ignore it; rather deplorable behaviour really: "well, my team can't win the game, so I'm going to deflate the ball". As for NFCC8 lovers, how can you possibly, even remotely possibly, tell me what increases anyone's comprehension? Are you in the brain of everydayreader? •Jim62sch•^dissera! 19:49, 12 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • If you think NFCC#8 isn't enforceable in its current wording, you should lobby for changing it instead of asking us to selectively ignore it. Making your case at NFCC talk, village pump or somewhere else would be more productive. --Damiens.rf 20:05, 12 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Wasn't quite my point, and I dislike the idea of having to fight the image-deletion cabal single-handedly. Jim62sch 20:17, 12 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • Can I be part of the image deletion cabal too? --Hammersoft (talk) 20:52, 12 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • What, you guys have a double-initiation? •Jim62sch•^dissera! 21:30, 12 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • I don't know. Maybe I didn't get the memo. Just seemed a wonderful way to win an argument; claim someone is in a cabal, and POOF you win the argument! Woohoo! That was easy. We need a new guideline to codify this. May I suggest WP:DECLAREACABALANDWIN? --Hammersoft (talk) 21:40, 12 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        • It would be quite ironic if frequent editors of the intelligent design article were to complain about a cabal. — Carl (CBM · talk) 05:28, 13 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Actually Carl, the irony is explicated rather nicely in "Just seemed a wonderful way to win an argument; claim someone is in a cabal, and POOF you win the argument". Where have we seen that before? Oh, yeah, the ID page from former user and famed internet troll Moulton. OTOH, there's an interesting irony in a charter member of the Image Deletion Cabal suggesting irony in ... well, you get my point. •Jim62sch•^dissera! 21:02, 13 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep per KC. Odd nature (talk) 19:56, 12 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, decorative use; replaceable by text and removal would not be detrimental to readers' understanding of the article. Stifle (talk) 21:08, 12 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per KillerChihuahua. --Bduke (Discussion) 23:47, 12 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. The NFCC criteria do not include anything like "arresting visual context" as a justification for using an image. They do cover things such as replaceability by text (this image is replaceable) and significant increase of the reader's understanding (this image does not do so). — Carl (CBM · talk) 05:31, 13 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete WP:NFCC1 and 8. Purely decorative use. Per Carl, "arresting visual context" is not a reason to include a non-free image. Image is replaceable with free text ("the intelligent design controversy appeared on the [date] cover of Time magazine"), and the image itself is not relevant to readers' understanding that it appeared on the cover. (That is, they don't need to see the specific image to understand that it was a matter of national interest.) Furthermore, this is not forum shopping because this is the primary forum to attract broad public comment on matters relating to image deletion. It's silly to keep this on the ID page where WP:ILIKEIT rules and editors ignore policy. Calliopejen1 (talk) 13:34, 13 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Apart from the fact this image conveys important information, this file has already been through two IFD's. The current nomination appears to be part of a push by a small group of editors to delete all non-free images from the Intelligent design article. This seems to be a case of try and try again till you succeed. --Michael Johnson (talk) 20:59, 13 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Again, comparable to the Daniel Brandt affair. I have no interest in removing all non-free images from the ID article- I have an interest in removing all images that do not meet our policies from the ID article. If I am convinced that specific images meet the policies (or the article is modified so that they do) I am happy to fight for its inclusion- I'm here to improve the encyclopedia, not here to remove all non-free images. J Milburn (talk) 22:37, 13 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. nom'ed again? will it ever stop? per KC. R. Baley (talk) 22:28, 13 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • When it is deleted, or when its use conforms with policy. J Milburn (talk) 22:37, 13 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • you will fight until your interpretation of policy, however flawed, prevails. okey dokey then R. Baley (talk) 22:45, 13 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • Or until it becomes a mushroom.  ;) •Jim62sch•^dissera! 01:44, 14 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per Stifle. Thelittlegreyman (talk) 21:13, 14 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep as identification to the reader of a cover story which is the subject of critical commentary in the text as specifically marking a high point of public awareness of ID, as cited by the NCSE as the first cover story on the creationism/evolution controversy in a major national newsweekly in recent memory. Together with the Time graphics and its imagery of the issues of religion and common descent as perceived at that time, it increases the reader's understanding of the ID controversy in a way that words would not achieve. Removal of the image would be detrimental to readers' understanding. . . dave souza, talk 19:29, 15 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I agree that the main purpose for using the image seems to be for identification of the Time article, but we only permit non-free images for identification on articles about specific works of art. Thus for example the cover image of An American Dream is permitted on the article about the book itself, but could not be used for identification on other articles. — Carl (CBM · talk) 19:41, 15 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It this is to be policy, then participants in WP:NFC and WP:NFCC should do the right thing and make this a mandatory part of the policy. Right now it isn't even part of the guideline page WP:NFC. ... Kenosis (talk) 20:36, 15 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The Time cover story is a notable part of the public controversy, which is why its cover is significant for identification and showing the part played. . dave souza, talk 20:11, 15 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

However, other notable books do not have their cover image shown every time they are mentioned. For example we do not show the cover of Harry Potter in every article about that topic. The use for identification is only permitted when an article that is actually on the topic of the work of art. The article in question here is on a different topic, intelligent design. Thus we cannot use cover art for the purpose of identification. — Carl (CBM · talk) 20:36, 15 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment I want to point out this phrase from WP:NFC which is in the "unacceptable use" section: "A magazine or book cover, to illustrate the article on the person whose photograph is on the cover. However, if the cover itself is the subject of sourced discussion in the article, and if the cover (or book) does not have its own article, it may be appropriate.". Now this article is not about a person, it is about intelligent design. But the principle is analogous. Similarly, NFC describes this use as inappropriate: "A photo from a press agency (e.g. AP), unless the photo itself is the subject of sourced commentary in the art." Time is not a press agency, but Time does claim copyright on all its covers in the same way that press agencies do. And again the principle is very analogous: unless there is something about the cover itself that is the subject of sourced commentary in the article, we should not be using it merely because it is visually appealing. — Carl (CBM · talk) 19:47, 15 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Carl, the item under discussion in this section is the cover story, and the illustration is the cover to that item which is disucssed in the text as significant to the public controversy. The section of the guideline that you're pointing to would preclude use of the image as an illustration of God or a chimpanzee, but that's not the use we're making of it. What it does show is the way that the cover story is presenting the controversy to the public. . dave souza, talk 20:11, 15 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It seems that you are arguing that, whenever a WP article that refers to a cover story from a magazine, we can use the cover art in that article. But that sort of broad use is certainly is not in accordance with our established NFCC practices. — Carl (CBM · talk) 20:36, 15 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

AFAIK, Dave is not and never was arguing what you say. And if what you say has become "our established NFCC practices" then it should be written into the policy. Also note the frequent use of the word "our" when WT:NFC regulars refer to this policy. I'm not accustomed to hearing about "our NPOV policy" or "our WP:V policy" or "our NOR policy" except occasionally when talking to an anon IP or new user. Since when did it become "'our NFCC practices" without being explicitly stated in writing?
..... To answer the question that, roughly translated, says "What's to stop everybody from going hog-wild pasting Time covers all over the wiki if we let you 'get away with this'?": It's not a "one-size-fits-all" policy. It's a guideline. The article on [[intelligent design[[ is rated top importance in a 188-article wikiproject. It's the functional equivalent of only using a cover image in the article about that topic. The whole intelligent design article is devoted to the topic of the Time cover. Being the unique presentation of the public dimension of the controversy that it is, it's extremely unlike a photo presentation of a person on a Time cover where another photo can readily be found of any person who's notable enough to have their picture on the cover of Time Magaizine. ... Kenosis (talk) 23:34, 15 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I believe that the intelligent design article is devoted to the topic of intelligent design. The Time story is mentioned in one part of the article, but the Time story is only one part of the overall subject of intelligent design. It's quite a stretch to say that "The whole intelligent design article is devoted to the topic of the Time cover".

Also, the page WP:NFCC is a policy, not a guideline. It seems to me that few of the "keep" coments here directly address the NFCC policy; instead they are concerned with issues such as whether an IFD is appropriate, etc. But the "delete" comments speak directly to the policy and to standard practice. — Carl (CBM · talk) 00:27, 16 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No, this is your interpretation of policy, this idea that a cover image should only be in the article on that item. You've been through this before with me and you know darned well I know the difference between NFCC the policy and NFC the guideline. What you're asserting is in neither the policy nor the guideline. ... Kenosis (talk) 00:47, 16 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This particular situation isn't literally described, but I pointed out above how several very analogous situations are covered in NFC. It seems to me that this is not really very different than the situations that are covered. An argument that relies on wikilawyering about which things are policy, and which are "just" guideline, is not very strong in the end. BTW, please avoid language like "you know darned well", as I have been doing the same. — Carl (CBM · talk) 01:41, 16 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, but this isn't equivalent to Time cover story featuring a picture of a person, a situation where other images of a notable person can be used in an article on that person. Rather, it's unique cover art displaying an image representing the public dimension of the ID controversy. Apples and oranges. ... Kenosis (talk) 01:58, 16 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

People (including me) have asked before if there are any sources that say that this Time cover (not article) is particularly significant to the development of ID. No sources have been forthcoming. The cover, on its face, looks like any other Time magazine cover, leading to the question why this one in particular warrants a deviation from usual NFCC practice. — Carl (CBM · talk) 02:08, 16 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I gave a source reliable below. And, it's not so much "significant to the development of ID" as it is a significant representation of the public perception of the controversy. More, look again at the guideline. The issue, contrary to the way you've framed it, is not solely whether the cover art is significant (which it is) but about the item on which the cover is placed. That's another area where WT:NFC regulars should do the right thing if they think their limited view of this kind of situation genuinely reflects community consensus about how it should be handled. If the issue is that only the cover art is relevant, most uses of NFC cover images shouldn't be allowed, period-- even in the article about the book or magazine. But I don't want to lean on WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS here. Rather, if a particular limitation is going to be implemented, the language of at least the guideline (WP:NFC) should reflect that particular limitation of use. And if its going to be inflexible w.r.t reasonable uses such as is the case here (that is, treated as if it were policy such that one can impose one's self on a local consensus at a particular article or bring an FfD such as this), then it should be part of the policy the WP:NFCC. ... Kenosis (talk) 03:08, 16 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps you should directly quote the source you are referring to. Your summary below says the source refers to the Time story, but makes no mention of the source referring to the Time cover. The only thing that the ID article says about the cover is that the cover has a certain textual phrase on it. This is hardly evidence that the visual appearance of the cover conveys information to the reader, if the article cannot even say what visual information is meant to be conveyed. — Carl (CBM · talk) 03:18, 16 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. This cover image is highly significant to the topic of intelligent design, and significantly enhances readers' understanding of the topic.
  (1) Because it's unique cover art that displays a unique image representing the public dimension of the controversy, there is no free equivalent. It can't be replaced by any amount of words, nor can it be replaced by a free-licensed image. It significantly enhances readers' understanding by conveying in visual form the way in which Time Magazine chose to reduce this complex topic to an image that's a takeoff on Michelangelo's Sistine Chapel painting consisting with an anthropomorphized image of God giving life to Adam, except God is looking down at and metaphorically giving life to a monkey with a perplexed expression, presented in a way that can't be properly conveyed by words alone. The image by itself conveys far better understanding of the public perception of the topic and of the way Time chose to present it to the public than can many paragraphs of text. It therefore meets both WP:NFCC policy provisions #1 (No free equivalent) and #8 (significance).
  (2) It's intended only for use in one WP article, which is the cornerstone article in a 188-page wikiproject, an article rated top importance in that wikiproject. Its use is therefore minimal, in keeping with WP:NFCC policy provision #3 (minimal use).
  (3) It expresses an important part of the public dimension of the intelligent design controversy, in a unique visual form that cannot possibly be conveyed by the use of even a very large number of words alone. The importance of the image is more than just the editorial judgment of WP editors of intelligent design, but rather its importance in the context of the public controversy about ID is verified by reliable sources outside Wikipedia. As an example, the preface to the paperback addition of Young, et al, eds., (2004, paperback edition 2006) Why Intelligent Design Fails: A Scientific Critique of the New Creationism lists the Time Magazine cover story first among six significant news events about the ID controversy. Far from being purely decorative, displaying this image is the only effective way of informing the reader what the cover conveys. (WP:NFCC policy provision #1, no free equivalent, and #8, significantly enhances readers' understanding).
  (4) Virtually the entire article is critical commentary on the subject of the cover image, and the time image itself is specifically commented upon as well. It thus meets the guideline "Acceptable use" of Images-#1, which explicitly allows use of items "in the context of critical commentary of that item".
  (5) The image's use is also quire reasonable in the context of the guideline "Unacceptable use" or Images-#8. This guideline provision discourages use of a "magazine or book cover, to illustrate the article on the person whose photograph is on the cover. However, if the cover itself is the subject of sourced discussion in the article, and if the cover (or book) does not have its own article, it may be appropriate." This image, being a unique rendering of the public dimension of the ID controversy, is quite unlike an image of a person that can be replaced by a free-licensed image of that person. And, the Time magazine image, unlike Time Person of the Century, does not have its own article, nor should it have one because the image properly belongs on the main article on intelligent design. ... Kenosis (talk) 02:42, 16 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I may have missed it, but I still think you have failed to proved a source that directly refers to the cover image, rather than the the Time story, which is a different matter.

• Re your points 1 and 3, "uniqueness" and "public importance" are not on their own concerns of NFCC. What matters is whether there is some specific piece of information about intelligent design that is conveyed by the cover. In this case, despite repeated requests, no such piece of information has been identified by proponents of the image.
• Your point 2 is correct about minimal use, but that is only a necessary condition, not a sufficient one.
• Point 4 is simply incorrect. there is only one sentence in the article, at the moment, that refers to the Time story: "Prominent coverage of the controversy was given on the front page of Time magazine with a story on Evolution Wars, on 2005-8-15. The cover poses the question: "Does God have a place in science class?""
• Re your point 5, the cover itself is not the subject of sourced discussion in the article. That is the core issue here.

The fundamental point here is that to all appearances the cover is being used only because the Time story was mentioned in the article. That sort of use is exactly what is ordinarily called "decorative" use, and is what we ordinarily strive to avoid. (03:07, 16 February 2009 (UTC)) — Carl (CBM · talk) 03:18, 16 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, virtually the entire article is critical commentary on the topic of the Time story.
.....And, if you look at WP:NFC, the discussion need not be about the cover image, or else cover images wouldn't be allowed in the articles about the particular book or magazine. Fact is, they are accepted in the article about the work on which the cover image is placed, even by the more ardent NFC minimalists, and even if the cover art isn't particularly distinctive.
..... Also, I'll answer the question you posed to me on Talk:Intelligent design here, but only briefly. The issue is not to identify for Carl or anyone else what particular piece of information, but rather to make an editorial judgment whether readers' understanding is significantly enhanced by the particular NFC. To answer the question anyway, the particular piece of information is the image itself with its innumerable facets that can't be properly conveyed by words (nor by another image). The image itself gives readers knowledge of how Time Magazine reduced this complex discussion to an iconographic image, an offshoot of Michelangelo's Sistine Chapel ceiling image with God looking down not at Adam, but at a monkey. Now I can say these words and all the additional words I care to try to use, but only the image itself will suffice to give the reader accurate information. Unfortunately, severely visually-impaired "readers" will need to do without this information.
..... And, your first point just above about "uniqueness" is wrong here. Uniqueness is related, as I indicated, to lack of a free replacement. "Public importance" is related to significance, that is to say, it's part of why readers' understanding is significantly enhanced, not just marginally enhanced. ... Kenosis (talk) 03:32, 16 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The policy that you quoted above says, my emphasis: "However, if the cover itself is the subject of sourced discussion in the article, and if the cover (or book) does not have its own article, it may be appropriate." That is not the case here. You have not provided any source that this image is iconographic or otherwise drew any outside interest. The belief that it is iconographic seems to correlate strongly with the number of edits one has made to the intelligent design article, but not otherwise to be backed up by sources.

The issue with a free replacement is that there would first have to be some specific information about ID conveyed by the cover, before the issue of replaceability could be considered. Since there is no such information here, any image (or no image at all) suffices to convey the same information about intelligent design. If you'd like to disprove my previous sentence, please provide a source. — Carl (CBM · talk) 03:42, 16 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

First off, that's not a POLICY !!! Please don't treat it as if it were one or pretend that it is one, or alternately, feel free to advocate changing this part of the guideline to policy, or for that matter, all of the guideline to policy. I am, though, somewhat heartened that you acknowledge that the language of the guideline has meaning (as opposed to some "spirit" that is drawn upon only when on NFC patrol arguing for the removal or deletion of an image, or upon a made-up standard not found in either the WP:NFCC policy page or the WP:NFC guideline), This is substantially better than much of what the NFC patrol has argued from the outset of this contentious debate on Talk:Intelligent design, at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/ID-NFCC, and also here at this FfD.
.....So, let's read what a guideline is defined as in the policy page Wikipedia:Policies and guidelines:

Guidelines are considered more advisory than policies, with exceptions more likely to occur.

The standard template for guideline pages reads similarly:

[A WP content guideline] is a generally accepted standard that editors should attempt to follow, though it is best treated with common sense and the occasional exception.

Now let's read the guideline passage again, from WP:Non-free content, the guideline page associated with the WP:NFCC policy, set forth under "Unacceptable uses":

A magazine or book cover, to illustrate the article on the person whose photograph is on the cover. However, if the cover itself is the subject of sourced discussion in the article, and if the cover (or book) does not have its own article, it may be appropriate.

You've argued that although this image is not an image of a person, that it's analogous to a person. Well, it's not analogous to an image of a person. An image of a notable person can always be replaced with a free-licensed image. This image cannot be replaced by any other image and still have the same information value. But even if it were analogous to a cover image of a person, which it's not, this use of the Time cover image is still entirely reasonable, using common sense and granting this as one of the occasional exceptions we commonly run into w.r.t guidelines. ... Kenosis (talk) 04:15, 16 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Have we returned to the discussion of what is a policy and what is a guideline? If you argue that this image is an exception, does that mean you accept that the ordinary practice is not to use nonfree images in this way? Also, do you have a source that discusses the cover image, or not? — Carl (CBM · talk) 05:11, 16 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

W.r.t. "argue that this image is an exception " : Actually, no. I've argued that even the guideline for "Unacceptable use #8 doesn't apply here, but that even if it did, this image's use in the article on intelligent design would be an extremely reasonable exception to such a guideline, particularly given that the article is the cornerstone of a 188-article wikiproject, rated top importance in that project. I'm aware, though, that in the last year or so it's become the habit of the NFC patrol has become to accede to the use of book and magazine covers in the article on the item the cover is placed upon by the publisher of that item. Perhaps ironically, it appears to me this is a habit that neglects the plain language of the current guideline recommendation for Acceptable_use of Images #1, and the current guideline recommendation about Unacceptable_use of Images #8. Again though, it's a guideline a slight deviation from which fails to rise to the level of mandatory deletion on policy grounds. Beyond that, I've had a chance to see repeatedly by now a tendency to seek varied grounds and to use widely varied reasoning in support of a deletionist position when one or more avid NFC patrollers decides to set their sights on a target, even to the point of making up their own rules as they go along. This protracted discussion, at intelligent design, at AN/I and here, is a reasonable example of this practice, I think. So if the argument is that the habit represents consensus, I don't buy it. If it represents consensus such that patrollers can go 'round the wiki forcing their will on participants in individual articles, that consensus should be written into the policy WP:NFCC. And if there's actually a pre-existing consensus that some particular habit of WT:NFC regulars should be a WP guideline, it should be written into the guideline WP:NFC. ... Kenosis (talk) 05:32, 16 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Complaining about "deletionist" NFCC patrollers is fine and well, but do you have a published source that directly discusses the Time cover image? Can you provide any evidence that the opinion that the image is iconic is backed up by published sources? — Carl (CBM · talk) 05:40, 16 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment. The closing admin should carefully check Kenosis' contributions just before 2009-02-16T12:36:03 for possible canvassing. — Carl (CBM · talk) 13:20, 16 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Canvassing? My foot it's canvassing. You neglected to mention that nobody was notified of this as is customary, not even the uploader, I noticed this yesterday and proceeded to notify those who participated in the relevant discussion at Talk:Intelligent design, e.g., here. A brief review of the participants that are regulars at WT:NFC and related pages (all of whom have WT:NFC on their top ten list of Wikipedia-talk contributions, by the way) appears unnecessary as they've all logged their preferences above. Did I miss anybody? Or are you asserting it's somehow inappropriate to actually notify participants instead of trying to sneak one by them ??? ... Kenosis (talk) 13:48, 16 February 2009 (UTC) ... I notice User:Black Kite hadn't checked in here yet. Maybe somebody should notify him. ... Kenosis (talk) 14:00, 16 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, a public notification was placed on the ID talk page, and you (the uploader) were well aware of it, as you commented here within 40 minutes of the nomination.

Regarding canvassing, as far as I can tell you did not notify the following recent participants from the ID talk page: Andrew c, Black Kite, Kww, MASEM, 2008Olympian, howcheng. All of these, coincidentally, spoke against the images on the ID talk page recently. I did not do the further diligence, which should be done before placing mass announcements, of looking through the past IFD and NFCR pages to make a full list of names. — Carl (CBM · talk) 14:03, 16 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'd have thought these would go through the normal NFC-patrol grapevine, whatever that may consist of. Nonetheless I have adequate time at the moment to notify the participants you just mentioned too. ... Kenosis (talk) 14:22, 16 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This subthread is making less and less sense – notifying those who you feel agree with you while assuming that the people who disagree with you will notify themselves is essentially the definition of canvassing. Anyway, PhilKnight has put diffs of notifications below, including one on your talk page, on Feb 12, so let's get back the issue of sources that state that the Time cover image is significant or iconic. — Carl (CBM · talk) 14:34, 16 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I just now notified Andrew c, Black Kite, Kww, MASEM, 2008Olympian, and howcheng. As well, I notified Jossi, the original uploader. I don't at the moment have time to notify participants in the two prior IfDs and the DrV, but will try to get to it later. Note also that we're already four days into this.
As to your last question, it's irrelevant. Now you're insisting on seeing sourcing that the cover image itself is significant or iconic. This would presumably be related to Wikipedia:Non-free content#Unacceptable_use guideline for images #8? I already gave an answer to that above. This is, again, a guideline that doesn't apply because the guideline for unacceptable use I8 deals with cover images of persons ! The issue of images of persons, as we know well, is a separate issue because it runs across WP:NFCC #1, where an image of a living person can theoretically be replaced by a free-licensed image. As with so many other arguments rendered against the image thus far those seeking to delete it, this is stretching the boundaries of rational interpretation of the guideline. And again, if the consensus is to make it apply to all cover images, not just images of persons, then such consensus should be stated explicitly in the guideline, not made up as one goes along. And even still, it's a guideline. If it's to be inflexibly applied, such should be part of the policy page WP:NFCC. Moreover, its use is still completely consistent with Wikipedia:Non-free content#Acceptable_use guideline for images #1. ... Kenosis (talk) 15:05, 16 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Notifications: Talk:Intelligent design, User talk:Kenosis, Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/ID-NFCC, User:John/Intelligent design image use summary. PhilKnight (talk) 14:04, 16 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete unless it can be shown how this specific cover has influenced the public's perception of ID, otherwise fails WP:NFC#8 and established non-uses of NFC. --MASEM 14:53, 16 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete While I agree the timing of this IFD isn't the best, it doesn't change the underlying facts: in the absence of sourced commentary, there isn't a legitimate way to use this cover.—Kww(talk) 14:55, 16 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Though I remain unconvinced it really does help Intelligent design, where there seems to have been a huge argument about it, deleting the original image doesn't seem necessary, since it can be used in several other articles, where it might make sense, say Creation-evolution controversy. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 16:18, 16 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per WP:NFCC under its current usage, though I agree with Orangemarlin above that there would certainly be opportunities to use it correctly in other articles - just not this one. If it is kept, it certainly needs to be removed from the ID article, because it simply doesn't conform to any interpretation of NFCC#8. Black Kite 16:47, 16 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Would you elaborate on that? While I understand why articles like Creation-evolution controversy would discuss the Time's cover story, I don't see why any article would discuss the cover image. As you know, we don't use non-free magazine covers just because one story of that magazine is mentioned in the article. --Damiens.rf 17:20, 16 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Having the picture is a separate issue from where and how it should be used. Jayen466 16:52, 16 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Not for non-free images: By WP:CSD#I5, when we don't use them, we delete them. --Damiens.rf 17:20, 16 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep as per dave souza and Kenosis.--LexCorp (talk) 17:56, 16 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Obvious delete. Does not come even close to meeting the standard we have for inclusion of magazine cover usage in articles. howcheng {chat} 18:58, 16 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment - per discussion here and at Talk:Intelligent design, I have added some (sourced) discussion of the Time cover to the article text[1]. The text discusses the composition of the image, and the fact that it parodies Michelangelo's The Creation of Adam. Inclusion of the cover helps the reader understand the discussion of its composition. It also allows the reader to compare the parody with Michelangelo's original. Guettarda (talk) 23:29, 16 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

As I said above, I think this is unnecessary to specifically provide reliably-sourced discussion of the cover art per sein order to meet WP:NFCC policy provisions and WP:NFC guideline provisions. Nonetheless this appears to satisfy CBM's expectation that such is needed. My offhand expectation based on experience would be that some other reason will now form the basis of further arguments put forward opponents of the use of this magazine cover image. Or could I be wrong about this? If so, it'd be a bit of a breath of fresh air. ... Kenosis (talk) 00:57, 17 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The effort is appreciated and certainly a step forward. However,

• Each of the three articles referenced makes extremely brief mention of the cover before going on to other things. None of them says that the cover itself is iconic or historic, as has been claimed. The references simply mention the cover in passing. Thus the due weight here would seem to be for us to simply mention it in passing as well.
• Each of the three articles referenced manages to describe the cover in words alone without showing an image of it. This undercuts the argument that has been presented here that it is not possible to replace the image by text while still conveying the same information.
• The article still says essentially nothing about the image. If the image were not used, the caption would not be present. Of course this could be easily remedied by moving text from the caption to the main article.

— Carl (CBM · talk) 02:16, 17 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

LOL, just as predicted above. There's a pattern with these deletion efforts, which is that the arguments tend to be all over the map, drawing on little chunks of the language of the NFCC policy and the NFC guideline as seems to suit the predetermined attempt to delete or remove the object image.
..... Firstly here, no one claimed iconic status for the cover image, and it's not a requirement either in the WP:NFCC policy or the related guideline WP:NFC. Nor need it be historic, though in this case the image is a significant historical recording, a visual synopsis of this important aspect of the culture war in the United States, communicated brilliantly to the reader courtesy of Time Magazine specifically in the context of the intelligent design controversy. This is in part why several reliable sources specifically refer to it in the context of intelligent design. And, at least one of the reliable sources that discuss the Time cover article and/or the cover image itself uses the image to augment the written presentation, enhancing the reader's understanding of what the image looks like and what the image conveys in ways that words cannot do by themselves (here).
..... RE "This undercuts the argument that has been presented here that it is not possible to replace the image by text while still conveying the same information". Nonsense. If CBM is correct, it's essentially a catch-22 in the present language of the guideline, as I'd observed on Talk:Intelligent design here with Damiens.rf responding, essentially, no that's just my imagination because I don't understand the policy (here). Fact is, the guideline explicitly allows such a cover in the context of identifying the item on which the cover is placed where there is critical commentary about the item (one assumes this refers to either the cover itself or the item on which it's placed (WP:NFC#Acceptable_use), a guideline that's been quite reasonably met. But just above, is an attempt to impose just such a Catch-22. From an editorial standpoint the descriptive text is, as I said earlier, unnecessary either in the image caption or in the article because the image speaks for itself, and it's a totally reasonable editorial decision to use it in the article on ID. But while the image caption and article text fulfills the guideline expectation that such an image can be used in conjunction with critical commentary of the item (the magazine itself with the cover article inside), no amount of words replaces the image itself-- indeed in this case a reasonable editorial judgment would be that the more words that are used in commentary about the image, the worse the writing product that results from the extra words, because the image is self-standing-- it speaks for itself in the context of intelligent design. ... Kenosis (talk) 03:45, 17 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

A "significant historical recording"? That's complete exaggeration of the importance of this cover. Time covers are a dime a dozen.

As to "patterns", the "pattern" most visible with NFCC is that editors familiar with an article often exaggerate the importance of the nonfree images in order to keep them despite their not meeting the requirements. However, things slowly get better with time, and I'm sure that eventually the article will actually (not only in the minds of its frequent editors) with the NFCC policy. Guettarda's edits are a step in that direction. — Carl (CBM · talk) 04:21, 17 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps needless to say, my take on it is completely different. Time covers may be a dime a dozen, but a few are quite unique and important to particular topics. This one is worth vastly more than merely showing essentially "hey, this topic made the cover of Time", as some WP editors may perhaps be wont to believe. Rather, this image encapsulates the public dimension of the controversy in a way that's best understood by viewing the cover image itself. While I'm a bit reluctant to draw on the old saying about how many words a picture is worth, this one can't be properly expressed in any amount of words. The best information is conveyed by seeing it in the context of the article. This is quite unlike a run-of-the-mill photo or portrait of a person that we often see on Time covers, which I should think has something to do with the way the guideline WP:Non-free content#Unacceptable_use #8 is written, specifying that it applies to a cover image of a person, which can generally be easily replaced with another image of that same person. ... Kenosis (talk) 04:56, 17 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• None of them says that the cover itself is iconic or historic - To begin with, the appearance of this story on the cover of Time is historic. The fact that the cover was discussed in three separate works - the cover itself, it's composition, it's derivation - indicates its importance. That's highly unusual, especially in a serious academic work like Hewlett's. These aren't mentions "in passing" - these are discussions of the composition of the cover, of the derivation, and of the symbolic significance. That's a little more than "in passing".
  • [Later addition] Where the NFC guideline of acceptable uses of images considers "iconic or historic" as a separate category of acceptable images, not an additional requirement for cover art.
• Each of the three articles referenced manages to describe the cover in words alone without showing an image of it. This undercuts the argument that has been presented here that it is not possible to replace the image by text while still conveying the same information. Each of the three conveys information about the image, but they convey significantly less information than does the combination of the image and the critical commentary. And out of curiosity, what does meet your requirement of a non-replaceable image that can still be described in words? Because, quite frankly, it seems to me that anything that isn't described fails the "critical commentary" requirement, while anything that is described would appear to be replaceable. This may be your requirement, but it certainly isn't Wikipedia's.
• The article still says essentially nothing about the image. If the image were not used, the caption would not be present. Of course this could be easily remedied by moving text from the caption to the main article. - Sorry, I can't figure out what you're talking about here Carl. Why would you want to move the text from the caption to the article when the image caption was largely copied from the text. Yeah, I wasn't terribly inventive. But seriously - did you not read the associated text that was added to the article? It might be helpful to consider the issue as a whole, you know... Guettarda (talk) 03:43, 17 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I think we all agree that images are acceptable when they document historically significant events or are used in articles about copyrighted contemporary works to illustrate those works. However, the claim that Time magazine featuring ID on its cover is an "historic event" would simply be an exaggeration of the importance of the matter, as would be the claim that this Time cover is an important piece of contemporary art. — Carl (CBM · talk) 04:14, 17 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, there's a very substantial difference between images that themselves are historically significant, and on the other hand images that, as you say, "document historically significant events". This image definitely belongs to the latter class. It's an important documentation of the intelligent design controversy, rendered in symbolic, even humorous imagery that concisely expresses the controversy in a manner that both visually and textually speaks to popular conceptions of what the controversy was about. ... Kenosis (talk) 04:35, 17 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The appearance of ID in Time magazine is not an "historically significant event", and to present it as such is myopic. — Carl (CBM · talk) 04:44, 17 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps you didn't actually read what I wrote, or perhaps I wrote it poorly. When I said that there are images that, to use your prior words, "document historically significant events" and that's the class in which this image belongs, I meant just that. That's not anywhere near the same as asserting the cover itself is a historically significant event. Understood? ... Kenosis (talk) 05:10, 17 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The-topic-of-ID-being-covered-in-Time is not an "historical event". The "intelligent design controversy" is not an event at all, it's a controversy. There is no historical event in sight. Appending "Understand?" cannot make one appear from nowhere. — Carl (CBM · talk) 05:49, 17 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oh please. Not historical in your personal opinion? Why, because the controversy still festers in some quarters? Whatever. Bye for now. ... Kenosis (talk) 06:09, 17 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• keep I was unsure about this matter and so was staying out of it. However, the addition of the new sources makes this pretty clearly meet NFC #8. So keep. JoshuaZ (talk) 04:00, 17 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment: User:TheresaWilson left the following note on my talk page at User talk:Kenosis#File:Time_evolution_wars.jpg_listed_for_deletion. I leave it to the community and closing admin to decide whether this is acceptable. ... Kenosis (talk) 16:55, 17 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  "Unfortunately, I'm in hospital bed at the moment & using a GPRS pda to surf, so I'm a little limited. I can't open the thread to edit (it's too big) but, if it's acceptable, you could copy the following there:
  keep. The image is almost iconic as a relevant illustration of the article. I have to admit that my main reason is as an improvement to the readability of the article, however it seems to me that the attempts to lawyer or fiibuster this image off the wiki seem to be bureaucracy for its own sake rather than for the improvement of the article and of Wikipedia as a whole. The spirit of the "law" should be the guidance rather than a particular over severe, one-sided view which the "deletionists" seem to be taking. TheresaWilson (talk) 09:52, 17 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. We should be clear on the policy basis here. The question, per policy, is not "Is there sourced commentary on the image?" That is not, per policy, necessarily a requirement. Rather the question, per policy, is "Does this image significantly improve reader understanding of the topic of the article?" The article is substantially about the cultural aspects of the ID controversy, as well as scientific argumentation about the idea. This image helps improve the reader's understanding of that cultural impact.

It's also maybe worth mentioning that a previous editor of Time has commented on WP in the past that they would view fair use of their covers for that sort of use as entirely appropriate, ie to convey an understanding of cultural impact and take-up. Jheald (talk) 17:26, 17 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I remember this conversation with Time's former managing editor and CEO of CNN, Walter Isaacson; yes it was actually Isaacson -- an IP check verified he was editing from his office in Aspen, CO (he's currently the chair of the Aspen Institute). The thread can be found here.
He said:

"Time has always allowed, as a matter of policy, its magazine covers to be reproduced in the context of an article about the issue. In addition, we always negotiate -- and in this case did negotiate -- the right from the artist or photographer (in this case Halsman's estate) that the cover may be reproduced, as long as it is in the context of a magazine cover (in orther words, you could not automatically reproduce Halsman's image, but you could reproduce the Time cover using the image). In my opinion, both the photograph and the Time cover showing him as Person of the Century meet the "notability of this image" criteria. -- Walter Isaacson"

and:

Comment As I said in my earlier post (and yes, Walter Isaacson is my real name), having a picture of the Time cover in the midst of the sections called "Honors" and "Einstein in Popular Culture" is clearly permitted under any conceivable interpretation of "fair use.” However, I appreciate the WP distinction between what is permissible under "fair use" and what is permissible under WP’s ten criteria for "non-free" content. More specifically, the question is whether the image meets criteria #8, "significance." The problem is that this criteria, as spelled out in the guidelines, is subjective; someone who interprets criteria #8 strictly could eliminate almost every non-free picture in Wikipedia, while someone else who interprets the criteria more liberally could defend almost every such picture. I would argue that actually seeing the most iconic photo of Einstein (Halsman’s 1947 sad-eyed and halo-headed portrait) in the iconic red border of a Time cover proclaiming him Person of the Century conveys the iconic status of “Einstein in popular culture” in a more significant way than a text description, which is why people like to use photos for their impact. (I notice in a Google image search that more than 25,000 other websites use that Einstein Time cover image.) But I realize that reasonable people may disagree. Which leads me to the policy question: Why enforce an interpretation of criteria #8 that is far more restrictive than fair use standards require? Who benefits from that? In pondering that question, I went to the rationale that was used for the ten criteria: "These criteria are based on the four fair-use factors, the goal of creating a free encyclopedia, and the need to minimize legal exposure." Therefore, I can see why the desire is to go somewhat beyond the “fair use” standards, but I cannot understand the need to enforce criteria #8 in a way that is far more restrictive than necessary for meeting those goals. Tossing out pictures that are clearly permitted under fair use and cost nothing and can be picked up free by WP readers for similar uses would seem, to me, to diminish the richness of Wikipedia. As a person who has worked on magazines, books, and websites, we put in pictures because they enhance understanding and the emotional significance of the text. Shouldn’t the philosophical devotion to “free content,” which I appreciate, be accompanied by a devotion to having pages that are as rich as possible in impact? If so, the delicate balance might argue for a less rigid interpretation of the phrases in criteria #8. – Walter Isaacson

...Kenosis (talk) 17:45, 18 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep A Time magazine cover about a given issue shows how relevant that issue is in a way that words alone could never do. --Born2cycle (talk) 18:12, 17 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  That means it satisfies NFCC#1. Now, what about the other nine? Stifle (talk) 12:58, 18 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Could someone explain, in a word, what exactly the article loses if the cover image is not there? --Mosmof (talk) 22:24, 18 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.

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: Erroneous Nomination. When following the listing instructions (step 2), you need to replace "File_name.ext" with the actual name of the file. You'll also want to put the name of the uploader just after "Uploader=", and your reason for deletion just after "Reason=". Feel free to just replace this entire section with the corrected template. If you are still having trouble, ask for help at WT:FFD or at my talk page. AnomieBOT⚡ 21:10, 12 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:File_name.ext (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Jayzel68 (notify | contribs).

• Unverifiable source information. The file is claimed to be a PD Official photo from the White House, and it indeed looks like one. But without verifiable source information (like a link, an otrs confirmation or a LOC ID) we can't simply take that as truth. The copyright holder and copyright status must be verifiably known. Damiens.rf 20:27, 12 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.

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⚡ 02:02, 18 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:Potustrie.JPG (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Jayzel68 (notify | contribs).

• Unverifiable source information. The file is claimed to be a PD Official photo from the White House, and it indeed looks like one. But without verifiable source information (like a link, an otrs confirmation or a LOC ID) we can't simply take that as truth. The copyright holder and copyright status must be verifiably known. Damiens.rf 12:10, 13 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.