Commons:Deletion requests/File:Depiction of The "Prophet" Muhammad by Napalm filled tires.jpg (2nd nomination)
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.
As I noted here, also the user who added it had already added other controversial contents regarding this event 1, 2. And in the previous nomination the author who added it didn't object against removing it, and there's enough neutral pictures in the gallery that help to illustrate the event --95.59.86.157 18:10, 12 August 2010 (UTC)
#c-95.59.86.157-2010-08-12T18:10:00.000Z-File:Depiction_of_The_"Prophet"_Muhammad_by_Napalm_filled_tires.jpg){kind=link}
Speedy keep; disruptively re-nominated simply because Mr. Nine Five Dot Five Nine Dot Eight Six Dot One Five Seven here didn't like the outcome of their last attempt. Still no valid reason for deletion provided. —LX (talk, contribs) 18:23, 12 August 2010 (UTC)
- No valid? Start with disproving my statements in the previous notions, you can begin with disproving me why isn't unibrow considered disgusting nowadays. 95.59.86.157 07:56, 13 August 2010 (UTC)
- I don't see anything about unibrows or disgust in Commons:Deletion policy. —LX (talk, contribs) 08:11, 13 August 2010 (UTC)
- There's w:WP:UNDUE and it was discussed in the talkpage that it's better to avoid images that might be offensive, there's enough of other images that helps to illustrate the point, and being this image not notable, and just some random drawing of usual user from flickr, the article won't loss much, vice versa it wouldn't be a place for pushing non-neutral material in the gallery. As I said, the uploader who added this image had issued controversies and some of his images were nominated to deletion and were taken down from the gallery. 92.46.103.128 11:20, 13 August 2010 (UTC)
- Dear Nine Five Dot Five Nine Dot Eight Six Dot One Five Seven, en:WP:UNDUE deals with articles at the English Wikipedia project. It has no bearing on the project scope of Commons, which is a different project. —LX (talk, contribs) 11:38, 13 August 2010 (UTC)
- Images that were inappropriate and were taken down from the gallery of the article were deleted from commons as well, here you didn't even try to disprove my statements. Period. 95.59.80.25 15:08, 13 August 2010 (UTC)
- Dear Nine Five Dot Five Nine Dot Eight Six Dot One Five Seven, en:WP:UNDUE deals with articles at the English Wikipedia project. It has no bearing on the project scope of Commons, which is a different project. —LX (talk, contribs) 11:38, 13 August 2010 (UTC)
- There's w:WP:UNDUE and it was discussed in the talkpage that it's better to avoid images that might be offensive, there's enough of other images that helps to illustrate the point, and being this image not notable, and just some random drawing of usual user from flickr, the article won't loss much, vice versa it wouldn't be a place for pushing non-neutral material in the gallery. As I said, the uploader who added this image had issued controversies and some of his images were nominated to deletion and were taken down from the gallery. 92.46.103.128 11:20, 13 August 2010 (UTC)
- I don't see anything about unibrows or disgust in Commons:Deletion policy. —LX (talk, contribs) 08:11, 13 August 2010 (UTC)
- No valid? Start with disproving my statements in the previous notions, you can begin with disproving me why isn't unibrow considered disgusting nowadays. 95.59.86.157 07:56, 13 August 2010 (UTC)
Kept. In use. No valid reason for deletion. Rocket000 (talk) 05:57, 14 September 2010 (UTC)
#c-Rocket000-2010-09-14T05:57:00.000Z-File:Depiction_of_The_"Prophet"_Muhammad_by_Napalm_filled_tires.jpg){kind=link}