Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Descriptions of the Jyllands-Posten Muhammad cartoons

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 keep. Please take any merge discussions to the appropriate talk page. ···日本穣^{? · Talk to Nihonjoe} 04:40, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Descriptions of the Jyllands-Posten Muhammad cartoons[edit]

Delete. This page is completely redundant to Jyllands-Posten Muhammad cartoons controversy, has no additional useful content, and it is all Original research. The whole page describes an image, and we can just show the image. The exact description isn't relevant to the controversy anyway, only what they were of (Muhammad). Prodego ^talk 21:33, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge with image description page, or Delete the image if appropriate (currently it appears to be fine). --Thin boy 00 @986, i.e. 22:40, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Not at all redundant, very useful and informative for non-danish persons. I don't see any original research, only translation from Danish into English. -- Nikolaj Winther 14:07, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

A translation that is unsourced. If you look on the talk page, it's accuracy has been questioned. Thinking about this now, this probably belongs on the image description page, as Thinboy suggests.Prodego ^talk 20:48, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sources can be provided. No need to delete an article because it lacks sources. Regarding the translation controversies on the talk page, the ip-user is completely wrong in his direct translation. Perhaps I should address this on the talk page? But I am glad to see that you don't want it deleted after all. I am still under the impression that this is best described in an article of its own, and can concur with the arguments 82.95.254.249 has come with as well. -- Nikolaj Winther (talk) 10:07, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I've described all my reasons for opposing this on the talk page when I removed the proposed deletion notice. I can't vote here anyway and I'm not going to repeat those reasons in full, but they are at the end of the talk page for those who care. In brief: sources can be provided, the description is useful for non-Danish and the blind, and the information certainly contributes to a better understanding of the conflict. 82.95.254.249 (talk) 09:40, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep. Absolutely nothing redundant about this page. It describes an image that is the subject of a crisis and that it is even up for deletions on account of redundant is nearly incomprehensible to me. That the initiator thinks there is no useful content here, makes me a tiny bit suspicious of the motives behind this deletion nomination, as it in my view is beyond any doubt that this page contains nothing but useful information. We might as well remove any description of subject like; flags, Declaration of Independence, the Bible, Amarna letters ect… they must on the same account contain “no useful information” and be redundant. In my view it is not original research to translate from one language to another, it is used all over wiki in 1000 of articles dealing with non-English subjects. Tab in KGB and you will see a translation in the first line, but no source. It might be an issue with dead languages or when only few know the facts about certain words. But there are 10 million people that speak Danish in the world, 5m of them living in Denmark. One might as well systematically put all Danish articles up for deletion, in that most of them would contain “original research” in form of translations.Twthmoses (talk) 00:04, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Islam-related deletions. —User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 12:51, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Denmark-related deletions. —User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 12:54, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Locobot (talk) 01:12, 21 May 2009 (UTC) Secret ^account 02:13, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and source - it's a useful sub-article, since Wikipedia should be accessible to the blind and understanding of this controversy is impossible without understanding the content of the cartoons. - Chardish (talk) 02:21, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It seems to me that the place to explain an image for the blind would be on the page that it is always linked to, the description page. Wouldn't you agree. Prodego ^talk 02:23, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge with Jyllands-Posten Muhammad cartoons controversy. I don't see the need to have it stand alone, it would be fine with the parent article. By the way, people seem to be worried about blind people having descriptions of the image. Would blind people be able to read the descriptions? :) It's amazing what technology can do! J-ſtan^Talk_Contribs 04:02, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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.