Commons:Deletion requests/Archive/2009/03/05

From Wikimedia Commons, the free media repository
Jump to navigation Jump to search
Commons logo
Commons logo

This is an archive, please do not edit. Post new cases at Commons:Deletion requests.

You can visit the most recent archive here.

Archive
Archive
Archive March 5th, 2009
This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

File:Fatsoenlijk_mijngp.png

[edit]

Screenshot made by me of my own Userpage. Not used, and I don't like people to see my bookmarks. Mwpnl (talk) 00:53, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted. -mattbuck (Talk) 01:51, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

File:Emma Watson en Noir ivoire.jpg

[edit]

Copyright violation : this portrait is a reproduction of this copyrighted picture (see the last one, bottom of the page). Though it might have required a lot of work, it still is an unauthorized "copy". Thx in advance, Alchemica (talk) 13:12, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree. A painting reproduction is not a simple copy, and if the drawing is original work, there is no problem about photograph's copyright. [1] Barraki (talk) 13:28, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Deletion: it's an obvious reproduction (even if manual) of the photography. See this debate where I was involved : Commons:Deletion requests/Image:KurtGerstein.jpg Morburre (talk) 13:41, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

✓ Done, copyvio (in French law at least). Cdlt, VIGNERON * discut. 15:06, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

File:Olivetti_Echos44_2.jpg

[edit]

Containing Windows-Logo, please remove it or the file should be deleted [[ Forrester ]] 21:33, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Kept.  — Mike.lifeguard 14:07, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

File:McDougall_2007-04-13_CTV_Bill_Marks_1.JPG

[edit]

Mistaken identity on my (uploader's) part. Even if used, the title is wrong, but it's not used anywhere. Rob (talk) 05:47, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted. Avi (talk) 01:05, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

File:Bill_Marks_(458777724).jpg

[edit]

Mistaken identity on my (author's) part. Even if used, the title is wrong, but it's not used anywhere Rob (talk) 05:49, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted. Avi (talk) 01:05, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

File:Bill_Marks_head.jpg

[edit]

Mistaken identity on my (author's) part. Even if used, the title is wrong, but it's not used anywhere Rob (talk) 05:49, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted. Avi (talk) 01:05, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

File:Henan_ditu.jpg

[edit]

is Derivative works, see [2] shizhao (talk) 07:31, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted. Avi (talk) 01:06, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

File:FC_Tans_Logo_For_Goalunited.jpg

[edit]

I think this logo could be considered a derivative work of the Manchester United logo (there's a jpg on the net with the exact background features). Furthermore, I'd tend to say it's out of scope. As far as I understand, it is a logo for a videogame team. Eusebius (talk) 09:29, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ok I am sorry about this problem. I was a new wikipedia worker and I don't know watch is the license condition.
Can a person delete all my image not conform to the liscence condition.
(Sorry for my English)
(En français/In french: Est-ce que quelqu'un peux supprimer toutes mes images qui ne sont pas conforme au demande de liscence. Car je ne sais pas comment supprimer les images.
Merci d'avance pour votre aide --Turklegend (talk) 15:34, 6 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
 Delete request of the uploader then. Turklegend : n'hésite surtout pas à me contacter en cas de question/problème. --Eusebius (talk) 15:48, 6 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted. Avi (talk) 01:06, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

File:Untitled_1a.png

[edit]

Obviously don't work and junk description. I'm nominating this file for deletion because I doubt if it can be ingeble for copyright. Dferg (commons-meta) 15:35, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted. Avi (talk) 01:06, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

File:LOGO FSTV Pequeño.jpg

[edit]

Logo with copyright --Superzerocool (talk) 17:41, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted. Avi (talk) 01:06, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.

Template:Information needed

[edit]

Looks like this template comes from en.wp, but I don't see any use for it on Commons. Besides, it is misleading because it suggests users should provide a fair use rationale for unfree content. --Tryphon (talk) 19:15, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Still used by a couple of images. --Foroa (talk) 22:00, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Yes it's true, my bad for not checking before. These are the three images that currently use this template:
But in each case we could use {{Description missing}} instead (which adds the files to the same category anyway). --Tryphon (talk) 22:19, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted. Template {{Description missing}} placed instead on two remaining files. -- Avi (talk) 01:09, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

File:Slacker_Uprising.jpg

[edit]

Not free enough: (...) And if you want, you can charge admission or ask for a donation if it's to raise money for a candidate, a voter drive, or for any non-profit or educational purpose. Tryphon (talk) 19:23, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted. Looked like a PD release until you see that it is only for the US and Canada. So there is no blanket free use license here. -- Avi (talk) 01:11, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

File:Brehm-wide.jpg

[edit]

Aerial photos without EXIF data is claimed as "own work". Pieter Kuiper (talk) 19:30, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted. Avi (talk) 01:12, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

File:Innocentin-augsburg.JPG

[edit]

Rastered, so probably the "own work" claim is not correct; other images by this uploader are also suspicious. Pieter Kuiper (talk) 20:34, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted. Avi (talk) 01:12, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

File:Lago_di_Garda.jpg

[edit]

Possible copyvio - source says "It is strictly prohibited to upload pictures to Wikimedia Commons." MGA73 (talk) 20:46, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The file is from www.bigfoto.com and the http://www.bigfoto.com/copyright.htm says "It is not permitted to copy bigfoto pictures onto a web site and offer them for downloading. It is strictly prohibited to upload pictures to Wikimedia Commons." The terms might have been differend in 2007. Can anybody remember?

Also see File:EUROMONEY.jpg and File:SmartiesUK.jpg. --MGA73 (talk) 20:50, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The Internet Archive has archived a lot of old versions of the page. Here's the version of February 2, 2007 (two days before it was uploaded here). They didn't mention Commons back then. But their statements concerning usage on other websites are pretty contradicting. You can use their image on your website if you copy the image onto your own server, but you are not allowed to "copy bigfoto pictures onto a web site and offer them for downloading."!? Huh? --Kam Solusar (talk) 00:45, 7 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you. You are right - the terms are pretty messy. If we should fulfill the terms we should at least try (disabling right click + write that it is forbidden to download the picture). And that does not sound like "good Commons spirit" to me. --MGA73 (talk) 09:29, 7 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted. Avi (talk) 01:16, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

File:Vladivostokavia330.jpg

[edit]

I think this file (File:Vladivostokavia330.jpg) must be deleted as a cropped version of an image from here - http://www.airliners.net/photo/Vladivostok-Air/Airbus-A330-301/1493826/L/ . This photo is copyright protected and may not be used in any way without proper permission - the text from the website airliners.net --Ds02006 (talk) 09:29, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted. –Tryphon☂ 11:53, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

File:Georges_Dufrénoy_Vue_de_Lyon.jpg

[edit]

The drawing from 1937 is signed; highly unlikely to be PD. Pieter Kuiper (talk) 20:19, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted. Georges Dufrénoy died in 1943. –Tryphon☂ 12:22, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

File:MarsLander.JPG

[edit]

Poorly designed (bad quality) user-created image that duplicates standard images in use in Category:Phoenix mission. User is welcome to re-create the image using the correct resolution. Viriditas (talk) 21:48, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The resolution is a minor issue. The image is for use only at a small size. There is no reason to delete the image. Brews ohare (talk) 15:41, 6 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Not a minor issue. You admitted on a Wikipedia article discussion page that you "saved as JPEG and has low resolution to save space"[4] which explains the problem; The poor image quality is not acceptable for use in any article. I see that you have now fixed this problem by uploading a duplicate image that has stanadard resolution, File:MarsLander2.JPG. Since this issue has been resolved by uploading a better quality image, there is not reason why this poor image should be kept, so I request that it be deleted as a duplicate of an already existing image of better quality. Viriditas (talk) 07:25, 7 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Tagged as duplicate. Viriditas (talk) 07:29, 7 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Kept. Not a duplicate, tagged with {{Superseded}}. –Tryphon☂ 12:26, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

Coca-Cola bottles

[edit]

All assumed to be COM:DW (logo may well be copyrighted, not a simple shape/textlogo), not covered by COM:DM [[ Forrester ]] 21:22, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Kept. Per above, the Coca-Cola logo is in the public domain. –Tryphon☂ 12:20, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

Images of Julio7856

[edit]

I believe that User:Julio7856's images are all copyvios. The first two in the list bear the watermark from [5]. (I can't check the images there because one doesn't get anything from this site without registration.) The last four in the list show football stars in typical web resolution. All this user's contributions have already been deleted two weeks ago, but he continued to upload copyvios after that date. Rotkraut (talk) 21:19, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted. Abigor talk 18:39, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

File:AVANT BLOODSHY.jpg

[edit]

It is using a professional camera (cost more the 20,000$) inside the jet... Unlikely the uploader is the author. --- Zil (d) 22:39, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted. –Tryphon☂ 16:20, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

File:Alan_dershowitz_by_Latuff.jpg

[edit]

 Delete COM:PS explicitly prohibits attack images: "Files apparently created and/or uploaded for the purpose of vandalism or attack" are considered not to be realistically useful for an educational purpose. MichaelMaggs (talk) 22:01, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

 Keep Selective quotation, COM:PS explicitly exempts "pre-existing designs". /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 22:10, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Give me a chance to finish the request! This is not pre-existing: it was created recently specifically for the purpose of attacking this individual. --MichaelMaggs (talk) 22:12, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It was uploaded by Jaakobou (talk · contribs), and diffs like this one indicates that his purpose was not to attack Dershowitz, but to illustrate articles about Latuff. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 22:21, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Please note that this is not on all-fours with some of the recent anti-Israel images, as this is a direct attack against a living person (a US lawyer), and not an attack on a state.
  • I sought advice on this image from Mike Godwin, and asked "do you think this image poses any problem for the WMF in connection with its potentially derogatory/defamatory nature? If yes, then we should delete it; if no it can be left to the community to decide what to do." Mike replied (and I am quoting in full, with permission): "I don't think it's technically defamatory because no reasonable person would seriously believe that Dershowitz masturbates to pictures of destruction in Beirut. Dershowitz certainly wouldn't like this image, but Dershowitz also has a reputation as a free-speech lawyer. In the event of a legal threat, I could probably talk him out of it (we have friends in common), but I don't think there will be a legal threat. That said, I don't think it's a very good image that adds much to Commons. I'd personally prefer it if the community deleted it."
  • MichaelMaggs (talk) 22:01, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Keep I disagree that Commons:Project scope prohibits us from hosting images like this. I don't dispute the suggestion that this image was created to attack the individual it portrays. I do not consider the section Michael quotes applies in this situation however. My interpretation would be that it is intended to prohibit files which were created or uploaded here to use Commons as a platform for attacking this individual. This is about preventing Commons being misused not stopping us hosting images which, whilst likely to offend, are being used legitimately for educational purposes. I'm not aware of the background of the uploader but there doesn't seem to be any evidence that they uploaded it here in order to abuse Commons by using it to promote their views. There also doesn't seem to be any evidence that the artist created it with the intention of abusing Commons in this way either. This file already seems to be used legitimately on the English Wikipedia as an example of Latuff's work and it would appear to have further potential to be useful in similar ways on other projects. To delete this image would therefore seem to be detrimental to the English Wikipedia, other projects which could potentially use this image, and Commons as a host of educational content. Adambro (talk) 00:05, 6 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I've been involved over my head in trying to remove many of Latuff's cartoons from the Commons on the ground that they are not within the Commons' scope and I am also involved in an unpleasant debate about the necessity of categorizing this kind of images properly. I am going to be fair here and not participate in the vote nor comment much further. I think having four or five people constantly debating about these images is not the right way to do things. This is a matter for the wide community, and if the majority of Commons' users decide to stay indifferent, I can't help it. Nevertheless, there are three important points here: (1) The claim that there is a consensus within the community of users about the need to keep this kind of images on the Commons is untrue. (2) The claim that these images are not defamatory or that we cannot define defamation because there are a lot of standards to this term is also untrue. I trust Mike Godwin's opinion that having these images do not break any law (at least in the US), but there is an ethical problem here, an ethics do matter. (3) A lot of redundant energy is put in this kind of debates in interpreting straightforwards statements. When Mike Godwin writes: "I don't think it's a very good image that adds much to Commons." I trust he mean it as he wrote it. There is no need for further interpretation, as if he were the Oracle of Delphi. In one of the debates here, I was asked to explain my arguments over and over again, each time asking to clarify a certain phrase, or challenged with far-fetched arguments. I beg you to take people's words as written. Drork (talk) 02:23, 6 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  •  Delete per the nomination. There is certainly no consensus to keep this image & it is defamatory. For those who say "that is just your opinion" that is correct. Bear in mind that is exactly what makes it defamatory - the person is defamed in my eyes. --Herby talk thyme 08:17, 6 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    w:Defamation describes defamation as "the communication of a statement that makes a false claim, expressly stated or implied to be factual, that may give an individual, business, product, group, government or nation a negative image". Does this cartoon state or imply that what it portrays is a factual representation? It doesn't seem to. The basis of the nomination was that this is an attack image and the scope prohibits such images. Are you of the opinion that this applies to images not created nor uploaded here with the intention of using Commons as a platform for attacking individuals? Does this mean we can't host any images which are considered to be attacking a person's character? Adambro (talk) 09:18, 6 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Delete While the image is usable to portray the controversial nature behind it, it is not neccessary for the w:Carlos Latuff article as others exist and can illustrate issues without being as offensive to living people who are not global leaders. Jaakobou (talk) 09:01, 6 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm slightly puzzled as to why you uploaded this if you accept it isn't within the scope of the project. Adambro (talk) 09:18, 6 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Why shouldn't he be able to change his mind? --Túrelio (talk) 22:16, 7 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    I didn't say he shouldn't. I'm just interested in what has changed since he made the decision to upload it to impact on his opinion of whether this image is in scope. This isn't clear from his comment. Adambro (talk) 23:19, 7 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Comment I am surprised that en:Mike Godwin even talks about the possibility of legal action. Comments by Norman Finkelstein like in this article about Dershowitz watching an assassination "peep show" would be protected by en:First Amendment to the United States Constitution, and so would a cartoon that puts this metaphor into an image; compare en:Hustler Magazine v. Falwell. This cartoon has been debated in the press. It is mentioned in the text of en:Carlos Latuff, with a reference to an article by Dershowitz; it can not be easily replaced by a different Latuff cartoon. COM:PS says:"Pre-existing designs and symbols that are or have been associated with nationalistic, religious or racist causes are not out of scope solely because they may cause offence. Provided they are legal to host and otherwise fall within Commons scope (e.g. if they could for example be used to illustrate a Wikipedia article on a hate group) they should be kept." (my emphasis); see also COM:PS#Censorship. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 10:27, 6 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Mike Godwin is the legal councilor of the Wikimedia Foundation, so I trust he knows how the US constitution works. The Commons' guidelines are very clear in saying that the Commons are not censored but they have specific aims and a defined scope, and the no-censorship policy should not be confused with the definition of the project's scope. Furthermore, the Commons' guidelines demand that uploading of images will be in good faith as a genuine attempt to ease access to knowledge and for educational purposes. Advertising, promoting political views, promoting certain artists, attacking people etc. are not considered legitimate motives to upload images to the Commons, even if these images might have some educational value. This is all written black on white in the Commons' official guidelines. Drork (talk) 17:05, 7 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
That is of course why Godwin is confident that he could talk Dershowitz out of taking legal action. But Dershowitz is a good lawyer too, and an advocate of free speech; he knows that legal action would not be succesful. In his reaction to this drawing, Dershowitz expressed outrage but wisely he did not threaten with legal action. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 18:06, 7 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Delete I changed my mind and decided to cast my vote. Since the two users who played a major role in introducing this kind of cartoons into the commons decided to vote, I don't see why I should sit aside. Drork (talk) 10:10, 7 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Delete as per Mike Godwin (above). Even if we eventually don't have to fear legal action from the defamed Dershowitz, we shouldn't forget (or shall I say, violate) something that is surely above all our policies: No one shall be subjected to arbitrary interference with his privacy ..., nor to attacks upon his honour and reputation. (In case you didn't recognize it, it's article 12 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights.)
  • In addition, we should take into account our own (Commons') reputation. There is already an impression that Commons is a host/provider for porn and even worse (User:EvaK/en:User:EvaK is definitively not the only one in that opinion). Do we really want to complement that by hosting defamatory attack images of the lowest "artistical" quality such as this "cartoon" by Mr. Latuff? Think a moment about what kind of users/contributors this does attract and what kind it does repulse. Not to mentioning eventual consequences for the WMF fundraising. --Túrelio (talk) 22:05, 7 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Keep It's the work of a notable artist and it's in use, therefore it is within project scope. That's all we have to discuss here. The discussion whether we like this artwork or not does not belong to to COM:DEL. --Rotkraut (talk) 23:09, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Delete I don't any educational use, so out of scope. Yann (talk) 23:26, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Presumably you would agree that this is one of Latuff's more controversial works. As such it is likely to have even more educational value than his other works since it is more likely to be relevant to discuss it in a Wikipedia article for example. It does seem that this image is legitimately in use to illustrate Latuff's work on Wikipedia and so that makes it very much within scope. Please if you could expand on your reasoning why this is out of scope it would be helpful. Adambro (talk) 23:43, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
(1) This is a clear case of uploading a poor quality image to illustrate how a blur image looks like. This practice is not within scope. (2) There are 110 (!!) caricatures by Latuff on the Commons, some of them are very provocative. Drork (talk) 07:04, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Keep Per Norman Finkelstein and Mike Godwin. I'm sorry, this image must not be deleted. Those stating it is defamatory apparently do not understand what defamation is in the legal sense which might prevent us from hosting an otherwise in-scope image. The image is certainly not nice to the subject (so it is defamatory in the colloquial sense), but it poses no legal issue. The fact that we have 110 (!!) caricatures by Latuff on Commons, some of which are very provocative, means we are doing a good job: we should be collecting as many free media files which have educational potential as possible. The image is (and should be) in use in a perfectly legitimate manner - thus it falls within project scope. If not that, then what is Commons for? The fact that some of the images don't happen to be liked by members of the community seems irrelevant to me - there are far more objectionable images in my view (yet they should not be deleted on that basis). Lest I be innundated by cries of "OMG he agrees with the cartoon" please understand that I do not - I find it reprehensible, degrading and ultimately, I think it reflects very poorly on the cartoonist (though whether Latuff has any reputation left to be tarnished is an open question). All of which is not a reason to delete the image.  — Mike.lifeguard 14:21, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
So, it seems (or you suggest) that Commons policy is above article 12 of Universal Declaration of Human Rights (as outlined above).--Túrelio (talk) 14:29, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Quoting the Human Rights Charter is like quoting the bible - explanations are needed. Here the UN writes something about it for children. Of course it does not protect public persons from ridicule or hyperbolic caricature. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 14:53, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
By the way, thanks for the frontpagemag.com reference, from that everybody has to conclude that by hosting exactly the image we are discussing here, Commons' standards are even below those of the stalinist website Counterpunch.(full citation: The peep-show cartoon was even too extreme for the notorious “Counterpunch,” a Stalinist website that glorifies Hezbollah, Hamas and other terrorist enemies of the U.S. and Israel. Prior to its decision not to run this particular cartoon, Counterpunch seemed to have no standards, but even for them this one was apparently too much.[6]). --Túrelio (talk) 15:04, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I assume that Túrelio feels that Commons should also respect Article 19, "Everyone has the right to freedom of opinion and expression; this right includes freedom to hold opinions without interference and to seek, receive and impart information and ideas through any media and regardless of frontiers". There is a balance to be had here. It isn't satisfactory just to quote Article 12 and make the assertion that we shouldn't be hosting it. You can't just look at the one article in isolation. Latuff has the right to express his opinions in this form per Article 19 whilst Alan Dershowitz has the right to be protected from "attacks upon his honour and reputation" per Article 12. Unfortunately the UDHR is sufficiently vague to make it difficult to conclude whether a caricature would be prohibited and as such don't see how we can really look to the UDHR to assist here. Adambro (talk) 15:13, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Adambro, here we are not discussing the right of Latuff to produce and to publish his "cartoons", but whether we should host this image.--Túrelio (talk) 15:21, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Sure, but we shouldn't be giving Article 12 undue weight and have to balance it against the right of people to express their opinions because it is that balance from a legal perspective that determines whether we can host this image. Adambro (talk) 15:57, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Turelio is quoting Dershowitz pronouncement on en:Counterpunch (stalinists!?) as if it were an objectiv truth. But Dershowitz probably does not really know ("apparently") why the newsletter did not publish the cartoon - maybe it just did not fit their format. On wikimedia, the cartoon was uploaded and is used to say and show something about Latuff. Even if it were used to criticize Dershowitz, it is more a criticism of Dershowitz's opinions and not as personal or private as this one from the bedroom of Gustavus II of Sweden. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 16:16, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Pieter, you keep bringing this irrelevant example. First of all, we are talking about a sketch which is very mild in comparison to Latuff's work. Had Latuff been more gentle in his criticism, he would find a lot of places where he could publish them. Secondly, Gustavus II died about 200 years ago. Even his grandchildren are either very old or already passed away. Drork (talk) 16:38, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Once again I have a feeling that some veteran users of the Commons don't understand the purpose of this site. This is not an exercise in Democracy or Liberalism, and we are not here to prove that freedom of speech is beyond any other value (BTW, even the most liberal societies limit the freedom of speech because it often conflicts with other other principles of liberalism, but let's leave this discussion to other forums). The fact that we have 110 images of one provocative cartoonist means that we are being used in an improper way. We are not here to collect any image which is free-licensed. Surely any provocative cartoonist has an interest in publishing his cartoons here, but the Commons are not Hyde-Park nor are they a dump of media files, nor are the Commons a stage for artists who wish to promote themselves. This site has goals and purposes that must be kept, if we want this project to keep on the right track. This site is aiming at serving people from 5 continents and numerous cultures and religions. This site is aiming at allowing free access to knowledge, not at making someone angry or offended. Of course some images of educational value might hurt people's feeling, we can't help that, but we are not here to encourage that, quite the contrary. People of different backgrounds should feel at home in this site, and they should feel this site enriches their knowledge. I don't see how we achieve that if we adhere to the policy suggest by Mike or Adambro. Drork (talk) 16:34, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Any freely licensed content which realistically has some educational value should be made welcome here. You say 110 is too much but where do you draw the line? Sure, some people would consider many of the images to be offensive but how do you determine an appropriate limit? I just cannot understand how you can really even begin to do this. This particular image seems to be in use legitimately and so why should we delete it just because some people might be offended by it when to do so would be detrimental to the work of the projects which Commons is supposed to support. Adambro (talk) 18:32, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Methinks it's Drork who does not understand the purpose of Commons. We are not the chief editorial board of some educational site that decides on its own preferences what is appropriate to the pupils and what not. Commons is the media file repository for the projects of the Wikimedia Foundation. We have to collect any media file that has a potential of any use in any project. As a collection, we have to aim at completeness. In the case of artwork that means that we have to collect every single piece of art of any single notable artist that we can gather under a free license. We already have 110 images of Latuff? So what? If he had drawn 500 cartoons, our duty was to collect all of the 500. In the case of this particular image on Dershowitz the decision whether this image might be considered usefull is already taken. The image is in use in en:wiki, therefore it is deemed to be usefull. It is not on us to override this decision, not even to comment on it. --Rotkraut (talk) 19:23, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
How many sticks makes a heap of sticks? No one can point at the exact number, but that doesn't mean heaps do not exist, or that there is no difference between a collection of 3 sticks and a heap of sticks. The fact that the limits are elusive does not mean that they don't exist, or that we can ignore them. There are limits, and any user (let a lone administrator) who cares about this project takes upon herself/himself the burden of finding these elusive limits and act according to them. Otherwise this site will turn to a dump of useless files. A piece of gold doesn't worth much if it is buried under tons of garbage. And yes - we are editors of this site. Unlike other sites or magazines, there is more than one editor and anyone can read the discussions and join them. And yet, this project has limits and scope and it has editors. Drork (talk) 20:51, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
This may be a sort of policy that you would like to establish. But it is not compatible with the official policy on Wikimedia Commons as outlined in COM:PS. --Rotkraut (talk) 21:31, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
My original deletion rationale may have got lost here. COM:PS explicitly prohibits attack images: "Files apparently created and/or uploaded for the purpose of vandalism or attack" are considered not to be realistically useful for an educational purpose. On Commons the "no attack" rule overrides "in use". --MichaelMaggs (talk) 21:56, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I responded to your selective quotation, you did not really answer. COM:PS says:"Pre-existing designs and symbols that are or have been associated with nationalistic, religious or racist causes are not out of scope solely because they may cause offence. Provided they are legal to host and otherwise fall within Commons scope (e.g. if they could for example be used to illustrate a Wikipedia article on a hate group) they should be kept." /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 22:03, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The common-sense interpretation of preexisting means that the Commons should not be used in order to promote such an image. If it has already become renowned by being published in a notable newspaper or magazine, or if it was stuck as a poster on a wall and someone took a picture of the wall, then we can say it is "preexisting", and treat is as a citation. Even in such cases, I would take measures to minimize the damage to human dignity. Drork (talk) 10:20, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Delete - Commons does not need this image, and it is an attack image, even if preexisting. WMF projects can get by without it, and we are not obligated to host it, so therefore I say we should not host it. Also per Mike Godwin. What is permissible and what is morally correct are often different things. I choose the latter. ++Lar: t/c 22:19, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    If there is anything immoral happening in this case, it is on Latuff's conscience, not ours. By hosting the image, we are not voicing a reprehensible opinion about someone - it is Latuff who is doing that by creating the cartoon. We are not a publisher.  — Mike.lifeguard 23:51, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    There are 4M free (or so we hope!) images on Commons. The world has vastly more than 4M free images in it. We are not obligated to house every free image ever produced. We must pick and choose, we must winnow. One way to pick and choose is to rule out those images which are disallowable under policy. Deletion of such images is not a debatable thing, once it is clear they are disallowable, out they go. Yet that leaves more than we can host. Another way to winnow is to remove dups or images that are out of scope... yet that still leaves more than we can host. I have 100 images on my hard drive of a particular building, yet I only uploaded a very small number. All the others are arguably in scope, freely licensed, etc, but I chose not to upload them. Personal preference. This image may or may not be disallowable under policy. I think it is disallowable but I concede that others do not. This image is a dup (in the class of "images by Latuff that illustrate his particular type of artistic style, and political views" we have enough just as we have enough penises) and it may well be out of scope. Further, by hosting this image, we enable wider propagation of it than it deserves. All arguable. But in the final analysis, because we are not obligated to be a free web host to every image out there, If enough people evince such a personal preference, then we have a consensus not to host it whether the minority likes it or not. They can fork, and host it themselves if they wish but we, Commons, are not obligated to do so just because a minority wish it, as this is not a free speech platform. I choose to say that I personally, standing with Mike Godwin and many other colleages here, prefer not to host it. Even if every other argument against it is refuted, that preference of mine cannot be refuted. ++Lar: t/c 04:24, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Just as a reality-check, this sooo valuable image is currently used once on 1 (in words: one) project page; not counted the irrelevant use on Commons itself (1 gallery). --Túrelio (talk) 22:29, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

One article in one project is quite a lot. The overwhelming majority of Latuff's cartoons are not used nor usable in any project. Of course, we have many images like that, but they are not as provocative or as problematic as Latuff's cartoons. Drork (talk) 10:11, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Comment in response to the comments by MichaelMaggs at 21:56, Lar at 22:19, and Túrelio 22:29. MichaelMaggs states that 'the "no attack" rule overrides "in use"'. On what basis do you make this assertion? Commons:Project scope doesn't seem to support it. "Files apparently created and/or uploaded for the purpose of vandalism or attack" are given as a example of "files that are not realistically useful for an educational purpose". My interpretation of this is that it is intended to prohibit individuals from using Commons as a platform to make attacks not to prohibit Commons from hosting images which might be considered to be attacking certain individuals. It seems there is no evidence that the creator or the uploader acted to deliberately abuse Commons in order to promote their views. This is the problem I consider the policy is trying to deal with. I don't believe it was the intention that Commons should disallow images simply because they make attacks. Lar says Commons doesn't need this image but that seems to neglect the fact that Commons doesn't exist for its own purposes, it exists to serve the needs of the various WMF projects. Whilst as Túrelio seems to eager to point out, it is only currently used on one page, on one project, the fact that it is being used should demonstrate that it is considered to have educational value and that it hasn't quickly been removed shows it isn't considered to be used illegitimately on that page in order to attack individuals or as vandalism. What should happen if this image is deleted from Commons yet the Wikipedia community still considers it to be of value? Should they upload it locally? Adambro (talk) 23:32, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Delete out of scope 62.219.213.25 14:43, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Try again. Why is it out of scope? Adambro (talk) 14:50, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Why in the scope? 62.219.213.25 17:10, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    It is in use (legitimately), so it is in scope. Per definition. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 17:12, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Delete It's an attack image, and it's easily replaceable on the English Wikipedia, as it's merely an example of Latuff's work. Commons doesn't and shouldn't host attack images like this, unless they're notable in and of themselves or merely historical.--Prosfilaes (talk) 18:58, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comments moved from the talk page. Yann (talk) 20:54, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
This image defames a living person. Placing this image in a category that shows real portraits of lawyers, suggesting this is a genuine image of the lawyer in question is very unethical to say the least, and it is probably illegal in the United States and in many other countries. As for masturbation and ejaculation - these categories show scientific illustrations of the human body. They do not include political cartoons whatsoever. This is not a biological illustration, and there is no use in this image for anyone who wants to learn about the human body and its functions. I beg you, do not abuse the categorization system. Drork (talk) 06:58, 2 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You seem to persist with this argument that if a category doesn't already contain similar images then an image cannot be added. Clearly, as I have already noted, this is ridiculous. If this idea was adopted then we'd simply have loads of empty categories. Which came first? The chicken or the egg? Categories are for content related to the subject of the category. This is likely to include a broad range of different media files. Saying that there aren't already cartoons in particular categories is an extremely weak argument to not add any. If a cartoon relates to a subject then it should be in an appropriate category for that subject. Whether or not there are already other cartoons in those categories. Adambro (talk) 10:35, 2 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
What you are suggesting in practice is spamming categories with irrelevant images, hence making the whole system collapse. Furthermore, there are two people who categorize Latuff's drawing, and they have clear political motives. Latuff's drawings are the only exceptions in most of the categories to which they attributed. There is clearly a problem here, and you seem to ignore it. Drork (talk) 01:15, 3 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Keep Realistically useful for an educational purpose as example of work of notable author. --Dezidor (talk) 23:30, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Delete (Was closing rationale, but this was reopened at COM:UNDEL) There are other examples of Latuff's work for the purposes of examples and explanations, and as Herby and others have said, this image can be very easily viewed as defamatory. The purpose of the Commons is not "transgressing the boundaries" (with apologies to Alan Sokal) of free speech law; the purpose is to create a repository of free-use images that comply with certain basic principles. Images should not be uploaded to commons solely to be used to further socio- or geo-political arguments. This image either skirts or outright violates those principles, and the Commons is better off without it, and there is plenty of other Latuff material to more than adequately describe Latuff, his artwork, his genres, his politics, etc. -- Avi (talk) 01:22, 12 March 2009

reopend per undelete reqeust Abigor talk 09:56, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Arbitrary section break

[edit]
 Comment @Avraham: I know four arguments against your opinion. 1. Realistically useful for an educational purpose as example of work of notable author. 2. Commons is not censored (together with argument number one). 3. The image was notable part of Finkelstein-Dershowitz contoversy, so it is notable cartoon. read the article. 4. Here is obviously not consensus for deletion. --Dezidor (talk) 10:00, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
 Response 1)Plenty of existing material (see COM:PS#Examples 2) Irrelevant as image was created (if not uploaded) to attack someone (See COM:PS#Examples) 3) That is a matter of debate as to how notable the image was 4) The arguments for deletion were stronger than those for retention (see comments by Herby, Lar, etc.) -- Avi (talk) 10:21, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
 Response 1. This image is not under any point in COM:PS#Examples. 2. Relevant, "We have another images by this author" and "I don´t like it" are not valid reasons. Or do you want to delete images by notable painters only because we have another different images by these authors? 3. It shows that this cartoon is more notable than some other cartoons by Latuff, so if somebody thinks that we have many examples of his works, this is not that one, that should be target of his deletion attempt. 4. The arguments for deletion are weaker. They are usually "I don´t like it." "It is a defamation." or "We have many another Latuff´s works." --Dezidor (talk) 10:35, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
 Response 1) Two, actually. One is "Files apparently created and/or uploaded for the purpose of vandalism or attack." and the second is "Files that add nothing educationally distinct to the collection of images we already hold covering the same subject". 2)Actually, if they do not add anything to our understanding that is an issue per COM:PS#Examples. 3) That is your opinion. It was not shared by the majority of the responders above. 4) That is your opinion. It was not shared by the majority of the responders above. -- Avi (talk) 10:39, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
 Response 1. It was created for purpose of political cartoon and uploader had no vadalism intention. Assume good faith. 2. I explained its educational purpose. 3. and 4. OK, you have no arguments. --Dezidor (talk) 10:59, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
 Response We are going in circles. 1) Political cartoon meant to defame Dershowitz. 2) I explained how that was not the case. 3 and 4, you are just repeating yourself. You have your opinion, many others, including myself, think you are wrong. Please do not confuse "facts" with "opinions". -- Avi (talk) 11:11, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
 Response Many political cartoons are meant to criticize and ridicule. It is not a reason to delete them, if the work is notable. This one was previously published by Norman Finkelstein, as another episode in the en:Dershowitz–Finkelstein affair, a long-running feud between two Jewish-Americans. The cartoon was insprired by Finkelstein's characterization of Dershowitz watching Israeli security operations, and Dershowitz suspects that it was commissioned by Finkelstein. The "geo-political arguments" that Avraham talked about do not really play a role here. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 13:50, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
 Response to Peter Thank you for dropping in, Peter, but, in my opinion, I do not see what you have added to the discussion that was not covered by Dezidor, and my subsequent counter-arguments still stand. Regardless of it being created also as a "political cartoon" that still does not mean that this particular image is in scope. It is not needed to shed more light on Latuff; his politics, art-style, genre, political leaning, favorite topics, media, etc. are all amply illustrated by the other images. However, the image was created to denigrate Dershowitz, especially if you are correct in that it was commissioned by his rival Finkelstein. THAT can be considered a violation of "education purpose" which I have linked to in COM:PS#Examples. If it fails the educational purpose due to its simultaneous nature of being an attack as well as being unnecessary to understand the artist and his work, why else would it be here? My arguments still stand, at least in my opinion :) -- Avi (talk) 14:15, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
My interpretation of the relevant text in COM:PS#Examples is that the intention is to prevent Commons from being misused by individuals who wish to promote their own views. I therefore consider images which were uploaded to use Commons as a platform or created with that intention to be beyond the scope of the project. I don't consider this image to be beyond the project scope because I see no evidence that anyone intended to abuse Commons in this way. I'd be interested to learn what makes you come to a different interpretation. On a slightly different point, I would note that these are not examples of images which are prohibited or definitely out of scope, they are examples "of files that are not realistically useful for an educational purpose". Not only will there be exceptions to any rule, COM:PS doesn't define that the images it gives as examples are out of scope of the project. Just above the examples, I note it says that "A media file which is neither realistically useful for an educational purpose, nor legitimately in use as discussed above falls outside the scope of Wikimedia Commons". In this case, even if the image can be said to fall within those described by the example, the fact that it is legitimately in used means that it is in scope. For an image to be beyond the scope of the project it must be both not realistically useful for educational purposes and not used legitimately in use. Even if it is considered not be useful for educational purposes based upon the examples given, the fact that it is in use for such purposes means it is in scope. In summary, I don't consider this to be an attack image for the purposes of the example but certainly accept it is an attack on the individual portrayed, and consider that even if it does fit the example given, this is irrelevant because it being in use for educational purposes clearly demonstrates it has an educational values. My position will remain unchanged even if the attempts by those who support the deletion manage to get it removed from the relevant Wikipedia article. My understanding is that it has remained in the article unchallenged for a substantial length of time and so the implication is that it contributes positively to the article rather than merely being there to attack the individual it portrays. Adambro (talk) 14:52, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
 Response to Adambro I understand your perspective and there are some people here who agree with you. However, I personally disagree with it, as do many others here as well. Specifically regarding legitimate usage, my understanding of the EnWiki policies, as I have explained both here and there, is that it is a violation of EnWiki's living people policy. As such, it does not have any legitimate use there, so your argument about usage has been severely weakened, in my (and obviously others') opinion. The fact that it remained unchallenged for a substantial length of time is irrelevant; it either IS or IS NOT appropriate, and that should be discussed on EnWiki. Per EnWiki's strict application of BLP, the image should not be returned there until its status is clarified. It is very easy to undelete images, as you well know, if it is necessary. -- Avi (talk) 15:31, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

 Response Dude, using your admin tools to delete an image because you don't like it, that's bad. Multichill (talk) 10:38, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

 Response Dude, closing DR's is part of my job :) -- Avi (talk) 10:40, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Acting out your personal agenda is not. Multichill (talk) 11:09, 12 March 2009 (UTC) Strike that, i was confusing you with another user. Sorry about that. Multichill (talk) 12:45, 12 March 2009 (UTC) : Response Yes, but when did that happen? You would not be projecting, would you? -- Avi (talk) 11:11, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  •  Keep I don't believe this was "uploaded for the purpose of vandalism or attack". I usually dislike it when users yell "not censored!" but sometimes it's justified. I can't any other reason for deletion except that it offends some people. Reading this discussion makes me feel like I'm on en.wp. All this talk of policy and so much effort wasted on a single image. These extensive discussions over decency (or whatever you call it) is no worse the those long useless arguements over the color of flags. Bringing up these cartoons over and over again is harming Commons. If you don't like it, ignore it. We got 4 million other images you can look at. Remember COM:MELLOW, guys? That used to be the only ALLCAPS link around here. We could be doing something a little more productive. Rocket000(talk) 12:48, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Delete, per nom, and Avi, --birdy geimfyglið (:> )=| 14:35, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Delete Dolev (talk) 14:43, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

 Comment In my opinion, it was quite rude reverting the deletion despite a clear majority against keeping this image. Apparently those who present themselves as worried about the democracy of this community can't accept a decision against them. I really don't see why this discussion should go on for ever. Drork (talk) 17:37, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • In the view of this discussion, i was quite surprised about the deletion decision of Avi, even if this decision is suspended in the meanwhile. This decision did not follow the guidelines as written in COM:PS. Although it has been pointed out in the discussion before Avi's decision, it seems it need to be emphasized once again:
    1. COM:PS clearly states that a “media file that is in use on one of the other projects of the Wikimedia Foundation is considered automatically to be useful for an educational purpose”.
    2. The original deletion request did quote COM:PS incompletely. The complete paragraph reads “Files apparently created and/or uploaded for the purpose of vandalism or attack. Pre-existing designs and symbols that are or have been associated with nationalistic, religious or racist causes are not out of scope solely because they may cause offence. Provided they are legal to host and otherwise fall within Commons scope (e.g. if they could for example be used to illustrate a Wikipedia article on a hate group) they should be kept”. As Latuff's cartoon was not created for the upload to Commons, but existed before, the phrase cited in the original request simply does not apply.
    3. COM:PS explicitly permits offensive content: “Commons is not censored and does quite legitimately contain content that some readers may consider objectionable or offensive. The lack of censorship means that a lawfully-hosted file that is within scope will not be deleted solely on the grounds that it may not be “child-friendly” or that it may or does offend you or others for moral, religious, social or other reasons”.
    I kindly ask the admin closing this request to base his decission on the written official policies of Wikimedia Commons and not on his personal opinion. --Rotkraut (talk) 18:38, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

 Response to Rotkraut As the images use in the EnWiki project is likely a violation of EnWiki policies, and as the image does not add anything to the understanding or appreciation of Latuff's work, medium, genre, style, politics, favored subjects, etc, it fails COM:PS#Examples twice:once regarding being an image created by the artist to attack someone (although this is the weaker argument) and once because it no longer serves an educational purpose. This is not solely my understanding, but that of other Commons regulars, nay experts, such as Herby, Spacebirdy, Lar, etc. I also request of the THIRD closing admin to take into account our policy of COM:PS and realize that with the images use on EnWiki (the only place where it was used) under discussion for being a violation of EnWiki policies that it lacks educational purpose. There is nothing added to any understanding of Latuff with this image that is not already present in the 20+ images that already are on commons, outside of a direct attack on the person and reputation of Alan Dershowitz. Furthermore, quickly creating an article on another wiki to host the article should be viewed as an attempt to game the system and should not enter into this discussion. Rather, the admin should base his decision on the written official policies of Wikimedia Commons and not on his or her personal opinion. -- Avi (talk) 19:34, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  •  Delete. Per nom, Avi, and common sense. Jayjg (talk) 00:14, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Delete I don't really see much difference between Latuff's body of work and Sean Delonas's, other than the underlying politics. Both of them pretty much focus on creating controversy to distract the reader from noticing their mediocre cartooning talent. It isn't working.

    There are a lot of images from Der Stürmer that would be arguably "educational", too. One or two might even be used in an article somewhere. That doesn't justify keeping a whole gallery of them. Or one that portrayed a living person this way, in a manner that offered no useful criticism or comment, only épatage. Daniel Case (talk) 04:22, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

 Comment The comparison is defamatory, but of course commons should have free category:DerStürmer cartoons. The problem is that the main cartoonist Fips lived until 1975. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 08:06, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Aha... and I suppose comparing Ariel Sharon to Hitler is not defamatory at all, as you suggested in another related discussion. *sigh* Drork (talk) 12:21, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

We need to not have wheel wars over this image. The discussion ran its course, and two different admins called a consensus. Those undeleting need to think again before they do that. The image needs to be deleted, consensus exists, and no further discussion is needed. If you disagree, raise it at a deletion review but do not undelete it again, as to do so is wheel warring which will not be tolerated. Deleted. ++Lar: t/c 12:30, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Reopened per Commons:Undeletion_requests/Current_requests#File:Alan_dershowitz_by_Latuff.jpg. Finn Rindahl (talk) 15:16, 19 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

kept I should have been bold enough to simply leave this request closed after undeletion. There is no comminity consensus that this image is outside project scope per nom. Closing admin should take opinions expressed at COM:UNDEL into consideration when judging consensus for this request, it seem so clear that no consensus to delete this image excists that I can't really see how anyone can interprete the result of this discussion as delete. Finn Rindahl (talk) 16:41, 19 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

File:LGBTPrideFlag.jpg

[edit]

This is an unnecessary image that seems to have been uploaded by mistake by a user (Staffwaterboy) who could not then nominate it for deletion perhaps because he is new. I am going to do what I believe he inteńded to do, and enter a deletion request onto this page so that it can be deleted. Soap (talk) 00:39, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I really wish he could provide a basic textual explanation for why he wants the image deleted, such as perhaps "This image that I uploaded happens to be redundant due to the existence of a corresponding vector SVG", instead of giving us cryptic codes like "g6"[sic]... AnonMoos (talk) 00:34, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I don't want this image shared on creative commons.

Staffwaterboy (talk) 00:47, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Halfway there. Now why don't you want this image shared on creative commons? It's amazing to think some know what "g6" is but don't know the difference between Creative Commons and Wikimedia Commons. Rocket000(talk) 03:20, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Nvm it can stay...Sorry for the troubles.

Cheers,

Staffwaterboy (talk) 22:50, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Just giving you a hard time. Don't worry about. :-)  Delete per user request. Rocket000(talk) 04:23, 19 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, I'm in favor of deleting it. This is not the case of JPEG being superseded by SVG, but the JPEG is actually "subseding" the SVG (it was created more than 3 years after the SVG). So I really don't think it adds anything more than what we already have. Of course, if it was uploaded for a specific purpose, and will be in use soon, then we should keep it, but otherwise I don't think it will ever be needed. –Tryphon☂ 23:39, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I vote for an obvious delete. It is a poorly designed image in the wrong format with incorrect proportions and many better versions of the image already exist. Soap (talk) 03:39, 19 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted. PeterSymonds (talk) 13:47, 22 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

File:Kira-Zanaq.png

[edit]
Deleted as a copyvio Quadell (talk) 16:59, 3 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Commons:Fan art Isderion (talk) 00:26, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It's a very bad interpretation of ds9 character Kira Nerys. But you can see the bajoran nose. So the character is identifyable. Additionally it's very own interpretation with no (encyclopedic) value (you can't show fan-art in a articel). --Isderion (talk) 00:00, 14 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

File:Amalthea (moon).gif

[edit]
Kept, not a violation. Quadell (talk) 00:27, 5 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Text on the Astronomy Picture of the Day page: Credit: NASA, Voyager 1, Copyright Calvin J. Hamilton. So the picture is Copyrigted and not free --Uwe W. (talk) 18:27, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

keep I dont believe that an image from Voyager, from NASA can be copyrighted. It must be mistake. --Nolanus ✉ (C | E) 19:02, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Quote from About APOD: “About image permissions: All the images on the APOD page are credited to the owner or institution where they originated. Some of the images are copyrighted and to use these pictures publicly or commercially one must write to the owners for permission. For the copyrighted images, the copyright owner is identified in the APOD credit line (please see the caption under the image), along with a hyperlink to the owner's location. NASA images are in the public domain, official guidelines for their use can be found here. For images credited to other owners/institutions, please contact them directly for copyright and permissions questions.” E.g. APOD images may or may not be in the PD. The mere fact that an image comes from APOD does not imply that it is copyrighted. This image is credited as NASA. The source link to NASA JPL does not seem to exist anymore. Most NASA images are {{PD-USGov-NASA}}, IIRC those from JPL are.  Keep --131.188.3.21 13:31, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

File:Sisko-Zanaq.png

[edit]

Commons:Fan art Isderion (talk) 00:31, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • I don't think it is a copyright violation. COM:FA says Fan art is a term describing artistic representations of elements in a work of fiction which were created by someone not licensed to do so by the copyright holder of the original work, but this image doesn't include any element of copyrighted work. It's just someone's face, there is no characteristic makeup or costume. I would  keep. –Tryphon☂ 12:06, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Don't you think that Benjamin Sisko is a copyrighted character? And if it was only someone's face (the description page states otherwise) it would be useless and therefore out of scope. --Isderion (talk) 23:52, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Sure, the character is copyrighted. What I'm saying is that this depiction doesn't contain any copyrightable element from the character (in other words, this image doesn't harm the copyright holder's rights). If we were to assume there is a copyright infringement in this image, then every picture of a bold black guy would be a copyvio too. There is a difference between design protection and copyright protection (and Commons only cares about copyrights). –Tryphon☂ 00:49, 14 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Please comment on the new fan art proposal at Commons:Fan art/Proposal. --MichaelMaggs (talk) 15:17, 29 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Kept per Tryphon MichaelMaggs (talk) 20:06, 1 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

File:Escudo_Buenos_Aires.JPG

[edit]

Derivative work of a painting. Source proving painting is PD or that Argentina has Freedom of panorama on 2-D images needed. Lokal_Profil 19:44, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The topic of the photo is the coat of arms of the city of Buenos Aires, and this "painting" is actually a close shot of one of hundreds of similar signs used for banners all around the city (here is an example). The composition of the coat of arms itself is public domain, and those ones found by hundreds in those banners in the city and without any "credit" to anyone (and not to be seriously expected) are closer to be utilitarian objects than artistic creations. Belgrano (talk) 20:56, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
 Keep The COA of Buenos Aires is in the public domain. No FOP needed. --ALE! ¿…? 13:37, 25 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
 Comment I do not know anything about COM:FOP in Argentina. However, there exist wide-ranging interpretations of the COA of the city of Buenos Aires like this, this, or that which seem to me to be eligible for copyright. --AFBorchert (talk) 12:34, 5 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Of course they are. Any given representation of the coat of arms is capable of being copyrighted by the author as desired. But not the concept itself of the coat of arms: the components that must be included in it are described at a local law of the 3 of december of 1923. The bird, the ships, the water, all is described there. But, starting from that global idea, each designer can design his own version of the coat of arms. As you may notice, the 3 linked images, this one, and the superseed version from Vectorimages are similar but not duplicates, each one with it's own copyright.
When I took a photo of this particular representation of the coat of arms and uploaded it here, I haven't took freedom of panorama as part of the reason to consider it free. I consider it free because, as I described, it's part of an utilitarian object, available by hundreds all around the city. The composition itself is not copyrightable, this object in particular can be considered an utilitarian object; then I see no problem to consider it free. Belgrano (talk) 19:41, 5 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Image has been replaced on (nearly) all uses by File:Escudo_de_la_Ciudad_de_Buenos_Aires.png. --Túrelio (talk) 09:15, 13 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: I still think that the image was acceptable, but it was used just as a temporal measure to replace an unfree version of the COA until a proper version (drawed rather that photographed) was available. Now that there is such version, there's no need for this COA, so the discussion is moot. In this particular case I think my involvement in the DR and the file itself does not prevent me from closing the DR, as I'm deleting and not keeping it. Belgrano (talk) 14:34, 15 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

File:Windows-7.png

[edit]

Copyrighted Logo Kyro (talk) 12:00, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted. Copyright violation. — str4nd ⇌ 19:58, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

File:Josh.jpg

[edit]

Out of scope. Yann (talk) 13:49, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted. --The Evil IP address (talk) 14:41, 9 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

File:Josh.jpg

[edit]

Out of scope - unused personal file. — Tulsi Bhagat (talk) 05:10, 9 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: per nomination. --Jcb (talk) 15:11, 16 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

File:Mountbatten_Nehru.jpg

[edit]

 Comment I would like to have others' opinion. This image is {{PD-India}}, but the photographer is Henri Cartier-Bresson (French) [7]. English WP says: The photo was purchased by the National Portrait Gallery (UK) in 1990. See w:Edwina Mountbatten, Countess Mountbatten of Burma#Other relationships. Is it acceptable on Commons? Yann (talk) 18:10, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Do we know when this photograph was first published? WJBscribe (talk) 20:29, 28 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, I don't know. Yann (talk) 20:58, 28 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Well given that is the starting point for the copyright claimed, I think that causes an issue with keeping it here. It may be 60 years since it was taken, but PD-India requires it to be 60 years since publication. If we can't be sure when it was published then we shouldn't have it here. The other questions that I'm guessing concern you about the image's copyright status don't even arise if it's actually still covered by copyright in India... WJBscribe (talk) 21:44, 28 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
 Delete unless it is confirmed that image was published 60 years or more ago, in which case I'll need to give this further thought. WJBscribe (talk) 18:58, 2 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted, per WJBscribe. Kameraad Pjotr 19:20, 15 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

File:Sphinx_-_Marc_Quinn_(2006,_painted_bronze).jpg

[edit]

Derivative work of a copyrighted statue. Sandstein (talk) 21:13, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted, derivative work (no FOP). Kameraad Pjotr 19:21, 15 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

File:The_Big_Bang_Pop_Sculpture.jpg

[edit]

Derivative work of a copyrighted statue. Sandstein (talk) 21:14, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted, derivative work (no FOP). Kameraad Pjotr 19:22, 15 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Commons:Deletion_requests/Archive/2009/03/05&oldid=26863034"