File talk:Kerala police forensic experts investigate the van which was allegedly used by culprits.jpg

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of a fair use image as a replaceable image. Please do not modify it.

The result was to delete the image. ℯxplicit 00:56, 21 August 2017 (UTC)

Disputed reason

I believe the image is not replaceable and does not fail any WP policies for the following reasons: The usage of some usage of copyrighted materials without permission of the copyright holder can qualify as fair use in the United States per WP:Image_use_policy#Fair_use_images; Additionally, images are often an important illustrative aid to understanding encyclopedic nature per WP:Manual of Style/Images; It is said by the reason that the file "does not need to be seen by the reader to understand the article content about the police invesitgating Dileep" which cannot be a proper reason to delete this image because the file is primarily a core subject of the article ("sourced critical commentary" as the police investigations including the prosecutions arguments at present going on in the court and the subheading itself starts as "Case investigation"). The prosecution also argued in the court that there are other evidences which cannot be revealed to the public. So in the better prospective of a reader's point of view, I believe the file can play a bigger role in the contest of a reader can easily be comprehended with the large text while reading (for e.g article 9/11). Wikieditorhja (talk) 09:44, 18 August 2017 (UTC)

Although I contributed a lot for the purpose of maintaining the matter in a neutral way, I wish to say that I personally do not have any particular interest in this subject any more. Wikieditorhja (talk) 10:01, 18 August 2017 (UTC)

See File talk:Dileep produced before the magistrate court which sent him to judicial custody.jpg#Disputed reason for my reply since it is in response to an identical post on that talk page. -- Marchjuly (talk) 12:07, 18 August 2017 (UTC)

This image shouldn't be deleted, as it does met all aforementioned criterions and also enables the reader to recognise the forensic marks on the vehicle, which can be seen at the top right of the van. See my message at the main page. However, I don't think the other image nominated for deletion has much importance, as the Wikipedia page can do without that image and also it fails WP:MUG. But this image doesn't fail any of the mentioned criterions, and hence should stay. South Indian Geek (talk) 12:46, 19 August 2017 (UTC)

Information such as the forensic marks on the vehicle, number plate, etc. is not mentioned in the relevant section of the article at all, so how will the reader know to look for them in this image. Non-free images are not just added to articles as in the hope that the reader will interpret the image in a certain way; the interpretation of the image should be in the article itself supported by citations to reliable sources and the image then added in support.

If the image of the van is contextually relevant and significantly improves the reader's understanding of the article to such a degree than not see this image would be detrimental to that understanding as you are claiming, then this information and supporting sources should be should be added directly to the article. Right now, the van seems to be only mentioned three times in very general terms in sentences such as "Based on his direction, a gang followed the actress in a Force Motors traveller van, hit her car deliberately and created an argument with Martin", "Martin, who had driven the car till then, left the gang and moved into the van which was following the car whole the time" and "The gang escaped in the van but later arrested by the police", and none of these mentions require that the reader to actually see this particular image of the van to be understand. So, if the van is an important part of the evidence, more sourced content explaining how this is the case should be added to the article. Otherwise, there is just a caption which says that the van was allegedly used in the crime, and the hope that the general reader completely unfamiliar with the subject matter will notice all of the things you notice in the image. -- Marchjuly (talk) 15:14, 19 August 2017 (UTC)

Comment: I have already commented about this at the very beginning of this discussion, so there is no point of repeating it. The image well passes and mark as a significant appearance under the subsection of "Case investigation". As I said before, it well represents the whole improvement of a readers standpoint of uderstanding the whole topic. Wikieditorhja (talk) 21:52, 19 August 2017 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it.