Commons:Deletion requests/File:Grafitti (8312860855).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:Grafitti (8312860855).jpg

NOTE: FILE HAS BEEN MOVED TO File:"Joker" graffiti in Amsterdam.jpg DURING THIS DISCUSSION.

In line with the Pricasso resolution, see Commons:Deletion_requests/File:Jimmy_Wales_by_Pricasso_(the_making_of).ogv, I see no reason why Obama should be treated with any less courtesy than Jimmy Wales. Fæ (talk) 13:27, 26 December 2013 (UTC)

•  Keep Each discussion has its own merits. This file should be kept because it has an educational purpose, that is to illustrate real life contemporary graffiti, which is an increasingly popular form of art. You are also assuming that the subject depicted in this artwork is President Barack Obama, though nowhere in the file name, nor the description, does it state that it is him. To me this looks more like the Joker than it does Obama. (And the guy's face is white!) And even if it were Obama, shouldn't we believe in free speech and anti-censorship? The Pricasso case involved a hired artist using his penis to paint a portrait of Jimmy Wales. We don't see penises here, do we? And thus, the reference to the Pricasso resolution is irrelevant. Cheers, ☯ Bonkers The Clown \(^_^)/ Nonsensical Babble ☯ 10:53, 29 December 2013 (UTC)
  •  Comment You don't see penises mentioned in the Pricasso Resolution either. Category:Living_people-related_deletion_requests is going to be quite ominous in the future though. russavia (talk) 13:21, 29 December 2013 (UTC)
    •  Keep -He is a public figure and it is a form of art. No need to delete this. Natuur12 (talk) 13:24, 29 December 2013 (UTC)
•  Keep - each nomination stand on its own (the reason mentioned in the JW nomination was often out of scope). Wikipedia also describes the critical responses of people concerning presidents as Wikipedia is to be neutral and describing both sides. This image can be used very well in a Dutch article on critics on Obama, as well as in an article like political graffiti, and more. So the image is in scope en I see no reason for deletion. Romaine (talk) 14:14, 29 December 2013 (UTC)
•  Comment - Apart from the Pricasso/Jimbo matter, is the license for this image actually valid? This is a long chain of derivative works;

1. A photograph of Barack Obama taken by Platon for Time Magazine. link
2. Firas Khateeb uploads an alteration of that image to Flickr. link
3. Someone in Australia (I cannot make out the signature at the bottom) paints a derivative of Kahteeb's photoshopped image on a public wall.
4. Steve Collis photographs the painting and uploads it to Flickr. link
5. That photograph is uploaded to the Commons.

Tarc (talk) 14:44, 29 December 2013 (UTC)

Everything from point 3 down should be unproblematic, per COM:FOP#Netherlands (at least the geotag says it is in Amsterdam) and the fact that the Flickr photo is freely licensed. But if the painting is itself a copyvio of something else, that's a good point. darkweasel94 15:06, 29 December 2013 (UTC)

•  Keep COM:POINT. --Conti|✉ 15:15, 29 December 2013 (UTC)

---

Kept: as above. Yann (talk) 16:59, 2 January 2014 (UTC)