Wikipedia:Files for deletion/Replaceable fair use/File:Planned Exit 53 Improvements(1988).jpg


 * 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 was to delete the image.

Location of map not available in online edition of newspaper. User:DanTD 17:46, 10 January 2007.
 * That's not the point. It would be possible -- even easy for someone with the skill and the right software -- to draw a map conveying the same information as this one. There's no particular reason this newspaper map has to be used. Therefore, the image is replaceable. Incidentally, in addition to being replaceable, it's also being used in a way inconsistent with its fair use tag, which says "to illustrate either the publication of the article or issue in question", but that's not what it's illustrating in the article where it's used. —Angr 19:45, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
 * But this map also shows the benefits of the interchange improvements. I found it very useful. I say to leave it up there. Jgcarter 04:00, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Useful ≠ nonreplaceable. Why couldn't a freely licensed map also show the interchange improvements? —Angr 09:47, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Show me where I can find one online, and I'll agree to replace it with that. Otherwise I'll hold on to this one. DanTD 14:07, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Someone could make one. We have lots of talented cartographers on Wikipedia. —Angr 14:23, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Such as....Jgcarter 15:21, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Such as the ones listed in the page I linked to above. —Angr 15:32, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
 * But shouldnt an encyclopedia contain historical photos? Jgcarter 19:59, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Not if a freely-licensed photo (or map in this case) can convey the same information. --NE2 20:45, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Even if it shows what makes it different from the old interchange (the captions). I see no need to take it down. It may not be freely licensed but it provides good information to viewers. Jgcarter 22:39, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

But all the information it provides could also be put into a freely licensed map. There is no reason to use this specific map to provide the information. —Angr 23:50, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
 * And so you are going to delete this map for that? If you find somebody to do it with the exact (yes, I said EXACT) information in the Newsday picture, then fine. Jgcarter 23:56, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Well, it has been several months since this map was unjustifyably deleted. Now I have no source to prove that Exit 53 was originally built as it was shown here. Thanks for screwing things up! DanTD 17:26, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
 * ''The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it.