Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Chosin Fires


 * The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review).  No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was   delete. Wizardman 23:38, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

Chosin Fires

 * ( [ delete] ) – (View AfD) (View log)

I do not believe that the subject of this article has established inherent notability to even warrant an article. Also, the article is primarily used to showcase a copyrighted image which the Fair Use rationale of seems lacking to me. -MBK004 15:33, 7 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Would it be better to get a in person Photo of the painting? Also would like to add more info to the page, and I am working gathering more info. Bossman00 (talk) 15:45, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
 * That doesn't affect the fact that any such photograph would be a copy of a copyrighted work. As to adding more information: What sources could you use? Please cite some.  There doesn't appear to be any secondary source material that discusses this work of art, and so no scope to write a verifiable article free from original research about it.  Even the publicity blurbs accompanying the painting, such as this say nothing at all about the painting, but instead provide a non-neutral account of the Battle of Chosin Reservoir, about which we already have an article and for which we already have a public domain image. Uncle G (talk) 16:17, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete - The page exists only to hold a copyvio image. Delete with extreme prejudice. AlexTiefling (talk) 15:58, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Merge if at all possible There ought to be a page that can adequately cover the meterial, like the battle of Chosin resovior article. Deleting with extreme prejudice may be justafiable here, but our editer is new, so Assuming Good Faith would help increase the likelyhood of retaining an editer rather than scaring one off. TomStar81 (Talk) 23:52, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Oppose merger - There's no demonstration that the artist or the painting are notable, nor that the copy of the painting is fair use. AlexTiefling (talk) 09:06, 8 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Delete - I am in favour of assuming good faith and not biting new editors, but there is nothing notable here to merge. -- Whpq (talk) 20:41, 9 October 2008 (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 article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.