Image talk:Delamo concept.png
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
You have new messages (last change).
- 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 of the debate was to Delete the image. —Angr 11:54, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
[edit] RfU
I don't believe this image can be recreated as free and still convey the same information. This is an original drawing, with its own unique properties and information that can't be conveyed in a photograph or redrawn graphic. TheQuandry 16:04, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
- What specific, encyclopedic information is this drawing conveying that a photograph couldn't? —Chowbok ☠ 16:21, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
- The intrinsic value of an original drawing depicts the unique vision of the artist/designer. The concept drawing shows us the Fashion Center as envisioned before the new wing was actually created, and therefore predates the actual Fashion Center addition, and therefore becomes a unique historical document. The Fashion Center may have changed in the meantime, the light strands may not be there anymore, different stores might have moved in while others have moved out, etc. All of this information is historically important to the unique vision of the original concept of the Fashion Center. TheQuandry 22:20, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
- I don't see anything in the article that discusses changes from the original concept of the mall to what was finally built. If the differences between the planned design and the final build were significant in some way to the mall's history, I'd see your point... but it sounds to me that you're just saying that the drawing and a photo would be different. That's undoubtedly true, but hardly a reason for keeping this image. —Chowbok ☠ 22:38, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
- A photograph would not convey the same information (see above). "An image is worth a thousand words". :-) TheQuandry 23:36, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
- By that logic, nothing could ever be replaced, simply because all images are different. This picture does not convey anything relevant to the article that a photograph would not.—Chowbok ☠ 17:47, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
- No, by that logic a unique hand-drawn artist's rendering can't be replaced with a photograph as a photograph can't convey the same information as the drawing (which I explained above). TheQuandry 19:13, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
- By that logic, nothing could ever be replaced, simply because all images are different. This picture does not convey anything relevant to the article that a photograph would not.—Chowbok ☠ 17:47, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
- A photograph would not convey the same information (see above). "An image is worth a thousand words". :-) TheQuandry 23:36, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
- I don't see anything in the article that discusses changes from the original concept of the mall to what was finally built. If the differences between the planned design and the final build were significant in some way to the mall's history, I'd see your point... but it sounds to me that you're just saying that the drawing and a photo would be different. That's undoubtedly true, but hardly a reason for keeping this image. —Chowbok ☠ 22:38, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
- The intrinsic value of an original drawing depicts the unique vision of the artist/designer. The concept drawing shows us the Fashion Center as envisioned before the new wing was actually created, and therefore predates the actual Fashion Center addition, and therefore becomes a unique historical document. The Fashion Center may have changed in the meantime, the light strands may not be there anymore, different stores might have moved in while others have moved out, etc. All of this information is historically important to the unique vision of the original concept of the Fashion Center. TheQuandry 22:20, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it.
