- NonFreeImageRemoved.svg (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (restore)
I believe this image or similar image is not likely to be found free. Gnevin (talk)
- Endorse I agree with the considered reasoning provided by the deleting administrator at their talk page. A picture on eye gouging is very likely to be replaceable. Of all the rugby union matches played throughout history, there may very well be a free picture of eye gouging. If not, head out to your local park with a couple of mates this afternoon dressed in rugby union getup and take free pictures of you eye gouging each other to your hearts content. Irreplaceable does not mean "I can't find any free pictures on flickr". Sounds tough, I know. But such is the conservative approach that is demanded of fair use claims. --Mkativerata (talk) 05:57, 11 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: Are you high? If not, head out to your local park with a couple of mates this afternoon dressed in rugby union getup and take free pictures of you eye gouging each other to your hearts content eye gouging is extremely dangerous behaviour which can result in blindness and the lose of the eye and you are seriously suggesting I go to a local park and carry out criminal behaviour! You've in a round about way admitted that a replaceable image is not available Gnevin (talk) 08:50, 11 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Just a bit of humour. I could accept using a picture like this to demonstrate anal poking as it's only been known to happen once. But with the multitude of examples of eye gouging throughout the history of kick-chase-gouge-whistle-scrum-whistle-kick, you can't possibly argue that there's not likely to be a free image of it happening somewhere. --Mkativerata (talk) 08:59, 11 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The image wasn't of a gouge it was on the result of a pretty horrendous gouge . Most gouging in RU doesn't result in eye damage, this limits the number of options, of those that do most if not all aren't free . The image can be found here. Shouldn't people endorsing actually look at the image? Gnevin (talk) 09:11, 11 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- To repeat what the deleting admin said, if the image was used to illustrate and comment on that particularly horrendous gouge, an NFCC#1 claim could potentially be made out. But the image was used to demonstrate gouging generally; thus it is replaceable by any free picture of gouging. --Mkativerata (talk) 09:23, 11 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Well if you want a picture of gouging (Why,I don't know) there is one on the article here lower down. If you really want it though why having an image showing potential criminal action is beyond me. The C of E. God Save The Queen! (talk) 21:00, 11 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Third time explaining this too you, maybe if you took time to listen instead of being owe so funny! The image shows the eye damaged caused as a result of an eye gouge not an eye gouge in progress Gnevin (talk) 08:01, 12 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- That's not the 3rd time to me. I think you may have misread me, I already knew this was a photo showing the result of a gouge, (In fact, I was the one that found the source that contained this picture). And what I said was directed at Mkativerata who said he wanted a picture of gouging itself rather than a picture showing the damage that can be done. The C of E. God Save The Queen! (talk) 12:30, 16 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The you refereed to Mkativerata not yourself The C of E sorry about any confusion Gnevin (talk) 00:18, 17 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Overturn The very nature of gouging is that is an underhand act. It's unlikely that anybody would undertake in gouging someone when it is clearly visible, let alone easily photograped. While the picture is not particularly pleasant (in fact its very unpleasant), it is not gratuitous and is very effective in illustrating the dangers of gouging. It is highly unlikely that it could be replaced a free image from elsewhere G
ainLine ♠ ♥ 12:28, 11 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Overturn: Well, I think that although the picture may be gruesome, it does illustrate a point of what Eye-Gouging in Rugby can do to a person. The person in the picture was blinded in the gouged eye and had his Rugby career ended so as Gnevin says, it is highly unlikly to have another free equivilant. (I Will also say that I found Mkativerata's "joke" very insulting to both the sport and players who have had their lives dramatically altered because of someone trying to rip their eye out.) The C of E. God Save The Queen! (talk) 20:23, 11 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Overturn: Per my reasoning above and the fact that any replacement would not serve the same encyclopedic purposeGnevin (talk) 20:31, 11 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Endorse: While such eyes may be rare the list where this image was used shows that it happens regularly. Therefore a free equivalent could be created if one does not already exit. Rettetast (talk) 20:46, 11 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment It doesn't happen often. Cases of contact with the eye are common, really? We have an average of 3 or 4 cares per the 100's of top flight games played a year and in most of these it's eye contact near the eye area. Cases of out and out gouging as defined as where fingers are inserted in the eye are quite rare and cases of eye damage extremely rare. I've been watching Rugby for 15 years and this in the only case of physical eye damage I recall. If you look at the list you will see 1 ban of 2 years or more and the player he gouged eye wasn't damaged Gnevin (talk) 21:04, 11 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- P.S could be created if one does not already exit. Are you offering up your eye? Gnevin (talk) 21:05, 11 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Thankfully its extremely rare, I've been watching/playing rugby for 20 years and I have never seen an out and out gouge taking place, mostly these are only brought to the attention by citing after games and the examination of television footage, for want of a better term these things happen in a blink of an eye and I can't see how it could be recreated. While this image is horrible, I cannot think of a better example to illustrate the point. G
ainLine ♠ ♥ 21:39, 11 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Overturn and restore The newspaper article makes it clear that this is not replaceable in any reasonable way. DGG ( talk ) 23:56, 11 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Was this image copyrighted by anyone? Google image search shows thousands of images for eye gouge, and you could easily take a picture of someone touching someone's eye. By if this was a particularly famous eye gouge, an event mentioned in an article, and no copyright laws were violated, it should've been kept. Dream Focus 01:17, 12 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment : Sigh explaining this again ! The image shows the eye damaged caused as a result of an eye gouge not an eye gouge in progress Gnevin (talk) 07:47, 12 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
|