[WikiEN-l] Why are images deleted in such a hurry?

[Ken Arromdee]

On Wed, 5 Mar 2008, Todd Allen wrote:
> What you describe is the problem, though, not the solution. For some
> instances (Nike, Coca-Cola, the Intel Inside campaign, the Beatles'
> White Album), an album (or other media) cover or corporate logo is an
> integral part of the article's subject, there is a significant
> quantity of discussion of -the image itself-, and we can make an
> appropriate rationale for putting it in the article. In most cases,
> though (Advanced Micro Devices, Band X's latest release), the logo or
> cover is unnecessary and decorative since the article does not (and
> should not) discuss it, since it's just decoration for the
> company/book/album in and of itself and is not discussed by sources.
> It is not, in most cases, a necessary part of an article on the
> (corporation|album|book|movie|video game|what have you). We should
> only provide exceptions for nonfree images where they're -needed-, and
> part of the requirement should be that the image itself should be the
> subject of significant commentary and discussion, rendering its actual
> presence necessary for the reader to see the image that's -actually
> being discussed in the article-.

Huh?

Knowing what a company's logo looks like is itself a piece of important
information about the company, just like knowing what state its headquarters
is in or what product it makes.  You don't need to discuss the logo in order
for the logo to provide information about the company.