Wikipedia:Files for deletion/2013 February 16#File:InstrumentOfSurrender.jpg

: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 {{admin|Chick Bowen}} AnomieBOT⚡ 22:44, 3 March 2013 (UTC)

::File:Robinson-talks.jpg ([{{fullurl:File:Robinson-talks.jpg|action=delete&wpReason=%5B%5BWikipedia%3AFiles+for+deletion%2F2013+February+16%23File%3ARobinson-talks.jpg%5D%5D}} delete] | talk | [{{fullurl:File:Robinson-talks.jpg|action=history}} history] | links | [{{fullurl:Special:Log|page=File%3ARobinson-talks.jpg}} logs]) – uploaded by Kenyaverification ([{{fullurl:User talk:Kenyaverification|action=edit&preload=Template:Fdw_preload&editintro=Template:Fdw_editintro§ion=new&create=Post+a+comment}} notify] | contribs | uploads | upload log).

Orphan image of non-notable almost politician. Article has been deleted multiple times as non-notable (see Robinson Gichuhi) -- ТимофейЛееСуда. 01:10, 16 February 2013 (UTC)

: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 {{admin|VernoWhitney}} AnomieBOT⚡ 21:11, 1 March 2013 (UTC)

::File:Horton foote oscar for tender mercies.jpg ([{{fullurl:File:Horton foote oscar for tender mercies.jpg|action=delete&wpReason=%5B%5BWikipedia%3AFiles+for+deletion%2F2013+February+16%23File%3AHorton+foote+oscar+for+tender+mercies.jpg%5D%5D}} delete] | talk | [{{fullurl:File:Horton foote oscar for tender mercies.jpg|action=history}} history] | links | [{{fullurl:Special:Log|page=File%3AHorton+foote+oscar+for+tender+mercies.jpg}} logs]) – uploaded by Hunter Kahn ([{{fullurl:User talk:Hunter Kahn|action=edit&preload=Template:Fdw_preload&editintro=Template:Fdw_editintro§ion=new&create=Post+a+comment}} notify] | contribs | uploads | upload log).

Fair-use image used purely decoratively - we don't need an image to get the idea that Horton Foote won an Oscar for Tender Mercies. Image was restored to the article with the justification that it was added during the FAC process and the article passed FAC with it. In fact, it was added a couple of weeks after the image review and a few hours before the FAC closed, not in response to a specific request for a non-free image here, with no comments added after this image was mentioned. Bencherlite^Talk 08:17, 16 February 2013 (UTC)

: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 {{admin|Chick Bowen}} AnomieBOT⚡ 22:44, 3 March 2013 (UTC)

::File:Book covers AlanRuddock author.jpg ([{{fullurl:File:Book covers AlanRuddock author.jpg|action=delete&wpReason=%5B%5BWikipedia%3AFiles+for+deletion%2F2013+February+16%23File%3ABook+covers+AlanRuddock+author.jpg%5D%5D}} delete] | talk | [{{fullurl:File:Book covers AlanRuddock author.jpg|action=history}} history] | links | [{{fullurl:Special:Log|page=File%3ABook+covers+AlanRuddock+author.jpg}} logs]) – uploaded by NortSide505 ([{{fullurl:User talk:NortSide505|action=edit&preload=Template:Fdw_preload&editintro=Template:Fdw_editintro§ion=new&create=Post+a+comment}} notify] | contribs | uploads | upload log).

Violates WP:NFCC#8. Purely decorative. Stefan2 (talk) 13:28, 16 February 2013 (UTC)

: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 {{admin|Chick Bowen}} AnomieBOT⚡ 22:44, 3 March 2013 (UTC)

::File:Bangladesh Liberation War 22 Nov 1971, Syaldaa, Nadi, Bangladesh.jpg ([{{fullurl:File:Bangladesh Liberation War 22 Nov 1971, Syaldaa, Nadi, Bangladesh.jpg|action=delete&wpReason=%5B%5BWikipedia%3AFiles+for+deletion%2F2013+February+16%23File%3ABangladesh+Liberation+War+22+Nov+1971%2C+Syaldaa%2C+Nadi%2C+Bangladesh.jpg%5D%5D}} delete] | talk | [{{fullurl:File:Bangladesh Liberation War 22 Nov 1971, Syaldaa, Nadi, Bangladesh.jpg|action=history}} history] | links | [{{fullurl:Special:Log|page=File%3ABangladesh+Liberation+War+22+Nov+1971%2C+Syaldaa%2C+Nadi%2C+Bangladesh.jpg}} logs]) – uploaded by Ctg4Rahat ([{{fullurl:User talk:Ctg4Rahat|action=edit&preload=Template:Fdw_preload&editintro=Template:Fdw_editintro§ion=new&create=Post+a+comment}} notify] | contribs | uploads | upload log).

Violation of WP:NFCC#8. You don't need an image of soldiers with weapons to tell that soldiers used weapons during the war. Stefan2 (talk) 14:07, 16 February 2013 (UTC)

• I have edited the file & added proper cause behind the uploading of the image. This image represents the liberation war of bangladesh. This image represents how civilian people of Bangladesh got involved in this war & contributed actively in bringing the independence of Bangladesh. So remove the deletion tag from the file. Ctg4Rahat (talk) 15:01, 16 February 2013 (UTC)
• Some of the people of Bangladesh (mostly the anti-liberation party Shibir & their supporters, People of pakistan) tries to say that the war was totally a conspiracy of india & general people of bangladesh didn't want liberal bangladesh.They also say that Bangladeshi people didn't participate in the to bring victory only indian army was active in the war field.So this image should stay in wikipedia. Ctg4Rahat (talk) 06:41, 18 February 2013 (UTC)
• You seem to claim that there is a dispute about facts. Any disputes about facts should be solved by using reliable sources dealing with the matter, not by uploading unfree images. --Stefan2 (talk) 13:34, 21 February 2013 (UTC)
• I protest against deletion of the image.You can see there is no image of war field in wikipedia except this.I think this image represents the liberation war of Bangladesh properly70.39.184.221 (talk) 07:03, 21 February 2013 (UTC)
• The image shows a few men lying on the ground with some kind of weapons. Why can't you just replace it with a textual statement saying exactly that? --Stefan2 (talk) 13:33, 21 February 2013 (UTC)
• I vote Keep. The nominator cannot argue WP:NFCC#8. The fact that the photo provides encyclopedic value to understanding the article means that unless a free equivalent can be found, the use of the photo certainly conforms to Wikipedia's guidelines on fair use of copyrighted images. Seeing the number of nominations the nominator have made, I suggest to the nominator reading up more on Wikipedia policies and guidelines, which helps to explain things like fair use. The quoting of policies as grounds for deletion is not enough, as it must be balanced by objectivity; are you just matching policies to what you can see, just for the sake of doing so? If you can't prove that other avenues of redress for the images with redeeming value have been fully expended, have the images met the full grounds for deletion? Please read WP:LAWYERING. Optakeover^(Talk) 17:26, 26 February 2013 (UTC)
• Delete you can absolutely argue WP:NFCC#8: "Non-free content is used only if its presence would significantly increase readers' understanding of the topic, and its omission would be detrimental to that understanding." There is nothing about this image that increases the understanding of the Bangladesh Liberation War, nor would it be detrimental if it were removed. Furthermore, based on the description on the article page, it isn't a photo of the war but rather a training exercise. Simply put, this photo could be replaced by the description itself, reworded of course, into the article. Example: Mukti bahini troups trained in Syaldaa, Nadi, East Pakistan using an assortment of captured weapons from the Pakistan Army. (Although where this would fit in the article, if at all, is beyond me.) Also, for the record, I find it rude for anyone to claim another editor is not being objective and doesn't know Wikipedia policies, especially since the editor in question knows them better than most, and is often a source for even administrators in finding the best solution. Simply disagreeing with their reasoning on a few deletion discussion does not mean they don't know the policies. -- ТимофейЛееСуда. 17:53, 26 February 2013 (UTC)

:*Disagreed. You cannot argue WP:NFCC#8. The war shown in this image, Bangladesh Liberation War, is different compared to the more-well known Indo-Pakistani War of 1971 which started as a result of the Bangladeshi war. The differences between both conflicts, are obviously, the fact that the war was fought on different fronts (West Pakistan vs. East Pakistan), which is shown in the image by the terrain that the forces fought in, and the fact that the forces on the Bangladeshi side in the Bangladesh side were non-regular, non-professional forces, compared to the Indo-Pakistani War, which was a war fought between two professional armies alone. This is shown by the attire worn by the Bangladeshi soldiers in this image, which informs the viewers on how the soldiers would have looked like during the war, and even the kind of equipment and weapons used, and thus, even the tactics used by the forces, all lending beneficial context and value to the article. With Stefan2 advancing the notion that text can replace images, and you supporting it, I myself see the absurdity that an image with soldiers holding AK-47s, can be replaced with a line "..using an assortment of captured weapons from the Pakistan Army", without even an ounce of citation.

::Either way, in this case, with the knowledge that weapons and the usage of weapons are tied down to tactics, the image helps the viewer to understand how the Bangladeshi fought their war. This image illustrates these, without requiring the citation of historian text. Thus, this image kills two birds with one stone, by bringing context to the war described in the article the image is being used in, by the very virtue that the war is different from the Indo-Pakistani War for the reasons just explained, and also demonstrating historical facts abuot how the Bangladeshi forces retained Pakistani materiel for their use.

::I also diasgree about your comment regarding my comment. Have you read WP:LAWYERING yet? The essay basically says that quoting mere rules to advance a motion while ignoring the underlying principles behind the rules is to be avoided. You must understand that Wikipedia avoids the use of copyrighted material, even under fair use, because it wants to be a free encyclopedia, thus it emphasizes on free material. Wikipedia still place encyclopedic value very high. To draw a line, I can see the rationale behind WP:NFCC, which allows the use of fair-use images under a strict guideline. However, referring to the essay, with the image having encyclopedic value, and lending encyclopedic value to the article as an image as proven by me with the aforementioned argument, you'll have to write off all redeeming value for the image to be removed, or at least written off below the baseline required to argue the contravention of WP:NFCC, and to write off all recourse the image has to correcting its non-valid fair-use status, if it is argued by someone. The FfD is not a cleanup department and shouldn't be seen as such, and all images and articles for that matter, should be given due attention and have all saving grace ruled out before a deletion should proceed. I subscribe to the WP:LAWYERING article, and I don't see how you would, as an objective person you've tried to express yourself as, disagree with this. Optakeover^(Talk) 04:00, 27 February 2013 (UTC)

:::You can claim over and over that this is encyclopedic, but it is simply not. If there was an image from the war itself, maybe, but this is from a training exercise. You claim one reason is the terrain, but sadly all you can see is a bush in a partial field. I'm sorry but my backyard has similar plants and landscaping, so this doesn't really show terrain. If it was a more wide shot, showing dense brush that soldiers may have had to go through, or a lack of hiding places in a field, maybe, but it simply doesn't and this location is only in the general area of a part of the war, not on the battlefield, so that point is moot. As for how the soldiers dressed and the equipment used, this shows what they trained in. Can you prove beyond the shadow of a doubt that during the actual war (not training) this is how they dressed? Even if you could, everything you've described above can simply replace the image. You've described everything to the last detail. How they dressed, where they fought, terrain, weaponry; you've even used parallels to another war. Simply put the text you've created can replace the non-free image. And therefore Wikipedia is hosting a non-free image for no reasonable purpose, since it is not necessary for the understanding. -- ТимофейЛееСуда. 04:14, 27 February 2013 (UTC)

::::*You just used the phrase 'no reasonable purpose', while I have been talking about saving grace and redeeming value. With all due respect, this is ignorance.

:::::Anyway, I appreciate your effort, for you have in fact, lent support for my case unwittingly. Since this is a photograph of a training exercise, which happened during the war, it now shows to the viewer that the irregular militia had some form of training before facing the enemy, being once again, to remind you before you misunderstand me, a training exercise held during the war. And once again, before you can describe all the detail in words, remember the citation needed tag. A photo, being a primary source, is a first line to providing credence for an asserted historical fact, thus exerting its own importance in the article. Please read WP:PRIMARY, an official policy. I rest my case. Optakeover^(Talk) 04:22, 27 February 2013 (UTC)

:::::For someone who claims that everyone else is Wikilawyering, you sure do keep pulling a lot of policies trying to push your point. If you read the WP:Primary section on Primary Sources (more specifically Policy). Since the image has never been published, (a reasonable assumption since it is sourced to a person, I know you will correct me if that is wrong), primary sources are only to be used to make straight forward descriptive statements of facts that can be verified by any educated purpose. From that point, this photo cannot be used as a primary source, being that there is simply no proof on the photo alone that it was taken at a specific location on a specific date. It offers no proof that the people in the photo are citizen soldiers, they could be re-enactors. Also no proof that this training exercise or whatever it claims to be, is actually from that war. Without any real information on when/where the photo was taken and what is actually in the photo, you cannot claim it a primary source. Find me a source that proves this photo was taken of this war and I'll grant you it being primary, but until you can justify that, you cannot say it is a primary source, you cannot say its encyclopedic, and it absolutely can be replaced by text, and absolutely would not hurt any understanding of the war if the photo was removed. -- ТимофейЛееСуда. 04:40, 27 February 2013 (UTC)

::::::*Sorry for taking so long to answer, I never stop at anything to save something that deserves to stay.

:::::::http://www.corbisimages.com/stock-photo/rights-managed/U1722354/soldiers-aiming-weapons-on-the-ground is the source of the image. The photograph is from the archives of Dr. Otto Bettmann, a German curator who moved from Germany to New York. His photographs and his historical collections were sold to Corbis, where the image source link is located. Though the exact photographer is not known, Corbis affirms on its website that the archive "includes shots by top photographers from United Press International, International News Photos, Acme Newspictures, Pacific and Atlantic, the New York Daily Mirror, and Underwood & Underwood. It also includes Pulitzer-Prize-winning photography, from the poignant to the inspiring.". Granted the provenance isn't fully established, but with the owner of the photographs being Corbis and the owner obviously assertive on the factual accuracy of the information stated, the image definitely passes several clauses mentioned in WP:IUP, whose bare requirement is that images must be from a source, and has information as to how the source can be verified, and I assume that the source must be reputable, which Corbis, and the original owner of the archive, Otto Bettmann, definitely is.

:::::::Once again, I state that the image is encyclopedic, because that at the end of the day, words can only tell, but images show. With no free equivalent showing viewers how the war was fought, the fair-use of the copyrighted image is essential. Thus, it passes WP:NFCC#8 by virtue that for examples like terrain, the photograph is essential in showing the battleground of the battle. Describing alone can be a contravention of WP:ORIGINAL unless there are proper citations. If you are confident that you are able to find verifiable textual information to describe everything in the photo, do so and then the delete nomination made sense. Otherwise, [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/MapleStory] demonstrates that deletion discussions shouldn't be used as the Wikipedia Cleanup Department, where a delete vote must be used in order to garner effort to improve Wikipedia articles.

:::::::Also, nice try, but the difference is that when I talk about policy, I use it in response to others quoting policy, but when I use policy to advance my points myself, I do so by explanation, describing context, and establishing the larger picture. This is different to calling for a delete vote and arguing by policy alone, sticking heavily to the rules as they stand by themselves. WP:LAWYER, an essay (not a rule), essentially says that the rules do not stand alone; they provide official rules on how things are to be done, but for example, they do not stifle the need for consensus, and also as I have interpreted, when applied to a deletion discussion, means that objectivity must be practiced to make sure all avenues of redress are seen, before an image can be determined to be beyond a shadow of a doubt, a contravention of Wikipedia rules. Just because an article or image has faults which are in direct violation of rules by the book that they are to be deleted. If this was that clear cut, then we wouldn't need to have this discussion; heck anyone can just come and delete this stuff, just by quoting policy.

:::::::Once again, I rest my case, and I will certainly say that this is the last comment I'll make for this discussion. Optakeover^(Talk) 10:20, 27 February 2013 (UTC)

:::::::**Interesting. Your discovery means that the image violates not only WP:NFCC#8 but also WP:NFCC#2 and that it is speedily deletable per WP:CSD#F7, since photos by commercial image agencies such as Corbis and Getty aren't allowed at all unless there is considerable critical discussion about the photo itself (as is the case in for example the article Raising the Flag on Iwo Jima where the photo itself is the subject of the article). --Stefan2 (talk) 15:52, 27 February 2013 (UTC)

:*(unindent) Incorrect. I have proven beyond any doubt that the image passes WP:NFCC#8, while you have only stated your stance, but have so far not been able to give satisfactory explanations for it as you stick unrelentingly to arguing by the rule book, but not by example. Your claim for WP:NFCC#2 is invalid because once the image is reduced to an even smaller resolution, with the limitation of use on article space (you know this rule) and only on ONE article, the use of the image on its current article will not destroy the original work's commercial viability. Either way, #2 states that "Non-free content is not used in a manner that is likely to replace the original market role of the original copyrighted media", and you even didn't explain how. Taking example from the Iwo Jima image you used, the fair-use rationale of the image should effectively state that the image does not spoil the commercial opportunities for the original holder. Since you have used case examples, I think it's fair to say that the Bangladesh image is used similarly to the Iwo Jima image, both being fair-use images and both being used within the limits stated in the rules. Before I move on to WP:CSD#F7 which I know you quoted it with the Iwo Jima image in mind, please understand that within the scope of F7, the Bangladeshi image, explained well below, does not meet the full requirements of F7 for it to be deemed a violation, thus both images are on the same footing.

::In your claim of violation of WP:CSD#F7, once again your efforts to stick so strongly to the rules without care for the big picture has come up short. According to WP:NFCI, "Iconic and historical images which are not subject of commentary themselves but significantly aid in illustrating historical events may be used judiciously, but they must meet all aspects of the non-free content criteria, particularly no free alternatives, respect for commercial opportunity, and contextual significance.". Firstly, based on the above, it cannot be said that the image has fully contravened the relevant clause in WP:CSD#F7, thus it does not fully meet the requirements for the image to be tagged for speedy deletion. Secondly, as I have repeatedly and repeatedly demonstrated and ignored time and again, the image magnificently passes all of WP:NFCC's rules, especially #2, but requires further reduction in resolution, and as explained already, being on equal footing with the Iwo Jima image when it comes to usage, that even if I do not quote the Iwo Jima example, the limitation of the image's use on Wikipedia is already a proof of the compliance of #2. Also crucially, it definitely passes WP:NFCC#8, because it bears information of the kind of non-professional, citizen soldiers being discussed in the article, which can be effectively demonstrated in picture form but cannot be reproduced in word form without breaking WP:ORIGINALRESEARCH as originally suggested by Stefan2, unless you are able to provide actual textual sources for this information. It also passes WP:NFCC#9 importantly, and though it's not fully compliant with #10, as I have always said, deletion discussions are not the Wikipedia cleanup dept. If you claim WP:NFCC#10 and it can be fixed, then it can be fixed. If you can't prove that the page and licensing info are completely unfixable, it cannot be considered a full violation. Once again, all possible recourse to correction must be met before such claims are made, and treating an image as a gone-case without first expressing doubt in a separate discussion is undesirable. And finally, even if there is the slightest doubt that the image does not meet all of WP:NFCC rules, especially that of #2 and #8 despite showing already how they obviously meet those rules, let me confront Stefan2 with WP:IGNOREALLRULES and WP:NOTBUREAUCRACY. These official policies doesn't mean that we can be reckless and irrational, but they basically explain that the principles as to why the rules were written to begin with, and consensus of the community, both being the guiding forces behind the rules themselves, are the important point of the rules, more important than the rules by their surface meaning alone. Even when talking about rules, due judgement and understanding of the bigger picture is required, and that the rules are to help the improvement of Wikipedia, not retard it. How do these factor in, you might ask? I have demonstrated how it is impossible to force all the rules of WP:NFCC onto the image to prove violation. Especially with #2, it still hasn't been demonstrated how the image will destroy the original's commercial viability whilst I've made my arguments that it doesn't, and for #8, despite repeated attempts to show how this image fails this rule, I have shown that the image lends vital information to understanding the forces involved in the conflict, especially because it was already stated in the article, which constitutes a form of commentary, and that unverifiable textual information, which Stefan2 has tried to suggest, cannot be done as it directly violates WP:ORIGINALRESEARCH, being non-cited information. Thus the image has been proven beyond a shadow of a doubt that it is irreplaceable, and that by this alone, I shall change my vote to ^{strong keep}, because this explanation directly addresses the nomination's original reason, that the information conveyed by the image can be replaced by words as suggested, but that is shown to be completely untrue without violating WP:ORIGINALRESEARCH, an important Wikipedia rule. But even after all that, at the very worst, my explanations show that WP:NFCC#8 cannot be imposed squarely and completely onto this image, as it fails to address crucial aspects, especially about its historical value, and its importance as mentioned in demonstrating the kinds of forces in fighting during the conflict shown in the image; even if we are talking on the worst possible circumstance, this image still has the slightest redeeming value, as it lends crucial nuggets of understanding to readers of the article, which is irreplaceable. I am confident that by my explanation, this image passes all of WP:NFCC rules. Even if we can't ignore all of the rules, at the very least, because of the number of doubts I have raised over how the rules should be completely imposed on the image, and thus, improvement of the article and consensus, and understanding the principles behind the rules and not by arguing rule-by-rule alone, is of the highest importance, this image must stay. Optakeover^(Talk) 15:40, 28 February 2013 (UTC)

::*I have changed my vote to strong keep. Optakeover^(Talk) 16:50, 28 February 2013 (UTC)

::** Exactly what part of WP:NFC#UUI §7, {{tl|db-f7}} and WP:CSD#F7 is it that you don't understand? The article contains zero discussion about the image, as opposed to the Iōjima case where the whole article is about the image. Unlike the Iōjima case, the image is not used in an article about the photo itself. Corbis sells copies of its images for use on websites in both high and low resolutions, and Wikipedia's use of this image without paying means that Corbis is losing money. That's precisely what WP:NFCC#2 means with "respect for commercial opportunities". --Stefan2 (talk) 23:49, 1 March 2013 (UTC)

: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 {{admin|Chick Bowen}} AnomieBOT⚡ 22:44, 3 March 2013 (UTC)

::File:InstrumentOfSurrender.jpg ([{{fullurl:File:InstrumentOfSurrender.jpg|action=delete&wpReason=%5B%5BWikipedia%3AFiles+for+deletion%2F2013+February+16%23File%3AInstrumentOfSurrender.jpg%5D%5D}} delete] | talk | [{{fullurl:File:InstrumentOfSurrender.jpg|action=history}} history] | links | [{{fullurl:Special:Log|page=File%3AInstrumentOfSurrender.jpg}} logs]) – uploaded by Idleguy ([{{fullurl:User talk:Idleguy|action=edit&preload=Template:Fdw_preload&editintro=Template:Fdw_editintro§ion=new&create=Post+a+comment}} notify] | contribs | uploads | upload log).

This is a whole work: every single word is included. This is not permitted per WP:NFCC#3b. Additionally, it violates WP:NFCC#8 in the article Bangladesh Liberation War since you can tell that the war ended without a scan of this document. The image is also used in two other articles in which it fails WP:NFCC#10c. Stefan2 (talk) 14:27, 16 February 2013 (UTC)

:*Keep. Work is ineligible for copyright protection in the U.S. as it does not pass the threshold of originality. Optakeover^(Talk) 09:57, 25 February 2013 (UTC)

:** This is an awfully long text. There is no chance that it is below the threshold of originality. --Stefan2 (talk) 19:47, 25 February 2013 (UTC)

:***You don't understand the legal concept of threshold of originality. For something to pass the threshold of originality, substantial creativity must be put into the work. As an instrument of surrender, which lists the terms of the surrender which both parties and the forces under their command are to be bound by, the document itself does not meet the level of original expression needed to pass the threshold of originality. Take note that we don't even know the actual author of the instrument, but even if we do know, the facts of the surrender, which by themselves cannot be copyrighted even though someone must have put them together, are then placed onto a paper. As a collection of facts, the instrument of surrender is not protected by copyright.

::::By case law, the judgement in the Feist v. Rural case was in favour of the defendant, who copied telephone directories from the plaintiff's data and republished them. Telephone directories are not copyrightable as they are plain factual information and have no creativity, but it could have been argued that because the plaintiff exercised substantial effort to put the directories into a print, the work should be protected by copyright, by virtue of effort. However, the notion of "sweat of the brow", which had been used by the courts in many cases prior to the aforementioned one, was finally rejected, and copyright cannot be claimed on works consisting of non-copyrightable facts being put together with effort. The length of document doesn't change that either.

::::Though the author is not stated outright, but even if we know the author of the instrument, can it be argued that he 'created' all the detail in the document? Going by the text in the document, did he 'create' the information about the commanders? Did he 'create' the information about the fighting forces involved? The information was not created, but merely put together into a document.

::::You might argue that the intentions for the Pakistani forces to lay down their arms was something decided upon himself, thus he owns it. This is wrong, as ideas in the mind cannot be copyrighted, and must be put into a tangible form, like in words on a piece of paper. However, these words are once again, facts regarding the intention to force the Pakistani forces to surrender, as they are facts about how the Pakistani forces were to surrender, which cannot be copyrighted. Now, you'll probably reach the point, that saying that the author, whoever he was, had put in his own effort to put all these facts about how the Pakistani forces were to surrender, into an instrument of surrender, a binding legal document. But as shown in the case quoted above, a collection of facts cannot be copyrighted, even though someone had spent effort putting the facts together.

::::Thus, I have proven beyond a shadow of doubt that this document is ineligible for copyright for not passing the threshold of originality, and thus has no copyright. The length of the text has no effect on this attribute. Optakeover^(Talk) 17:14, 26 February 2013 (UTC)

:::::*I have changed my vote to Speedy keep. Optakeover^(Talk) 17:43, 26 February 2013 (UTC)

:::::** You do not understand the legal concept of threshold of originality. If something requires creative decisions, then it is protected by copyright. For example, the person who wrote this text had to decide which words to use, which order to write them in and how to formulate the text. For the same reason, a translation of a book is protected by copyright, because the translator had to choose which words to use, which word order to use et cetera. A long text like this is never below the threshold of originality. This is completely different from Feist v. Rural: a phone book just contains a lot of facts (names, phone numbers et cetera) sorted in alphabetical order and does not require any decisions about word order or the like. --Stefan2 (talk) 22:16, 26 February 2013 (UTC)

:::::::*The idea still stands that a list of facts cannot be copyrighted. You have not addressed my argument that the instrument is a statement of facts. Even if you can argue creativity, the fact that there have been other instruments of surrender, with similar styles of speech. Two people creating exactly identical works but having absolutely no knowledge of each other and of the other's works can claim copyright. As for this case however, I do not understand how you'll be able to argue that within the scope of military history and military writing, that the author of this particular instrument of surrender would not have known of such style of writing which has existed for a long time, and that the style of writing used would have been unique to him.

::::::::Once again, I argue that the document by itself, looking at the content, consists of bare facts about the surrender: who are surrendering, who are the surrendering forces surrendering to, the location to surrender, and when to surrender, and how the surrendering forces are to be treated. Any 'ordering', 'phrasing' and 'arranging' of these information once again, as mentioned, are just the effort in collecting these uncopyrightable information, and effort cannot be used to justify copyright. And as just mentioned, the style of writing, by the virtue of vocabulary and syntax, cannot be said to be unique to the author, as this style of military writing has existed and can be viewed in many instruments of surrender.Optakeover^(Talk) 03:33, 27 February 2013 (UTC)

• Delete because, as Stefan2 has explained, this image is subject to copyright (since the contents are not below the threshold of originality by any stretch of the imagination) and it fails our fair use criteria. Bencherlite^Talk 22:54, 26 February 2013 (UTC)

:*Please take note that a deletion discussion was already held for this image a few years ago at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Files_for_deletion/2009_August_26, but the overwhelming majority was for keeping the image. Case history does not affect the outcome of this discussion, but I would still like to mention it for discussion's sake. Optakeover^(Talk) 10:28, 27 February 2013 (UTC)

:** That nomination mainly contains arguments about WP:NFCC#1 which are irrelevant in a discussion about WP:NFCC#3b and WP:NFCC#8. Non-free content have to meet all of the ten criteria, not just one of them. --Stefan2 (talk) 21:13, 27 February 2013 (UTC)

:***If you think that by now that the image has not yet been proven to meet all the ten criteria, you are wrong. Optakeover^(Talk) 07:25, 28 February 2013 (UTC)

:*Keep - No one is losing out on commercial/artistic opportunity with this being utilized on WP. This file is of a historical event and with the signatures present that cannot be duplicated via text. If clearly copyrighted intellectual property like video game screenshots is acceptable per NFCC then how is an international treaty between sovereign nations not acceptable? That blows my mind. As NFCC#3 per B it is acceptable since it is a low resolution image. For NFCC#8 where "significant coverage" goes... it's significant in the ending of the Indo-Pakistani War, nothing else would be a suitable replacement. Also per NFCC#7 it should be limited in use to one article where it is currently used in three.— -dainomite   02:19, 2 March 2013 (UTC)

:** Low resolution (pixel count) is how you determine the size of an artwork stored using bitmap graphics. However, the size of a work is not always determined by the number of pixels. For example, an image in SVG format is made up of geometric shapes (so the size is determined by the number of geometric shapes), and the size of a sound recording is determined by the number of seconds. This is text, so the number of pixels is irrelevant. Instead, the size is determined by the number of words. WP:NFCC#3b says that you shouldn't include an entire work. Since an entire literary work means all words, WP:NFCC#3b tells that you can't include all words but that some of them have to be left out.

:** WP:NFCC#8 has nothing to do with "significant coverage". You seem to be mixing up the WP:NFCC policy with the WP:N policy. In this case, the image is used to show that Pakistan lost the war, so you need to demonstrate that it is impossible to understand that Pakistan lost the war without displaying this text. I fail to see why it would be impossible to understand that Pakistan lost the war without seeing this text. --Stefan2 (talk) 13:37, 2 March 2013 (UTC)

:*Keep. User:Ctg4Rahat ✉ 20:35, 3 March 2013 (UTC)

: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.