Commons:Deletion requests/File:Pintada de la fundación del Club Atlético Peñarol - Montevideo 2013.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:Pintada de la fundación del Club Atlético Peñarol - Montevideo 2013.JPG

[edit]

inappropriate image, aggressive and vulgar language contains MauriManya (talk) 02:59, 14 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - Very aggressive language against a renowned institution in Uruguay. What is more, it is by no means neutral its inclusion would be completely inappropiate. One thing is to censor or not, another completely different is posting an image with such insults.Nuno93 (talk) 22:30, 14 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Keep Picture ilustrates an endless dispute between the two historical traditional rival teams of Uruguay. One disputes founding year of the other, to be "the oldest", changing name of team with an insult. As such, is in scope. We could like or dislike, find it offensive or not, agree or not, feel offended because someone insults a team or feel happy because "tells the truth". But non of these reasons are enough for deletion. Fix perfectly under COM:NOTCENSORED: "Due to their educational value for the understanding of certain subjects, Commons may host material that some users may find objectionable, distasteful, or offensive for various reasons. Unless the image has possible personality rights issues, is possibly illegal in the United States, or violates other Commons policy such as our scope, Commons will not censor or remove media that users find objectionable or offensive. Remember that the statement “Commons is not censored” is not a valid argument for keeping a file that falls outside the normal permitted Commons scope." --Andrea (talk) 22:46, 16 April 2013 (UTC) --Ganímedes (talk) 00:45, 18 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Could be? Of cours, but.... miss a part of the hole graffiti. Kept one part and delete another? I don´t think so. Again, there's no reason to hiden just because it is an insult. --Ganímedes (talk) 00:29, 17 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Still, a part that is quite offensive and completely unnecessary. While the image as a whole does not go against any rules, the educational value lies solely on the overwritten year. The other part of the image has no educational value whatsoever and is only offensive. It is by far more appropiate to just include the year thingy.Nuno93 (talk) 00:57, 17 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I don't see it so clear, since as I said graffitti is not just the date and clearly offensive word is not censored in Commons. I understand and respect the bad moment of who open this DR as a fan of the offended club ("Manya"); however, I don´t see reason enough to delete under Commons rules. I prefer someone else us argument to keep or delete. --Ganímedes (talk) 12:32, 17 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I reckon it doesn't go against any rules, but I just believe the cropped image would have all the information needed and without any insults. Then we have two images, both with the same education value, so to speak, but one isn't offensive and the other is. Therefore, only the cropped one should be used, as it gives the same information though without any offenses.
What I mean is, if we can make it not offensive without losing any relevant information, why shouldn't we?Nuno93 (talk) 19:16, 17 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Because we lose more than half of the graffitti? Because we're taking sides? Because we're showing a parcializing view?... As I said, we both already shows our positions. We should allow others vote. --Ganímedes (talk) 20:05, 17 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
A part of the graffiti that doesn't have any educational value. There's no taking sides, its removing an offensive statement without losing any educational information. Both images have the information needed, we don't lose any of the image's educational information. One does not have any insults and the other one does. How could the offensive one be better in any context?Nuno93 (talk) 20:18, 17 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Nuno: Once again: your explanation was clear and your argument too, as mine. Please, let others argument freely in this process. Thanks. --Ganímedes (talk) 20:51, 17 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Insults are part of the Uruguayan football culture. The picture has educational value in the sense that it depicts the Uruguayan football culture. --NaBUru38 (talk) 23:25, 17 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

 Keep as per Ganímedes and uploader. No need to delete just because one doesn't agree with what's being said. mr.choppers (talk)-en- 17:48, 20 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It's not about not agreing with what is being said. What is being said on the image is an insult. Not saying it should be deleted because of that, but just wanted to point that out because of Choppers' comment.Nuno93 (talk) 23:01, 20 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Kept: May well be offensive to some, and an insult, but it surely has realistic educational value. MichaelMaggs (talk) 22:13, 23 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Commons:Deletion_requests/File:Pintada_de_la_fundación_del_Club_Atlético_Peñarol_-_Montevideo_2013.JPG&oldid=313898348"