Delist unless uses can be found.
J Milburn (
talk) 11:57, 20 August 2010 (UTC)reply
Would putting this in the
Earl Roberts article satisfy the EV requirement for everyone?
Cowtowner (
talk) 16:58, 21 August 2010 (UTC)reply
Which Earl Roberts is it?
J Milburn (
talk) 09:40, 22 August 2010 (UTC)reply
Sorry, bad link there. I believe it is this
one. They look similar and his life story seems to fall in nicely.
Cowtowner (
talk) 17:31, 22 August 2010 (UTC)reply
Well, firstly, we'd have to be certain, and, secondly, on what grounds do you feel the image would have EV there?
J Milburn (
talk) 00:59, 23 August 2010 (UTC)reply
It would fit into the section currently titled "Other" which deals largely with his legacy. A caption noting his fame resulted in his being used in recruitment campaigns would be encyclopedic there.
Cowtowner (
talk) 04:52, 23 August 2010 (UTC)reply
Meh, I'm not wild about it. Perhaps if we had some sourced discussion of his appearance on posters, but the fact that the LOC wasn't even sure would suggest this isn't the most important or famous poster...
J Milburn (
talk) 10:34, 23 August 2010 (UTC)reply
The majority of the posters we have featured aren't the most important or famous; looking through some of them and their uses, it appears that this arrangement would meet the precedent for poster EV. At the same time, many of them may be candidates for delisting if we decide that this image doesn't live up to our criteria.
Cowtowner (
talk) 18:49, 23 August 2010 (UTC)reply
This is a poster that happens to feature a certain person. That doesn't mean it automatically has EV in the article about that person, and I'm not really seeing any reason to believe it does otherwise. I'm not trying to be a dick, I just don't see why we should have a lower precedent for images that have already been promoted than for images not yet promoted- it wouldn't pass today with that as a claim of encyclopedic value.
J Milburn (
talk) 22:56, 23 August 2010 (UTC)reply
I know you're not a dick ;-) (I've always though we've had a pretty good working relationship on here), I'm just looking through possibilities and interpreting the criteria and precedents. Personally, in that capacity I think the image would have been promoted given the apparently low EV standards for posters. That said the fact that this was misidentified makes it a very ambiguous case.
Cowtowner (
talk) 00:02, 24 August 2010 (UTC)reply
[Unindent] Let's review. I'm just going to look at WWI and WWII, since I don't think it's surprising or notable that, say, a lot of theatrical shows are illustrated with a poster for that show.
WWI:
All the featured posters illustrate one or more articles in a strong way:
Now, compare Earl Roberts. Unlike the other articles here, our article on the man is packed with images, and has no text at all about anything related to propaganda involving him. And I hardly think it's worth cutting out a FP-level copy of a
John Singer Sergeant painting to make room for this.
Adam Cuerden(
talk) 00:57, 24 August 2010 (UTC)reply
I completely agree with Adam. Further, there shouldn't be a lower EV requirement for posters- if it seems there is, it's possible some posters were promoted when they should not have been.
J Milburn (
talk) 18:19, 24 August 2010 (UTC)reply
That was what I was getting at, though apparently not too clearly: That there seems to be a double standard for poster EV and that we may have been a little lax in those promotions. Again, just exploring options and it's looking like we're moving towards a consensus to delist.
Cowtowner (
talk) 18:54, 24 August 2010 (UTC)reply
Please notify the original uploader/nominator. Thanks.
Makeemlighter (
talk) 02:47, 22 August 2010 (UTC)reply
Comment: I brought this to Durova's attention
at the end of July. I suppose she's been too busy to do anything about it. I suppose it could replace the John Singer Sargent portrait, but I'd prefer it to have more context. howcheng {
chat} 18:45, 22 August 2010 (UTC)reply