Commons:Deletion requests/File:James Cook Arms.svg
Uploader has created an approximation of the Coat of Arms of James Cook by bringing together various components from 3 separate files. As an approximation it has no encyclopedic value. Justin A Kuntz (talk) 11:54, 15 June 2010 (UTC)
- This file should not be deleted. The nominator argues that it is somehow incorrect to combine various images to create this file. On the contrary the vast majority of arms on wikipedia are created in this manner. Indeed, there is actually an encyclopaedia of components for exactly this purpose. Here: http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Illustrated_atlas_of_French_and_English_heraldic_terms
Further evidence can be seen in prominent arms such as these [[1]], which clearly demonstrate that combination is appropriate.
![[1]](https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:UK_Arms_1837.svg){kind=link}
I freely admit I am not the most artistically talented individual on wikipedia. However, in heraldry, all visual depictions of arms are valid as long as they conform to the textual description. While this image may look like a "bodge up", it conforms to the textual description of the arms and is therefore completely valid. I note this is confirmed in Section 1 of this: http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Coats_of_Arms
Contrary to the nominator's assertion this image is not the result of original research, is not an approximation according to heraldic practice, and has encyclopaedic value. A1 Aardvark (talk) 12:53, 15 June 2010 (UTC)
- I agree with Aardvark (Aardvark requested my input, one should note). If the sources for the image are made clear - and that is not currently the case - then a strong case can be made for educational merit. Perhaps, Aardvark, you can note on the File page the source leading you to put together this CoA. Once this is known, and anyone can check the representation of the arms against the text(ual) description of the arms. I would agree other sources of the arms image - documents, for example - may be preferable, but that does not preclude this image. Jarry1250 (talk) 14:00, 15 June 2010 (UTC)
- Actually, if it is an approximation, it's a pretty damn good one. Compared to a version here, it looks almost spot on. Connormah (talk | contribs) 19:03, 15 June 2010 (UTC)
- Is "well it looks about right" suitable criteria for inclusion on an encyclopedic article? Justin A Kuntz (talk) 19:19, 15 June 2010 (UTC)
- You're missing my point. This is not about inclusion in an article, this is a deletion request. 2 different things. Nothing in Commons:Deletion policy, if I'm not mistaken, lists anything about encyclopedia value, as Commons is not an encyclopedia, but rather a free media repository. Connormah (talk | contribs) 19:23, 15 June 2010 (UTC)
- No I don't think I do, you're insisting that it is used on an article on wikipedia and it is not fit for that purpose. Justin A Kuntz (talk) 07:17, 16 June 2010 (UTC)
- You're missing my point. This is not about inclusion in an article, this is a deletion request. 2 different things. Nothing in Commons:Deletion policy, if I'm not mistaken, lists anything about encyclopedia value, as Commons is not an encyclopedia, but rather a free media repository. Connormah (talk | contribs) 19:23, 15 June 2010 (UTC)
- Is "well it looks about right" suitable criteria for inclusion on an encyclopedic article? Justin A Kuntz (talk) 19:19, 15 June 2010 (UTC)
- Actually, if it is an approximation, it's a pretty damn good one. Compared to a version here, it looks almost spot on. Connormah (talk | contribs) 19:03, 15 June 2010 (UTC)
- Keep - Commons is not an encyclopedia, so how does 'encyclopedic' qualify as a valid reason for deletion? Connormah (talk | contribs) 18:54, 15 June 2010 (UTC)
- Keep. While it could be improved, the image is of academic value and should not be deleted. As noted above, "no encyclopedic value" is not a valid deletion rationale at Commons. And even if it were, the assertion that the image is unencyclopedic stems from a misunderstanding of Wikipedia policy. —David Levy 21:18, 15 June 2010 (UTC)
- Keep. In response to a note on my talk page: valid issues of NOR have been raised at en:James Cook, but on Commons this restriction is specifically excluded: see COM:NPOV. --Old Moonraker (talk) 07:29, 16 June 2010 (UTC)
Kept. Rationale for deletion seems to be more related to its use in articles than to any Commons policy. If people in any project wishes to object to the use of this image it's there where such issue (its inclusion) must be discussed. Ecemaml talk to me/habla conmigo 10:12, 16 June 2010 (UTC)
