File talk:Evening Standard headline about Ian Tomlinson, April 2 2009.JPG

There's nothing significant about this image. --Carnildo (talk) 03:56, 9 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It's highly significant. It was the first major story that resulted from police briefings that turned out to be completely false. A snapshot was taken and stored online by the source in case the story is removed from the Web at some point. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 05:07, 9 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sure the incident and the story are highly significant, but this picture isn't. If you want to store a copy of the story for future reference, do so on your own computer, or maybe use a suitable website like Wikileaks. --Carnildo (talk) 05:18, 9 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I don't want to store it for future reference. I would like it to be in the article, because it is highly relevant, given that it formed the basis for the initial reporting. The Evening Standard tends to be a news leader in London, and it was badly misled, it appears, by the police. And it's not the image that is relevant. It's the story and, in particular, the headline. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 05:46, 9 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Carnildo, the image is of immediate encyclopedic value for the Initial reporting section and irreplaceable as an explanatory illustration that goes above and beyond the devices of prose. 78.34.148.130 (talk) 06:28, 9 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Fuck me. How can you claim that the article is not 'significant' and why did someone nominate it for deletion - it seems that wikipedians love deleting things. The picture is absolutely vital because it shows how the reporting stance changed from attacking the protesters to that of attacking the Police. Yet again the Evening Standard has published blatant lies and found out.--217.203.156.61 (talk) 20:25, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Tag back

Carnildo, could you please advance the argument in some way, or remove the tag? SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 21:19, 13 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I've removed it, although I'm not especially happy with the fair use claim. Recommend listing at WP:NFR or WP:FFD. Stifle (talk) 08:58, 22 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Who gives a shit. If someone complains then deal with it but not until. Wikipedia is too fucking keen on deleting stuff just because it might be copyrighted - let the copyright holders do their job themselves and stop helping the bastards.--217.203.156.61 (talk) 20:26, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]