Commons:Deletion requests/File:Сергей Лавров (14-02-2022) (cropped) en uk.jpg

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:Сергей Лавров (14-02-2022) (cropped) en uk.jpg and File:Сергей Лавров (14-02-2022) (cropped) de uk.jpg

User-made, unattested and poorly made caricatures; not educational. Therefore, out of COM:SCOPE "fantasy" and "imaginary"; violations of COM:NOTHOST, COM:SELFIE, COM:EV. A realistic educational purpose is a policy requirement for all Commons files. All files with no such purpose must be deleted: "Wikimedia Commons is not your personal free web host". Veverve (talk) 11:56, 1 May 2022 (UTC)

 Keep. Creation of bad deletion requests. See User talk (blocked by Taivo. --Микола Василечко (talk) 13:40, 1 May 2022 (UTC)

I am not blocked. What are you saying? There is nothing related to this DR on my talk page. Veverve (talk) 14:19, 1 May 2022 (UTC)

---

 Kept, I blocked Veverve for a month for violating COM:INUSE policy (second block for the same). Taivo (talk) 17:00, 1 May 2022 (UTC)

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:Сергей Лавров (14-02-2022) (cropped) en uk.jpg

Hello. Unfortunately, I don't know English well, so I use a translator program.

I would like to nominate this file for deletion a second time. The reason is that he obviously violates the rules that prohibit aggressive statements against living people.

I believe that no emotional assessments should lead to a violation of the rules.

Last time, the nomination for removal was closed without serious discussion, so I insist that the problem be considered again.--Apr1 (talk) 09:37, 7 August 2022 (UTC)

•  Comment Not in use in any articles, but are you suggesting that political caricatures are not in scope? -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 04:36, 8 August 2022 (UTC)

 Delete along with File:Сергей Лавров (14-02-2022) (cropped) de uk.jpg. Commons is not host for personal political images, moreover, so provocative. Similarly, it is inappropriate to post here such provocative files with the image of, say, Anthony Blinken. 92.101.118.24 21:21, 5 September 2022 (UTC)

 Delete along with File:Сергей Лавров (14-02-2022) (cropped) de uk.jpg.  Comment: It's not funny but just defamatory bullshit not worthy of being part of an encyclopedia. Additional, Commons is not your personal free web host. (No, I'm not a friend of Putin and condemn his imperialist war of aggression in the strongest possible terms.) --Achim55 (talk) 21:43, 5 September 2022 (UTC)

This is Commons. Commons is a repository of images, including political caricatures. It is not an encyclopedia and not just an adjunct to Wikipedia! But if you think a current-day digital form of caricature couldn't possibly be of any use in an online encyclopedia, I suggest you let your imagination run more freely. Finally, political caricatures tend to be defamatory by nature, and they are strongly protected in the U.S. by the First Amendment to the Constitution and in other countries with democratic constitutions and systems by similar provisions and traditions, as long as they are not also provably false and malicious, etc. I suspect you wouldn't suggest deleting pictures of caricatures by Thomas Nast and other 19th-century caricaturists, yet they were often more vicious than this. So is it your position, then, that as long as the butt of the abuse is dead, only then is it OK for Commons to host the image? -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 23:20, 5 September 2022 (UTC)

If Lavrov were dead for a century this image wouldn't be a better one. Distorting an image by using a few buttons doesn't automatically create an artwork. So is it your position, then, that everyone can upload their trash claiming "That's a fine caricature"? Btw: I like good caricatures, even political ones. --Achim55 (talk) 14:28, 6 September 2022 (UTC)

If your argument is based on the quality of the art (or, you haven't mentioned this in as many words, perhaps also the notability of the artist), that's a different argument than that it's defamatory or the original deletion rationale of "aggressive statements against living people," which would cover almost every political caricature or satire about a living politician or other public figure - certainly not an entire category we want to prohibit from being hosted here. So what is your bottom line deletion rationale? -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 16:58, 7 September 2022 (UTC)

I'm giving up assuming that there are people who are not able to recognise the huge difference in quality between this image and for example this one. --Achim55 (talk) 20:38, 7 September 2022 (UTC)

Can you please answer my question? To repeat: What is your bottom line deletion rationale? -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 23:03, 7 September 2022 (UTC)

Citing Ikan Kekek: Commons doesn't act as a repository of all amateur art. --Achim55 (talk) 07:43, 8 September 2022 (UTC)

Correct, but this is in use on someone's user page, so why is it up to us to censor it? Do you have a more compelling argument? -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 10:29, 8 September 2022 (UTC)

•  Keep Copyright status is fine; images are in scope as a userpage image; and "very important" politicians such as Lavrov do not have "likeness rights" on their pictures. And Commons is not censored. But of course both images can be speedily deleted any time on uploader's request. But as long as they're in use, they're in scope. Regards --A.Savin 17:38, 7 September 2022 (UTC)

---

Kept: no valid reason for deletion - widely used. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 16:25, 4 December 2022 (UTC)