File talk:The John Irwin House, supported on temporary piles, 2014-01-26.png

My arguments for preserving the image are on the description page. Geo Swan (talk) 16:43, 11 February 2014 (UTC)

This image captures a particular and notable moment in the construction of a new complex around a heritage structure. It captured a moment when the pillars that supported the heritage structure had not yet been obscured by the underground floors. Nominator's assertion that a free image could be made ignores the temporary nature of the availability of this unique image. Geo Swan (talk) 20:35, 5 February 2014 (UTC)
 * The photograph was taken on Monday last week and there is no indication that the house has since been demolished. It can't look much different either, since the photograph was taken so recently. Some other photo of the same house would certainly serve as a perfect replacement of this photograph. --Stefan2 (talk) 20:45, 5 February 2014 (UTC)


 * The photograph was taken last month. Floors get poured quickly.  A photo taken after intervening floors have been poured can't be a "perfect replacement".  I don't understand your comment about the house being demolished.  No one is planning to demolish the heritage structure.  Rather strong efforts have been made to preserve it -- as shown in this remarkable photo.  Geo Swan (talk) 16:39, 11 February 2014 (UTC)
 * If you want an odd-looking photo of a building, then you can find one in Nail house. Why can't this house simply be illustrated by a photograph taken on a different date? The "extraordinary measures" are barely mentioned anyway. --Stefan2 (talk) 01:37, 12 February 2014 (UTC)
 * With regard to the image of the Nail house -- please don't tell me you are suggesting we should use an image of the Nail house to illustrate the article on the John Irwin House?
 * You ask why this house couldn't be illustrated by a photograph taken on a different date? What exactly are you asking?  Are you asking whether a (theoretical) alternate unfree photo taken the day before, or the day after, might be of equivalent value to this unfree image?  (images like these, , )  Yes, in theory, if someone found an alternate unfree photo of equivalent value, it could have been used in place of this image.  However, you have made arguments for deletion here that would apply in equal strength to any alternate unfree image.  So it is specious for you to suggest an alternate image could have been used if you meant an alternate unfree image.
 * Photos taken on a different date, after subsequent floors have been poured, that do not show the dramatic height of the pylons supporting the house would not be of equivalent value.
 * You seem to be arguing that this image is not really that remarkable. Was it remarkable enough to "go viral"?  No.  Was it remarkable enough that half a dozen or more local Toronto news sources and blogs picked up on, and found it remarkable enough to republish, and to publish comments that stated or implied they found it remarkable?  Yes.  Hold the presses, the National Post, a national newspaper was inspired enough by this photo to send one of their photographers to the site to take their own unfree images.  No offense, but it is completely irrelevant if you don't regard images of this building on 5-storey pylons remarkable -- since RS, like the National Post, did find it remarkable enough to focus articles around those images.
 * Let's be realistic here. What are you calling upon me to do?  Are you calling on me to take my camera, travel to this building site, and take photos to demonstrate that no free equivalent photo can be taken?  If an administrator sides with you, and deletes this photo, and I upload a free photo that demonstrates no free equivalent photo can be taken are you going to continue to argue against the wikipedia carrying this image, because, theoretically, a Toronto wikipedian could have rushed to the site on January 30th, and tried to capture a free image?  Geo Swan (talk) 10:14, 13 February 2014 (UTC)
 * I am included to agree with Geo Swan (and I am, frankly, puzzled by the suggestion that a photo of a house in China is somehow an equivalent photograph in these circumstances). This photo captures a unique moment in time that was subject of a fair amount of media coverage in Toronto.  I commented further over at Village pump (policy) and believe that the deletion should be held in abeyance until Geo has had the opportunity to visit the site and assess the possibility of obtaining a free equivalent. --Skeezix1000 (talk) 15:08, 13 February 2014 (UTC)