Commons:Deletion requests/File:Hate by latuff kills.jpg

From Wikimedia Commons, the free media repository
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.

File:Hate by latuff kills.jpg

[edit]

Out of scope; amateurish computer collage. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 10:11, 26 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, I admit that I do not like it, but this is the kind of private artwork that gets normally deleted on commons. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 20:20, 26 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Keep --Joku Janne(Fi) (Wikiwiki) 20:10, 26 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Delete as it's outside scope (see COM:SCOPE#Examples) as it's self-created artwork without obvious educational use and created and/or uploaded for the purpose of vandalism or attack. // Liftarn (talk)
  •  Neutral - I'm ambivalent on this. I want to say keep as a freedom of expression, but I also don't quite see how it's within scope. However, I lean towards in scope as it could be used on a page about Latuff and controversy. -mattbuck (Talk) 13:19, 27 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Delete. I originally said that this should be kept but it appears that I was unfortunately misled into thinking this was artwork by Carlos Latuff as I suspect others may have been. Mbz1 (talk · contribs) seems to be leading a campaign against the works of Carlos Latuff and this image is pointless self-created artwork by Mbz1 which has no educational value and it is intended simply to disrupt. I am ashamed that I didn't spot this earlier and hope that others who have commented will take the time to review their position if they were similarly misled. I'd consider speedy deleting this if I hadn't already involved myself in these discussions. Mbz1 has uploaded a number of similar images and it is clear that his intention of doing so isn't to expand our collection of freely licensed media, it is to make a political point and further his own agenda. This image has no value whatsoever in illustrating any controversy relating to Latuff's work because it is self-created artwork. It's a shame that deletion discussions about images such as this tend to end up as political debates rather than debates about our policies and guidelines. Mbz1 must stop this kind of disruption if he wants to avoid being blocked. Adambro (talk) 13:49, 27 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Keep -- I can't see a substantial difference bewteen the heavy polytical content of Carlos Latuff' works and the protest of Mbz1, in graphical form. If we are going to invoke educational value, none of them should be kept. -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 16:25, 27 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    The distinction is that the artwork by Carlos Latuff is by a notable artist and wasn't created simply to upload to Commons to make a point and cause disruption whereas this image isn't by a notable artist and the sole reason for its creation and upload is to express Mbz1's own personal opinions. This certainly isn't what Commons exists for and it is a great shame that this simple fact is apparently being disregarded because people may agree with Mbz1's view. Adambro (talk) 16:42, 27 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
If I may, I 'd like to repeat one more time that "a notable artist" got a second place in the controversial w:Iran w:International Holocaust Cartoon Competition and to me it says it all.--Mbz1 (talk) 18:29, 27 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
What's your point? Notability is notability, be it for good or bad (from your perspective). Political views don't affect notability. Would you say that Mel Gibson is not notable, simply because he's allegedly antisemitic? Latuff is notable, as is his artwork (and so is Hitler's - do we have that anywhere?). -mattbuck (Talk) 18:51, 27 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I simply stated my own opinion, which is that IMO "a notable artist" and w:International Holocaust Cartoon Competition cannot coexist because, IMO, if "art" created by "a notable artist" could motivate to kill, this "artist" cannot be called "a notable artist" or an artist at all for this matter. After gibson movie was released there were some w:pogroms. That's why I do not consider him an artist either.So latuff and gibson might be called notable, but they are not artists IMO.--Mbz1 (talk) 19:14, 27 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Delete -- Out of scope political comment by nobody of note. If an artist of note had created the parody, or it was widely published, fine. It's just a single users soapbox Hohum (talk) 17:50, 27 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'll never understand why File:No Israel.svg is into scope while my image is not.--Mbz1 (talk) 19:25, 27 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The subject of this discussion is File:Hate by latuff kills.jpg. That there is a plethora of other images that might need to be deleted, but have not been, is irrelevant. I'll make my opinions about other requests for deletion on their merits. You haven't countered the fact that you aren't an artist of note, the image isn't famous, and is simply a reflection of your own beliefs. It has no place on commons, which is not your personal soapbox. Hohum (talk) 19:41, 27 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
May I please ask you, if you believe that so called "notable artists" that create hate propaganda images could have place on Commons only because they are notable? No matter what, my image could make no harm, latuff images could.--Mbz1 (talk) 19:51, 27 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Any image could cause harm, you could for instance print it out and get a paper cut. // Liftarn (talk) 20:01, 27 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
In reply to Mbz1; As I have already said. On this page we are discussing your image, which doesn't belong on commons. We aren't discussing others that also might not. However, images by notable artists, is exactly what commons is for. It isn't a place for you to soapbox. Keep rereading this until you understand, it will save a lot of time later. Hohum (talk) 20:35, 27 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Delete. Non-educational work by non-notable person. Allegedly "educating" other Commons editors by intentionally clogging the Commons process to make a point is not generally educational and not within scope — indeed, it's closer to vandalism — this is specifically addressed on a sister project in en:Wikipedia:Do not disrupt Wikipedia to illustrate a point. Baiting the system to promote ones own views about a different Commons file is self-promotion and not within scope. Per COM:SCOPE, Commons is not for "Self-created artwork without obvious educational use", "Advertising or self-promotion", or "Files that add nothing educationally distinct to the collection of images we already hold covering the same subject, especially if they are of poor or mediocre quality." Commons is not your personal free web host. --Closeapple (talk) 19:57, 27 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Question - Please forgive me for insisting but I'm quite new to this kind of discussion. What about this image (and many other similar flags, not only of Israel)), whose deletion was opposed recentely ? Was it made by a notable artist or has it any educational value other than the obvious polytical propaganda? Maybe the comparison of the two discussions might shed some light on my obvious ignorance. -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 20:17, 27 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Delete Closeapple has basically said all that I wanted to say on the subject and said it very clear. This almost seems like a setup so that Mbz1 can at some latter point say "See, Commons hates Israel" or something. Since the purpose of the image is to stir things up and get the image deleted, then it's outside of our project scope and SHOULD be deleted. --J.smith (talk) 20:35, 27 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    The difference is that that image has an educational context - illustrating antisemitism and other anti-israeli sentiment. This is against one artist, and there is no (known/notable) widespread Anti-Latuff sentiment. -mattbuck (Talk) 20:37, 27 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • Not so fast, please! What if Alvesgaspar (not Mbz1) wants to write an article about some artist (for example, Latuff), illustrating positive and negative opinions about his work? Will he not be allowed to show an expressive image like the one on discussion (like Marcel Duchamp did with Mona Lisa and Leonardo)? Please notice that the issue on the deletion of Latuff's images is already settled. So, that initative could hardly be considered as breaking a NPOV. -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 21:00, 27 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        • Even if he wanted to, using this image would be original research.  Info If nobody can name a good reason for why this should be in our scope, I am inclined to speedily delete this. The creator himself has already stated, that this was just meant as a disruption of Commons, so I cannot think where this image could be useful on a WMF project. Regards, -- ChrisiPK (Talk|Contribs) 21:08, 27 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted. Enough is enough. The uploader has stated that the "point in creating the image was to bring the attention to File:IsraHellburningbuses.png image and have it deleted together with my image". Don't disrupt Commons to make a point. Adambro (talk) 21:31, 27 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Commons:Deletion_requests/File:Hate_by_latuff_kills.jpg&oldid=418368456"