Commons:Deletion requests/File:How Seychelles got his flag.png
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.
stupid cartoon, no ecucational purpose Antemister (talk) 20:11, 8 October 2014 (UTC)
Keep Clearly within the scope of Polandball. Furthermore, it would be useful for illustrating a future Seychellois Creole translation of the Polandball article. As to being stupid, I actually lolled. So that's subjective. russavia (talk) 19:53, 9 October 2014 (UTC)
- Keep In scope of Pollandball that has Wikipedia articles in dozens of languages. Tm (talk) 01:55, 10 October 2014 (UTC)
Comment: The question is not whether it's in scope of Polandball, but whether it is in Wikimedia Commons' project scope. Otherwise, in scope of selfie would be a valid reason to object deletion as well. Both reasons would be valid if the file nominated file was the only Polandball comic or selfie the project had. However, I would never call any artwork stupid, as this is indeed something subjective and even possibly offensive. FDMS 4 16:20, 10 October 2014 (UTC)
- @FDMS4: it is in Commons scope because it could reasonably be used to illustrate Polandball. It doesn't have to be in use to be in scope; only that it be reasonable for it to be put into use -- and that is a decision that is not left up to us here on Commons. russavia (talk) 06:04, 11 October 2014 (UTC)
- @Russavia: Why shouldn't the decision whether or not "it be reasonable for it to be put into use" be up to us? FDMS 4 12:05, 11 October 2014 (UTC)
- @FDSM4: because Commons is simply a media repository. We leave it up to those who wish to use materials to decide whether to use them or not. This includes not only Wikimedia projects, but those who might write books on internet memes, or news articles on memes, etc, etc. If there is any chance, even a slight chance, it can be used within an "educational" context then we should host it. russavia (talk) 12:10, 12 October 2014 (UTC)
- @Russavia: To be eligible for hosting on Wikimedia Commons, all files and other content must fall within the Commons scope. Now, as "within the Commons scope" is not a true/false EXIF parameter or anything similar, it is up to the Commons community to decide on how the project scope should be defined and whether certain files meet these definitions or not. According to COM:SCOPE the question should not only be whether this file "could reasonably be used to illustrate Polandball [or any other notable subject]", but whether it [is adding anything] educationally distinct to the collection of images we already hold covering the same subject. FDMS 4 20:35, 12 October 2014 (UTC)
- @FDSM4: because Commons is simply a media repository. We leave it up to those who wish to use materials to decide whether to use them or not. This includes not only Wikimedia projects, but those who might write books on internet memes, or news articles on memes, etc, etc. If there is any chance, even a slight chance, it can be used within an "educational" context then we should host it. russavia (talk) 12:10, 12 October 2014 (UTC)
- @Russavia: Why shouldn't the decision whether or not "it be reasonable for it to be put into use" be up to us? FDMS 4 12:05, 11 October 2014 (UTC)
Not sure what positive purpose this image serves, but it's far less stupid, obnoxious and annoying than some of the other Polandball images -- such as File:Iran cannot into diplomatic relations with Canada.png, which carefully omits mentioning a number of things (such as the Zahra Kazemi affair) in order to serve as some kind of historically-distorted political propaganda... AnonMoos (talk) 15:02, 12 October 2014 (UTC)
Kept: per Russavia and TM. INeverCry 21:03, 16 October 2014 (UTC)
