Commons:Deletion requests/File:Bombman.gif
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
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.
A sheer call for violence without any historical, documentary or illustrative value. This image is not used in any Wikimedia project. --Drork (talk) 18:44, 24 December 2008 (UTC)
Keep as it's not a valid reason for deletion even it it was true. We have been having this discussion many times earlier. Commons isn't censored et.c. // Liftarn (talk)
Delete Are we going to glorify homicide bombers now? Delete the image and block the uploader. --Mbz1 (talk) 23:35, 24 December 2008 (UTC)- Keep — Mike.lifeguard | @en.wb 04:51, 25 December 2008 (UTC)
- Keep -- No reason to delete sarcastic comments -- agree, disagree, dislike, like, or ignore. It is anyways art. In case Picasso's Guernica would be uploaded to COM, ~50 years from now -- how about deleting thatone too ;]] [w.] 07:55, 25 December 2008 (UTC)
- Keep Art is art. Latuff is notable. Commons is not censored. Megapixie (talk) 09:20, 25 December 2008 (UTC)
- Strong Keep. Absolutely not a call for violence, but against violence. Important historical, documentary and educational value. Potentially useful work by notable artist. Acceptable license. --5ko (talk) 10:42, 25 December 2008 (UTC)
- Cannot agree more, he is a "notable artist".In 2006, Latuff entered and was placed second, winning $4,000, in the controversial w:Iran w:International Holocaust Cartoon Competition. w:Holocaust also started with hate propaganda images and articles like this and ended up with murder of more than 5,000,000 Jews because most people were simply afraid to say "no" to hate.--Mbz1 (talk) 02:23, 26 December 2008 (UTC)
- Yes, please say no to hate. File:Love.gife81848.gif and File:Nonazis3.gif are obvious examples of that. By the way, I found it quite revealing that you called File:Pacifists against occupation.gif "A sheer call for violence"[1]. // Liftarn (talk)
- Cannot agree more, he is a "notable artist".In 2006, Latuff entered and was placed second, winning $4,000, in the controversial w:Iran w:International Holocaust Cartoon Competition. w:Holocaust also started with hate propaganda images and articles like this and ended up with murder of more than 5,000,000 Jews because most people were simply afraid to say "no" to hate.--Mbz1 (talk) 02:23, 26 December 2008 (UTC)
![[1]](https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=File:Pacifists_against_occupation.gif&diff=17140993&oldid=8616255){kind=link}
- Keep - IDONTLIKEIT and OTHERSTUFFDOESNTEXIST arguments are utterly irrelevant, the debate should be on whether the image is within scope. I feel it is as it's a work by a notable artist. The reason these things get DRed is because we in the western world tend to see the jews as the persecuted ones (because of the holocaust and centuries of pre-hitler things - ever heard of The Merchant of Venice?) As such, we tend to sympathise with them, and give them the benefit of the doubt. We feel uncomfortable with people who paint the jews in a bad light. We need to stop that, and realise that there is no right side here - both sides are killing the other, and this image helps to show it. Maybe we need more anti-palestinian imagery to balance it out, but there is no reason to suppress work by a notable artist simply because we don't like the views the piece espouses. -mattbuck (Talk) 13:30, 27 December 2008 (UTC)
- Keep, this is within the bounds of artistic license. Stifle (talk) 22:49, 27 December 2008 (UTC)
- Delete has nothing to do with WikimediaCommons. --Shmuel haBalshan (talk) 14:59, 28 December 2008 (UTC)
Comment Commons has media files for a lot of different subject, they aren't all about Commons itself. // Liftarn (talk) 18:53, 28 December 2008 (UTC)
- Comment I note that Mbz1 (talk · contribs) has been engaging in canvassing, encouraging those who he must presume will be sympathetic to his opinion to vote delete in this and the related deletion requests. Adambro (talk) 16:50, 28 December 2008 (UTC)
- Delete What's the use of it for wikipedia? Wikipedia (Commons) is not a personal "photo bucket"; especially propaganda for or against something should only be contained in a regulated way; just as there are also criterias for nude/pornographic pictures/illustrations, there have to be regulations for propaganda material; and a anti-israel-caricature of an israel-critic or even anti-israel cartoonist, who publishes lots of caricatures/cartoons with this spirit under free license on commons, thats really not that what commons should be made for. -- Otto Normalverbraucher (talk) 00:34, 29 December 2008 (UTC)
- I've replied to the above delete vote at Commons:Deletion requests/File:IsraHellburningbuses.png. Adambro (talk) 10:47, 29 December 2008 (UTC)
- Keep People are only to trying to get this deleted because they don't like it. This is a work from a notable artist released under a free licence, clearly in COM:SCOPE. Multichill (talk) 17:47, 29 December 2008 (UTC)
- Keep rootology (T) 00:42, 30 December 2008 (UTC)
- Keep The Commons does host political and satirical images from a variety of points of view including genuinely racist ones. There is no reason to censor satires on racist violence. --Simonxag (talk) 13:18, 4 January 2009 (UTC)
