Commons:Deletion requests/Santorum images

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.

Santorum images

[edit]

I know that commons doesn't have a BLP policy like en.wiki's, but I believe these images are entirely out of scope. They are not educational at all; rather, they're nothing but an attempt to soapbox and to demean a living person. Commons should not be used as a propaganda tool. Salvio giuliano (talk) 20:42, 28 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  •  Comment - Related deletion discussion, at Commons:Deletion requests/Santorum cocktails. -- Cirt (talk) 20:24, 1 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • A frothy  Keep. Satirical images produced in the debate over a highly notable bigot. They're likely to become more useful and historically interesting if his holiness gets elected. --Simonxag (talk) 20:45, 3 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Keep -- Keep all. I don't believe anyone has ever made a politically neutral political cartoon. Contributors at the various wikis can discuss how to use these images in a way that complies with their policies, but as nominator acknowledges, these images don't lapse from our policies. I would be willing to agree to the deletion of the last image as it seems to have been thrown together with very little effort, except it is has already been used on a WMF project. Geo Swan (talk) 16:43, 5 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]


 Kept, The general consensus is that as a group the images are valid political satire and are in scope, as they could reasonably be used for such subjects. If there are individual images which are thought to be out of scope, then individual DR should take place for those. russavia (talk) 20:01, 7 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Take 2

[edit]
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.

These images were clearly created to smear and demean Rick Santorum. They were imported to Commons, and incorporated into content as part of the w:Campaign for "santorum" neologism. I dont like Rick Santorum's positions, but I agree with Salvio giuliano that the Commons should not be used in this way. The WMF board has recently passed the resolution wmf:Resolution:Media about living people which clarifies that media of that kind should be deleted. COM:SCOPE doesnt overrule WMF board resolutions. At least one of these images is used on other projects; the projects can import any deleted image locally if they feel that the usage on their project is acceptable. John Vandenberg (chat) 05:40, 15 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • comment -- um, NO, it's OUR JOB to host in-use files at commons.
in-use = in scope.
"acceptable" is subjective, & your personal standard is NOT commons' policy. Lx 121 (talk) 12:34, 21 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The individual depicted in the satirical parody images is a public figure, being a former United States Senator and candidate for President of the United States. I don't believe he is a Wikimedian. -- Cirt (talk) 07:21, 15 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Jkadavoor, please read w:Campaign for "santorum" neologism which answers your questions in detail, but I will quote part of the intro: "In September 2011 Santorum asked Google to remove the definition from its search engine index." And I will also quote one more sentence: "Noam Cohen of The New York Times described the situation as a hijacking of online identity." http://www.nytimes.com/2011/09/26/business/media/an-identity-hijacked-on-the-online-highway.html user:Cirt used Wikimedia Commons, Wikipedia, Wikinews and Wiktionary as part of that identity hijack, which still exists today. John Vandenberg (chat) 12:14, 15 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks John for the links; I just went through them. I've no problem with homosexuality, but don't support attacking a person against my views. But I have a difficulty to understand the entire topic as I have little knowledge in the US politics.
I see two problems in accepting this topic for a general discussion. Both the subject and the photographer are non Wikimedians; we have not received any complaints from them. They can mail us, but it is up to them.
It seems you blame a particular user alone in this case, probably the uploader. Unlike EN Wikipedia, here admins form strong groups and blindly support each other, so just counting of vote never works. Better make a formal complaint through the email I suggested above (preferably from the subject and the photographer) and review the entire issue through ongoing communications with them. If we have similar issues, it is better to form a bench to deal such cases; trying to deal it through a DR is not much helpful. It is my experience in the Jimmy Wales case too. I have no hope in that DR; that is why I didn't voted there. We need to develop a better system to handle such cases. Otherwise our projects will deteriorated as another adult entertainment site. Jee 13:13, 15 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Keep per Cirt - parody is important. -mattbuck (Talk) 10:02, 1 5 December 2013 (UTC)
  •  Comment I've been asked by Jayen466 here to include the result of the media in Category:Santorum neologism-related images in this batch. I would prefer this was not done, as big batches become messy discussions, and I'd rather focus this request on the media files that clearly depict Rick Santorum. The other images are part of the same campaign, and do need to be re-evaluated, however they don't include his face or likeness. The nominated set also have issues to do with personality rights. e.g. this flickr photo was digitally modified to create File:Rick Santorum - frothy Caricature.jpg, and this flickr photo is the basis of the creative art that is File:Rick Santorum, Jack of Hearts - frothy Cartoon.jpg and File:Rick Santorum, Soda Jerk - Caricature.jpg, by an artist of no known notability. There are a few more items in Category:Caricatures of Rick Santorum which could easily fall under the new BLP-media resolution, but I think we should re-evaluate the previous batch nomination before looking at media to determine whether they are verifiable & neutral. John Vandenberg (chat) 12:04, 15 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • To determine if what exactly is verifiable and neutral John? Verifiability and neutrality is a Wikipedia concept, and isn't required here on Commons in relation to media. Can you please explain exactly what you mean here. russavia (talk) 12:08, 15 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      • Hi russavia, blame the WMF board for forcing Wikipedia terminology down Wikimedia Commons throats without consultation :P There will be a lot of policy discussions coming from this (or a board clarification), so I can only offer my opinions on how we may attempt to implement the WMF board resolution. Firstly, I hope we dont implement 'verifiable & neutral' at the discrete file level, as that would mean deleting all political statements, including cartoons. Individual pieces of media are never neutral. The only way I see to implement 'verifiable & neutral' is that we don't accept user-contributed art about a living person (i.e. it must have been public speech - published or presenting in a public arena), and we don't allow our collections of media about a living person to be disproportionately negative or positive, as compared to public opinion of the person. John Vandenberg (chat) 12:27, 15 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Still legitimate satire about legitimately notable public figure, still  Keep. DS (talk) 13:15, 15 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Comment This DR appears invalid because it does not name the images that are being proposed. How am I supposed to know how to comment if I do not know what you all are talking about? darkweasel94 14:00, 15 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I've added the same list as before; thanks. John Vandenberg (chat) 14:59, 15 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I see this as an attempt to link this type of political protest with the issue surrounding the use of Jimmy Wales's likeness for a portrait painted with a penis. https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Deletion_requests/File:Jimmy_Wales_by_Pricasso_%28the_making_of%29.ogv Surely no one here sees this as the same issue? Saffron Blaze (talk) 18:11, 15 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Me, at least. So far we have no complaints from the subject or the photographer. Here the uploader only upload the contents somewhere available; not "commissioned" anything. So it seems a WP:POINTy nomination per "If someone nominates one of your favorite articles for deletion...do not nominate another similar article for deletion, giving the same rationale." Jee 18:18, 15 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
These nominations and many more are caused by the WMF board resolution. Santorum is a 5+ year advocacy/harassment campaign; the Jimmy thing pales into insignificance IMO. User:Jkadavoor, Santorum has complained at length about the problem, in reliable sources and many TV interviews. Maybe there is no email in our OTRS about it, but it is an undisputed fact on the Wikipedia article that he finds these images offensive, and there are many reliable sources that assert this is harassment. Why do you choose to ignore complaints that don't come to OTRS? John Vandenberg (chat) 18:51, 15 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
John, I'm not insisting for an OTRS. My only initial discomfort was the way you presented this nomination stating "If the Commons community doesnt remove intentionally derogatory media about Santorum, then..." which is unfair. As I stated above I've difficulty to understand this entire topic because of my lack of knowledge in US politics. But many comments below convinced me that this is worth for a re-review. And if we are deciding to keep any images that are adapted works; we must remove any links to the Original Author and Source; if he demands. I am  Abstain for the time being; but will change my vote if I can understand the topic any further. Thanks, Jee 10:44, 16 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
 Delete per John Vandenberg, Peteforsyth and many others. A pointy use is not worth to consider. Jee 06:23, 19 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
We do not editorialise other projects' content. If they use it and it's freely licensed, it is within scope. We do not pick and choose which uses are "legitimate". -mattbuck (Talk) 09:41, 19 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I remember this DR. It had 20+ uses at that time (if I remember well). We did not editorialize, while closing that DR? Jee 10:07, 19 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I don't take a DR that had no comments on it establishing much of a consensus. Also, there's a difference between user space and main space; main space is a serious part of the project, not the toy of just one, and deleting a file from there is a much bigger deal.--Prosfilaes (talk) 18:47, 19 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
But we kept this as it used in a userpage. Do we need to keep "artistic interpretación" of a living person for the sake of "in use in a user page?" My understanding is that many of us bend, twist and use our policies according to their interests. :( Jee 05:58, 20 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, always vaguely accuse your fellow editors of acting in bad faith; that helps discussions. That case is quite a bit different in that no privacy issues were brought up because it closely follows a photo we have in Commons. That DR was all about scope, not artistic interpretations. You want to argue that serious users shouldn't be given more leeway as to user/talk pages images? I don't see how that's relevant to our current discussion. Given that no user commented on both of those DRs, accusing them of bending policy to get the different result is entirely unfair.--Prosfilaes (talk) 18:18, 20 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
So you didn't noticed that even the license there was invalid as the breach of CC terms? The file was created on March 2011. So you can assume how many copyright violations may have occurred since then in every reuse, if happened. It is not my job to fix the mistakes others are doing. Do our jobs well; or take a retirement. I'm not accusing any; it is a self crytisizing comment. Take it or not. Jee 03:50, 21 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I have no clue what "there" or "the file" is supposed to refer to in that comment, or how any copyright violation isn't a strong deviation from the topic under discussion.--Prosfilaes (talk) 09:18, 21 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong  Keep per previous. Satirizing and mocking prominent political figures has been a major part of the US political discourse for more than 2 centuries, including demeaning caricatures of deliberately vulgar taste. (See for example this 1804 caricature of Thomas Jefferson as a vomiting dog.) Senator Santorum, as a prominent US political figure, and a former and possibly future presidential candidate, in the public eye, is subject to such mockery the same as others have been for centuries. It is not the place of Wikimedia to try to judge whether satires by opponents meet standards of taste, fairness, or decency. -- Infrogmation (talk) 21:31, 15 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Interesting, File:1804 prairie dog sickened at the sting of the hornet or a diplomatic puppet exhibiting his deceptions byJamesAkin LC.jpg is a most fascinating example, I am sure that images similar to that one were submitted as evidence in the case Hustler Magazine v. Falwell. -- Cirt (talk) 21:38, 15 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete To be very, very clear this delete vote is not based upon COM:SCOPE, because the images are clearly in scope. The DR also needs to be extended to cover ALL images in Category:Santorum neologism and Category:Caricatures of Rick Santorum, and without prejudice on whether the images are in use on projects (or on off-project sites via the Instant Commons function). The resolution by the WMF is very clear -- all media hosted on WMF operated servers since the date of the passing of the Pricasso Amendment are from herein required to be "neutral" and "verifiable". These Santorum images are, as John correctly points out, neither neutral nor verifiable. R.I.P. a censorship-free Commons; the WMF has spoken. russavia (talk) 21:39, 15 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Should that not be extended to the entirety of Category:Caricatures, and whatever we have on political cartoons? -mattbuck (Talk) 21:50, 15 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Entirety? The WMF resolution is about living people. Caricatures/political cartoons are a likely source of 'BLP' problems, as they tend to push the boundary in order to make a point, so I have tried to populate Category:21st-century caricatures (which is where most unpublished caricatures will be, and some copyvios to boot), and then I created & populated Category:Caricatures of living people (which includes quite a few drawings of Wikipedians). The most important point I want to make after 900-odd edits categorising these files is that Wikimedia Commons doesnt have many unpublished caricatures. So reaching 100% "verifiable" wrt caricatures of living people is not going to result in many deletions. OTOH, achieving "neutrality" is not as simple. ;-) However, besides the well known problem items by Carlos Latuff‎, I didn't see too many that I felt were obviously inflammatory. Some were poor quality, uploaded by drive-by contributors, which I think we could easily find consensus to delete. I dont like the idea of deleting user-generated caricatures that accurately capture how published caricaturists have portrayed a living person (good or bad), as a few of our user-generated caricatures are damn good, and hit the 'neutral' mark to my mind. John Vandenberg (chat) 18:32, 16 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Changing my opinion to strong  Keep. As noted by John Vandenberg in a section above the resolution was made without consultation with the wider community, and they have passed a resolution with extremely damaging wording. As seen from Commons:Deletion_requests/Files_in_Category:Streisand_effect, I started a DR using the precise wording from the WMF resolution and this was rejected by the community. Here we are in a similar situation, using the WMF resolution and its wording in a DR situation. This is extremely problematic, as the resolution should be discussed by the community at large, and then an attempt be made at changing Commons policy (this would be required), then DR's can take place. Doing this in reverse is extremely problematic, and extremely damaging to Commons. These images are on a notable subject, and there is no copyright issues, so they can be in scope. Not being in use does not require deletion. russavia (talk) 06:49, 19 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • This will surprise some coming from me, but:  Delete those and only those that aren't in use on a Wikimedia project (including talk pages; they too should stay coherent archives), because I do not see the educational value. They do not appear to be preexisting notable caricatures, or made by an even marginally notable artist, or published e.g. in a major newspaper. If they were any of these things, I would say we should keep them (like File:Alan dershowitz by Latuff.jpg per criterion 2). It is entirely possible that "other stuff exists", but that is never a valid argument, we aren't a project for publishing one's own caricatures. darkweasel94 21:57, 15 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
You will note however, darkweasel, that even images used on sister projects and therefore in scope actually are nominated for deletion in this request, and the prior one, as well. -- Cirt (talk) 22:02, 15 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Of course, and that's why I said only those that aren't in use should be deleted. darkweasel94 22:06, 15 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
And the others are linked through sister-links for example at Wikinews, what is being proposed would be an attempt to censor the images and empty out the categories as much as possible which seems to be an abridgement of the very issue at the heart of Hustler Magazine v. Falwell, don't you think, darkweasel? -- Cirt (talk) 22:07, 15 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
That ruling is fairly irrelevant here, because not everything that isn't illegal is also within our scope - we regularly delete stuff that we could keep and still not violate any laws. If you can make a convincing case for how each of the unused images are good illustrations for the topics of these Wikinews articles, then yes I would say we can keep them. darkweasel94 22:15, 15 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
They could be used in the future for new articles on Wikinews. By censoring them here, we rob other writers of perusing them. -- Cirt (talk) 22:22, 15 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Comment - I really don't quite understand this but Russavia has nominated for deletion at Commons:Deletion requests/Files in Category:Streisand effect images that are w:WP:Featured Pictures on three (3) different language Wikipedias and used on many other language Wikipedias as well. -- Cirt (talk) 22:00, 15 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Comment I think the resolution is more subtle then this. I do not believe that we can tell any wikis to upload locally; I believe that anything that a Wikimedia Wiki can use legitimately under that resolution Commons can host under that resolution. As such:
    •  Keep File:Senator from Pennsylvania satirical parody costume.jpg. It is verifiable that someone wore that costume, and by making it a photo it lets us deal with the subject at a distance.
    •  Delete The others; they're unnotable non-neutral illustrations (File:Rick Santorum, Jack of Hearts - frothy Cartoon.jpg is out of scope, to boot).
    •  Neutral With the possible exception of File:Saint Santorum political cartoon caricature by Greg Uchrin.jpg, which is a horse of a different color. I think Category:Artwork by Greg Uchrin should live or die together; are they notable artworks from a politically charged author, or non-neutral artworks?
  • --Prosfilaes (talk) 06:17, 16 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you, Prosfilaes, and what about File:Still Life with Rick Santorum, Lube, Dildo, and Justin Bieber doll.jpg, which has been in-use for almost two years at Wikinews, at n:Santorum neologism gains prominence during US election cycle? -- Cirt (talk) 06:55, 16 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Well, it's in use because you put it there. This is the tail wagging the dog. Andreas JN466 18:41, 16 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
And it was subsequently reviewed by another member of the Wikinews community, became a stable article, was archived, and has been stable for years since then. -- Cirt (talk) 19:27, 16 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Comment The resolution requires us to take human dignity into account. We balance this against our goal of hosting free educational material and other policies. There are indeed similarities between the Pricassso video and these Santorum images. Both insult the subject in a way that is ironically associated with the topic they have voiced opinions on (porn, homosexuality) and both do so in a way that is juvenile and beneath our best satirists. However the Pricassso video of Jimbo's portrait has negligible educational value and zero notability (the artist is marginally notable), and the conflict there is one purely internal to Wikimedia projects. The Santorum affair has had notable press coverage. Since the main focus of the Santorum satire was a neologism rather than an image, it may be that some of these images also fail to be notable contributions to the notable campaign. I would support keeping the notable caricatures but removing any others. Other people here are better able to judge which than me. -- Colin (talk) 09:54, 16 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, per nom that these violate the revised WMF guidelines as linked to. I think the idea that ordinary Wikimedians can create and upload their own artwork, which is political parody or a critique of a public figure, is wrong. I have no problem with such images being here if they are public images from notable commentators (political cartoonists, etc). These images represent OUR entry into the political discourse, which i find disturbing. yes, he is a public official, so he is a legitimate target for political parody and even political attacks. Are we really sure we should be the instigators of such attacks? I see the dividing line being where we report on existing debate by providing images related to the debate, but dont add to the debate. I seem to be in the distinct minority here. I know that we got rid of Commons:Deletion requests/File:African women icon.svg primarily due to its being an original work by a wikimedian, which was a variant on a racial stereotype, thus could not be used to illustrate an article on historical racism, and thus was out of scope, but would have been fine if it was a controversial, well known cartoon released into the public domain by the creator. if we can delete an image like this, i think the santorum images can also be deleted. (ps i am not a santorum partisan in the slightest, and i would be fine with keeping any of these images if they were posted to the creators own websites or other appropriate venues, then got significant publicity, and were THEN uploaded here.).Mercurywoodrose (talk) 17:15, 16 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Delete per Mercurywoodrose's comment: I think the idea that ordinary Wikimedians can create and upload their own artwork, which is political parody or a critique of a public figure, is wrong. I have no problem with such images being here if they are public images from notable commentators (political cartoonists, etc). These images represent OUR entry into the political discourse, which i find disturbing. The pre-existing notability of the artist should be the criterion. If the artist is not notable, there is no educational value and Commons becomes merely a platform for political (self-)promotion. That is not part of the project scope as I understand it. --Andreas JN466 18:12, 16 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It seems consensus may be leaning towards deleting any images by non-notable artists. Is this a principle that is in practice for other media or art forms. Many of the location photos are not by notable artists but I suppose I could argue the location is. The recent "black face" graphic was deleted for being out of scope due to its non-notable artist. Still trying to wrap my head around this one. 131.137.245.206 19:03, 16 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that is where consensus is going, but I hope it is limited to art about living people. To that end, I have proposed a "Moratorium on user-generated art about living people". John Vandenberg (chat) 19:26, 16 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Delete If people want to publish their own political cartoons, Tumblr and Flickr are free to all. Even ignoring the loss of encyclopedic purpose here, there is no possible knowledge-promulgating purpose for such works; it is a gross violation of our supposed neutrality for us to be put such a use. Mangoe (talk) 19:50, 16 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    If we must delete images, I would say that File:Senator from Pennsylvania satirical parody costume.jpg would need to be kept. There's a difference between creating your own cartoons and documenting others', especially in public events such as Mardi Gras. -mattbuck (Talk) 21:28, 16 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Sorry, i didnt look at EACH image this time, two more are here from the last time i looked. I agree that the above file should be kept, as an exception to my deletion comments above. that one is simply a documentation of a very public event. If the event was offensive, the answer is more free speech, which we can also document if public. Im not sure about File:Saint Santorum political cartoon caricature by Greg Uchrin.jpg, this is a cartoonist who has gotten some attention, and its a webcomic, so he at least is hosting his own images in addition to providing some to us.Mercurywoodrose (talk) 04:18, 17 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    I thought he might be notable by the name in the filename, but didn't recognise it. I did recognise the Zach Weinersmith one in the Santorum-neologism-related category. -mattbuck (Talk) 09:00, 17 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Both of these have copyright issuesː the costume because I do not see that permission was obtained from the costumer, and the other does not link to a place where permission is granted for this image. ̴̴̴̴̴173.66.8.19 01:18, 18 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    The costume I do not believe is copyrightable, as it is not itself an original work, but instead consists of fairly ordinary clothes and a large penis type thing. The penis type thing may be copyrightable, but it is a small part of the overall costume and therefore falls under COM:DM. As for the copyright of the Weinersmith image, (I cannot believe I just had to search "weinersmith santorum". It's just wrong.) it has an OTRS ticket, which would indicate that it is suitably licensed. -mattbuck (Talk) 01:34, 18 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Keep A key piece of evidence in Hustler Magazine v. Falwell was a cartoon depicting George Washington on a donkey and calling him an "ass". That cartoon is unfortunately now lost because there was no Commons to preserve it, but Commons is full of images (such as these) that have been considered vile, vicious attacks on political figures. It's part of the culture and heritage of the United States that political figures are fair game for attacks and parodies. These images are legitimate political discourse found on Flickr and properly uploaded as we upload all kinds of user-generated, original work. (The only one I'm on the fence about is File:Senator from Pennsylvania satirical parody costume.jpg, which appears to be just some guy at a party.) I would not include them in a Wikipedia article but I can imagine all sorts of potential uses for them that fit in with the mission of Commons. Gamaliel (talk) 20:19, 16 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • Meh. COM:SCOPE excludes "Artwork created by the uploader without obvious educational use", "Files apparently created and/or uploaded for the purpose of vandalism or attack", "Advertising or self-promotion" (these are representative examples given). Is it your view that any piece of suitably licensed amateur art to be found anywhere on the net should be uploaded to Commons? Andreas JN466 22:04, 16 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • Fascinating. I have created an article about w:The Entry (the cartoon depicting George Washington on a donkey). It appears to have been widely distributed at the time, unlike these caricatures of Santorum. I doubt the Washington cartoon would have been lost had the internet existed back in 1789. I wouldn't be surprised if it turns up in a private collection. John Vandenberg (chat) 06:17, 17 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • User:Gamaliel talks of Commons "preserving" "all kinds of user-generated, original work". This is a frequent misconception, that Commons is a kind of digital ark for freely licensed media. I think some people truly think that is what Commons is, hence anything with a free licence is claimed to be "educational" and any attempt to delete media is "censorship". But that isn't Commons' mission at all. It might be a worthy project goal for someone, like the Internet Archive, but it isn't what WMF have created here. If you can change the mission of commons to be "a repository of all freely licensed media" then I'd agree that everything should be allowed and we'd no longer have deletion discussions other than over licence issues. -- Colin (talk) 12:09, 17 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Keep Commons shouldn't censor political expression as long as it isn't slanderous or libelous, which these aren't. As for scope and notability, the reaction to Santorum and other politicians in public by Americans is part of our national political culture. These aren't ephemeral or marginal, and I don't see anything in the WMF resolution calling for all images about living people that aren't praising or promoting them to be immediately nuked. INeverCry 21:53, 16 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

 Comment I could be convinced to delete for lack of notability (COM:SCOPE) but I have issue with deleting these in response to the new BLP resolution given the obvious political satire and parody aspects. Saffron Blaze (talk) 00:17, 17 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  •  Delete It is somewhat routine to delete user-generated artwork here, and in my view we should be less permissive of it, except where there is some independent reason to think a specific work of art is significant. If any of these images was created by an artist known outside our community for their work, or if they were published independent of Commons (e.g., in a news article about perceptions of Rick Santorum), in my view, that would be a reason to keep; but absent that I think deletion is best. (I should note, this vote has nothing to do with the scandalous nature of the images, or personality rights. I have the same view about these paintings, which are innocuous and attractive, but as far as I know have no particular significance as works of art.) I also don't think the resolution is relevant, as Rick Santorum is a public figure and the images relate to what he is known for. -Pete F (talk) 00:20, 17 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    •  Comment I was falling off the fence until you brought up the other paintings, which I could envision as being useful in their own right especially if nothing from someone more notable was available. Saffron Blaze (talk) 00:55, 17 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
One point I failed to address is the use by other projects, which has been discussed a fair amount above. I just checked, and only the first one is in use, and it's on a talk page on Wikinews -- not the main space. This does not qualify as a legitimate reason to keep it -- see here: Commons:SCOPE#Must_be_realistically_useful_for_an_educational_purpose
In answer to Saffron Blaze -- I should have been clearer. I have not carefully considered every one of the Ingeborg Bernhard paintings, and you're right -- some might be worth keeping. My point is, being created and uploaded by a Commons user isn't enough in itself to establish that a file has artistic or educational merit; something more is needed to justify a "keep" vote. -Pete F (talk) 01:42, 17 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Fair enough. The issue regarding the Pricasso work seems to me to be clear delete. Same with clear keep on the Streisand Effect images. These require much more editorial judgment as there is no clear logic statement I can make in my head that results in a decision. Saffron Blaze (talk) 01:59, 17 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
n:Santorum_neologism_gains_prominence_during_US_election_cycle uses File:Still_Life_with_Rick_Santorum,_Lube,_Dildo,_and_Justin_Bieber_doll.jpg. I don't know why it's not showing up on the image page, but the image is in use there, and has been for a long time.--Prosfilaes (talk) 06:50, 17 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
That is strange. Yesterday it was working fine on that specific image. I've noted this at Commons:Village_pump#Backlinks_missing, as it might be happening to other images. John Vandenberg (chat) 09:33, 17 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Strange. I'm pretty sure I've encountered that before, but I've never been able to narrow down the cause. At any rate -- I don't think any of these that is in use in main space on any project (or otherwise substantively in use) should be deleted. -Pete F (talk) 16:41, 17 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Pete F, I think each project needs to find their own way. In general Wikimedia Commons should host any free content that used on other projects, but we already break that rule when it comes to copyright. English Wikipedia hosts many media files that are PD in the US, but not PD in the home country of the creator. The Commons community has chosen a different scope wrt copyright, in the interests of being more appealing to an international audience. Wikinews & Wikipedia host media files that are non-free, because they are fair-use in specific contexts. Likewise it is possible for the Commons community to decide that an image is not suitable for its collection, however Wikinews makes an exception for the image because they are using it in a specific context where it is appropriate, or even educational. John Vandenberg (chat) 00:22, 18 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
@John, there's merit to what you say, but I'll stick with my vote as it stands: delete those that are not in use in project main space, but keep the one that is. The precedents you cite have to do with licensing, while this instance has to do with personality rights. The licensing framework is set out by a pretty clear resolution of the Wikimedia board dating to 2007. (Not to get too much into the details, but for the benefit of those who don't know the history: projects are invited to establish "Exemption Doctrine Policies" relating to things like copyright and fair use; some projects have done so, establishing clear policies and processes.) There is no analogous broad board resolution relating to personality rights; although the recently-amended BLP resolution and "Images of identifiable people" resolution do relate to personality rights, they are rather specific and not comprehensive to the level of the EDP framework. But, it's a longstanding and (I think) pretty uncontroversial principle here that if a file is in use, substantively, by another Wikimedia project, it is considered to be within Commons' scope. If and when we have a coherent and comprehensive framework for making decisions around personality rights, I would agree with your take; in the meantime, I think there are two options: (1) keep the file here in order to non-disruptively serve Wikinews, or (2) pursue deletion through the Wikinews site and article where the image is used, in reference to this resolution. -Pete F (talk) 01:21, 18 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I still believe that Commons' primary goal must be as an archive for the other Wikimedia projects. As such I believe it is entirely reasonable to say that if an image can pass the policy in use in a Wikimedia project, it obviously passes the policy for Commons purposes. I don't necessarily think that we should keep File:Still_Life_with_Rick_Santorum,_Lube,_Dildo,_and_Justin_Bieber_doll.jpg but if we do delete it, it should be because we are of the opinion that it is unsuitable for use on Wikimedia projects, including where it is on Wikinews. Maybe that will end up with some locally held images due to disagreements about suitability, but I don't think we should go into it with the opinion that's a good natural thing rather then a problematic one.--Prosfilaes (talk) 02:22, 18 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
This was a bug, caused by Cirt and Brian McNeil uploading the artwork to Wikinews and then moving it to a new name. See wikinews log. John Vandenberg (chat) 00:07, 18 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you, I was unaware that a bug would have been caused by that. -- Cirt (talk) 05:30, 18 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • That is the issue in a nutshell. Deciding what is spurious attack or legitimite satire. In this case I think these represent the satirical response Santorum generated with his politically motivated speech. It is a stark reminder to those in public office that you may be held accountable for what you say. The topic is in scope but it would be prefered for a properly curated collection of free images that these be notable in their own right. 131.137.245.206 13:23, 17 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note the fourth last paragraph of the current wording of the resolution
Ensuring that all projects in all languages that describe or show living people have policies in place calling for special attention to the principles of neutrality and verifiability in those articles;
So, doesn't this mean, that all the rest of the resolution applies here at commons as laid out in Commons:BLP? Well, isn't Commons:BLP#Moral issues the pertinent section? I don't think it says any of what this nomination claims is required of us.
If our nominator thinks Commons:BLP#Moral_issues has to be updated to comply with this recent WMF resolution there are mechanisms for them to lobby for those updates. However, is making nominations that hinge on interpreting Commons:BLP#Moral_issues as if those changes had already been made the way to argue for those updates? I don't think so. Geo Swan (talk) 02:48, 18 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Tineye shows File:Rick Santorum, Soda Jerk - Caricature.jpg is also being re-used at [2].
No WMF project created the discussion that associated Senator Santorum with a frothy discharge. That discussion was part of the arena of political discourse. To not cover this discussion would be a breach of neutrality. Does covering the discussion erode Senator Santorum's dignity? Senator Santorum is a public figure. When an individual chooses to become a politician at the National level -- particularly in the USA -- they have chosen to sacrifice their dignity. They have chosen to be the target of criticism that might seem unfair, that might seem unfairly unrebuttable.
Consider former Senator, former VPOTUS, Al Gore. He will forever be the butt of jokes based on twisting a comment he made about the invention of the internet. Gore, a legislator, said something like he "took the initiative for creating the internet". Vint Cerf and other computer scientist who, fairly, really did "invent" the internet, credit Senator Gore for taking the legislative initiative for creating the internet.
Gore partisans would no doubt be overjoyed if they could get all WMF projects to stop covering the discussion over whether Gore did or didn't claim to have "invented" the internet. But, even if the discussion erodes Gore's dignity, neutrality requires us to find a neutral way to cover it. I suggest exactly the same principle should apply to discussions that link Senator Santorum with frothy discharges. Geo Swan (talk) 03:26, 18 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The Tineye examples are worthwhile, as they illustrate that Commons media is often reused outside our projects, and that we should take that into consideration. (In this case, the example cited appears to be an illegal copyright violation, and also would not be impacted by the deletion of the file, since the author copied the file to a Google server.)
I'm not inclined to change my vote, but I do think this consideration is compelling. If nothing else, it's certainly a good reminder of why it is worthwhile for us to have and consistently and swiftly enforce clear policies. If files like these are to be deleted, it is much better if they are deleted swiftly after uploading, since it (a) minimizes the possibility that the deletion would interfere with reuse, and (b) gives better feedback to the uploader about what is or isn't acceptable. -Pete F (talk) 04:10, 18 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Clarification please -- are you asserting that since http://rationalnationusa.blogspot.ca/2012_02_01_archive.html doesn't credit either the commons, or the flickr source that it is a copyright violation? Or are you asserting that the uncredited image used there demonstrates the original flickr source is a copyright violation?
In either case doesn't it demonstrate that the general concept of political cartoons that link Senator Santorum with frothy discharges are part of the arena of political discourse?
If you are asserting the commons version is a copyright violation may I suggest you really need to explain your reasoning, or accept that everyone will discount this argument? Geo Swan (talk) 13:58, 18 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The former, of course. There is no problem with the Flickr stream. But (both!) of the sites you linked (rationalnationusa.blogspot.ca and hinterlandgazette.com) have violated the terms of the CC licenses. (Hinterland appears to be OK with respect to this specific image, but has several other images erroneously credited to "Wikipedia.") -Pete F (talk) 18:10, 18 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • So you accept that the flickr contributor is the creator. Intellectual property owners are free to release images under multiple terms and licenses. For all you know the re-users at those sites contacted the flickr contributor, who explicitly gave them more generous re-use permissions than flickr allows. I regard it as a stretch for you to assert, as if it were a fact, that the re-users were copyright violators. For all you know those sites could be the work of the flickr contributor.
I can't imagine why we're still talking about this detail. Please rewind and note that I stated that they appear to be copyright violations. Apart from, perhaps, some obsessive need on your part to get every word perfect, what is the point of continuing this discussion? I didn't come here to argue with you, my entire purpose in leaving the comment was to underscore the importance of your initial point. Sheesh. -Pete F (talk) 00:52, 19 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Even if, for the sake of argument, the re-users are violating the flickr contributor's IP rights, how do you jump from that to "it's certainly a good reminder of why it is worthwhile for us to have and consistently and swiftly enforce clear policies." For all we know those re-users got the images from flickr, not the commons. Geo Swan (talk) 18:52, 18 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
IMO Commons:BLP#Moral issues statement against "attacks upon his honour and reputation" is quite reasonable with regard to private individuals, but the standard is and must be different for prominent national leaders. I say "must" because such wording can and in some countries has, been broadly interpreted and used to prohibit all public political dissent. If applied stringently here on Commons, it would prohibit uploading everything regarding any and all living political figures anywhere in the world that is not fully supportive of that person, be it Senator Santorum, President Obama, Kim Jong-il, or anyone else. Since I oppose turning Commons into a repository of nothing but sycophancy, I must strongly oppose this deletion nomination. (Note: A few commentators have brought up such issues as project scope and notability. I point out that neither of these issues are being considered in this deletion request; they are not mentioned by the nominator. Were individual images or groups of images put under a different nomination for those reasons, I might well support deletion of certain individual images. But I am not even considering that distraction at this point. In this listing, they are proposed for deletion for the stated reason that they "smear and demean Rick Santorum", so I vehemently oppose this deletion request and urge other users who believe in the right to disagree with prominent political leaders to do likewise.)-- Infrogmation (talk) 06:07, 23 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Files are checked against all the applicable policies to determine whether their presence here is justified. For example, if in the course of a DR it is discovered that a file is a copyright violation, we don't say that the file has to be kept in that DR, and then a new DR opened giving that as the new deletion rationale before the file can be deleted. Andreas JN466 12:59, 23 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Keep -- First, I believe these images are compliant with Commons:BLP#Moral issues. Second, I believe that censoring these images would be a breach of neutrality, not an act supporting neutrality. WMF projects didn't link Senator Santorum with frothy discharges. To obfuscate this discussion is to partisanly side with Senator Santorum. Geo Swan (talk) 03:40, 18 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • I don't remember any pictures of Santorum as an ice cream cone outside of Wikimedia. Outside of Wikimedia, it's come up in a purely verbal manner, so us approaching the matter in a purely written way seems to reflect the larger world in a neutral way.--Prosfilaes (talk) 09:18, 18 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • On the other hand there may be several, dozens, or thousands, of political images that linked Senator Santorum with frothy discharges -- but the others aren't hosted here because the others weren't clearly "free" images. Geo Swan (talk) 14:10, 18 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Comment I can understand neutrality in an article but not in an image. Saffron Blaze (talk) 04:01, 18 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Keep Santorum is a public figure who ran for the highest political office in the most powerful country in the world. These images are verifiable examples of a notable political campaign criticizing that public figure's stance on major issues. I do not believe the resolution gives any indication that such reasons are not sufficient for retaining the files.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 04:58, 18 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you, The Devil's Advocate, indeed there are interesting examples at Category:Caricatures of Barack Obama of images critical of a U.S. President which also shouldn't be censored. -- Cirt (talk) 05:33, 18 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Keep – Commons should be able to host and share satirical material, caricatures, and mockery. Caring so much about hurt feelings is what's going to destroy Commons. Freedom of speech exist; freedom from negative feelings and freedom to only receive kindness don't exist and shouldn't exist. The WMF resolution isn't aligned with the principles that the Commons community should value. --Michaeldsuarez (talk) 13:40, 18 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you, Michaeldsuarez, for emphasizing the Wikimedia Commons community value of freedom of speech, most appreciated, -- Cirt (talk) 17:11, 18 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
You're welcome. --Michaeldsuarez (talk) 22:20, 18 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Keep I don't see a need to delete these images, they are covered by free speech/satire. I don't like the backdoor censorship introduced with (or misused for) this (strange) WMF resolution . --Denniss (talk) 15:57, 18 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you, Denniss, for noting it appears a censorship tactic is going on here, very astute. Cheers, -- Cirt (talk) 17:12, 18 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I doubt censorship was at the root of this. More like a press to test. Throw up a bunch of DRs and see where the line if any gets drawn. It's disruptive and divisive but in the end it may work. 131.137.245.206 19:07, 18 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I have wondered the same thing. -- Cirt (talk) 19:21, 18 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
@Saffron Blaze, please note that File:Still Life with Rick Santorum, Lube, Dildo, and Justin Bieber doll.jpg is in-use on Wikinews and therefore in-scope. -- Cirt (talk) 01:47, 19 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Seems rather self referential. BTW, how old was the Biebs when that picture was made? Aren't there copyright issues with Toys. Saffron Blaze (talk) 01:59, 19 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
It's an artist's rendering of their idea of what a toy would look like, not an actual toy. -- Cirt (talk) 02:09, 19 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Heh, next time I will look at the image a bit more closely before beaking off. Still, drags the satire into seedy. Saffron Blaze (talk) 05:31, 19 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Delete, I find myself agreeing with Pete F. above. If any of these "parodies" had come from notable artists or been widely printed then they'd definitely be within scope, but all I see here are the works of amateur artists with no particular impact. There is ample precedent for not allowing Commons to be used as a file hosting service, and I think that applies here. If there were any images on the topic of the neologism that had appeared in print or on one of the largest internet news sites, I would view that as within scope. Note that this !vote is not related to the content of the images, tasteless though they are, nor on my strongly negative personal feelings towards the subject. Lankiveil (talk) 04:53, 21 December 2013 (UTC).[reply]
  •  Keep -- COMMONS IS NOT CENSORED, COMMONS IS NOT CENSORED, COMMONS IS NOT CENSORED. how many time does this have to be repeated, before it FINALLY SINKS IN!?
rick santorum is an american POLITICIAN. the items listed for DR are ALL legitimate political commentary, they ARE within scope, & they DO NOT "violate BLP". for one thing THIS IS WIKIMEDIA COMMONS not WIKIPEDIA. for another, a blandly-worded "mission statement" by the wfm board IS NOT "law" @ commons.
finally; the fact that we are doing this DR ALL OVER AGAIN, after a clear keep, makes a joke of commons' DR policy.
this whole business (the repeated DR here, @ pricasso, etc.) is a push to censor wikimedia commons, and it is an ABUSE of "BLP". the only point being demonstrated is that we BADLY need to have a community-wide blow-out review of blp "ideology".
Lx 121 (talk) 11:54, 21 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • The funny part is that is what is happening right now all across Commons. Several DRs and Proposals were thrown up to test the waters in response to BLP. The sad part is that in most instances the cases brought forward have little to do with BLP and have more to do with COM:SCOPE or Privacy. I would not delete these images for BLP, but most of them should go as being non-notable. Saffron Blaze (talk)
  •  Keep. I do not think that the WMF resolution applies to caricatures at all. All caricatures are by definition non-neutral and non-verifiable regardless of notability of the artist. Ruslik (talk) 13:21, 21 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Comment I find a harm/benefit analysis helpful in these cases. I roughly agree with a combination of {@Prosfilaes ∪ @Cirt} - the first three seem out of scope; the last three have more significant use or relevance.
    Benefit     Harm
Relevance of parody Ad hominems
Educational value & use Offensiveness, likelihood of harm
Notability of subject Impact of image on searches for subject
Notability of style / artist / message     Using Commons as a soapbox: original art / message
Some of these parodies aren't very good or topical; on the other hand they're not ad-hominem, just a bit random. Others such as the Uchrin panel focus on the subject's topical views.
Most are not in use; however they're also not very offensive. Other popular caricatures of the subject online are much more offensive.
The subject is quite notable. These images have high visibility - 2 of the first 6, 7 of the first 35 images in google image search, but there are thousands of popular Santorum parody images online, so this isn't a huge fraction of the whole.
The style of the images is fairly non-notable; some are original art by non-notable artists. The 'ice cream cone' meme wasn't a popular one - it is mainly visible online because it is on Commons. These two seem more representative.
On balance: I don't see either strong parody value or strong BLP concerns. Nor any reason to remove images that are in use. --SJ+ 00:00, 22 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, SJ. What do you think of the images in Category:Santorum neologism-related images? They are not part of this deletion request, but I'd be interested in your views. Andreas JN466 15:35, 22 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I was wondering why these werent also under consideration. Does anyone else see them as relevant here?Mercurywoodrose (talk) 03:14, 23 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I re-nominated the set originally nominated on this page, without adding or removing any. Perhaps I should have added File:Santorum artwork by Zach Weinersmith.gif, as that is another caricature, but I did see it. I view the fecal matter images as a distinct set, as they only use the neologism/his surname. If there is no consensus to delete the caricatures, I think the case to delete poo photos named after someone notable is much weaker, and would need to be focused on COM:SCOPE. John Vandenberg (chat) 03:43, 23 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I disagree John. The caricatures are all ok, it's the photos of bagged shit that there is a problem with, as they distinctly go against the Pricasso Amendment's verifiability clause. Due to the Pricasso Amendment all material on Commons now has to be verifiable and neutral, and there is no verifiable evidence that any of the shit photos on Commons in the neologism category is "Santorum" as defined by the neologism; that being "The frothy mix of lube and fecal matter that is sometimes the byproduct of anal sex." If any of the photos in Category:Santorum neologism-related images are of actual santorum, then the only thing that I have to say is that some people obviously need to learn to douche before........................ russavia (talk) 06:38, 23 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, the file descriptions say it's dog shit. As for douches, while it's off-topic, for those who give a crap there is a most excellent tool available here. Ergonomically designed (not for dogs though, I suppose). Andreas JN466 03:19, 24 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
What a great product! I see this douche kit with a 6 foot long hose. I just know that there is someone out there who thought that they had to use all six foot to....nevermind... russavia (talk) 06:39, 24 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
There's even a Commons version. How cool is that? DracoEssentialis (talk) 09:55, 24 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The stuff you find ... ;) Andreas JN466 13:08, 24 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
:)) Andreas JN466 13:08, 24 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Comment I would support closing this deletion requests as kept for lack of consensus to delete. (This would not preclude relisting individual images here for deletion consideration for completely different reasons, for example scope or notability.) -- Infrogmation (talk) 06:11, 23 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Comment - I thank Sj (talk · contribs) for the most helpful and astute analysis presented above. As to the comment above by Infrogmation (talk · contribs), it seems that rather than no consensus, current community consensus above is for Keep. Cheers, -- Cirt (talk) 16:14, 23 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Comment The problem with assessing consensus is that the reasons for keep and delete are so varied. Some have based their decision on concerns of censorship, other on scope, others on notability, others on BLP, etc. The only coherent consensus I can see is delete those that are non-notable, as is common practice on Commons, and keep any that are notable works of political satire or parody. Very few have framed this as an actual BLP issue. Saffron Blaze (talk) 16:53, 23 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
No that is not a common practice on Commons, but it seems a practice you wish to become common on Commons. Works of political satire and parody have been protected forms of speech against censorship for hundreds of years, and are protected by the unanimous decision in Hustler Magazine v. Falwell. Cheers, -- Cirt (talk) 17:09, 23 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Just because they are protected forms of speech, doesn't mean we necessarily want to host them. darkweasel94 18:00, 23 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps, but even those that are in use on other sites are the subject of attempted censorship here on Commons, as well. -- Cirt (talk) 18:18, 23 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • I certainly don't want any kind of censorship here on Commons. It would a be a gross violation of our mission. However, I don't want Commons to become a simple repository of everyone's crap art and political bile. If a work is of high quality, or notable or very useful then that is what we need to make sure we keep. Keeping some of this crap does not further this mission and getting rid of it would not have anything to do with censorship. Saffron Blaze (talk) 02:57, 24 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I think you missed the later cases Hustler vs. NBC, where Hustler tried to force NBC to show the cartoon of Falwell, and Falwell v. Hustler, where Falwell tried to insist that Hustler print a rebuttal cartoon. Maybe because both parties knew that they couldn't force a third party to publish something or continue to publish something they didn't want to. Wave the censorship flag all you want, but it's simply not our responsibility to store every non-notable attack image.--Prosfilaes (talk) 19:19, 23 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I'm pretty sure Hustler v. Falwell was the latest final case, as it was before the Supreme Court of the United States. -- Cirt (talk) 19:23, 23 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • I don't care who is using it if the use was in response to the uploading here by a non-notable artist. If the artist was non-notable it should have been deleted. If we accept it is in scope now because someone used it then we would by consequence need to invite any and all uploads to a period of review where it might get used and then magically become in scope after the fact. Moreover, I have a real problem with the Justin Bieber Doll being included in the drawing. If you do a google image search for "Justin Bieber Doll" it comes up rather early in the search results. I don't think JB was the subject of the satire and parody yet he gets smeared in the process (no pun), raising both personality and publicity rights issues for me. Saffron Blaze (talk) 02:12, 27 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
@Saffron Blaze, I'm sure there actually are toys that are dolls of Justin Bieber. Just like there are dolls that people can buy that are toys made in the likeness of numerous other musicians. -- Cirt (talk) 02:16, 27 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Indeed, but what is the point you are trying to make? That we should not care because it is just a doll, or a drawing of a doll, and not the real person? The file contains his name so he becomes intimately involved in an issue he has no relation with. Is that even fair or just because he is a worldwide public figure, excepting perhaps for certain rainforest people, that makes it OK? Saffron Blaze (talk) 02:45, 27 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Great, so you admit that there are actual toys that are dolls made of this person that exist, and therefore that there could be pictures of those dolls or paintings and artwork of same that also exist on the Internet. -- Cirt (talk) 03:58, 27 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Cirt, Darmok and Jalad at Tanagra. Saffron Blaze (talk) 04:36, 27 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Keep I don't plan to do much here, as this is not an honest process. Every page on Wikipedia is adorned by user generated Wikiproject logos and alert icons and such, but you don't host user generated art. Riiiiiiigggggggghhhhhht. I predict a party line vote among the closers, period. Wnt (talk) 04:54, 27 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • You make a valid point. i think the distinction we are working with is that the acceptable user generated art is neutral in its emotional or editorial content, and is usually a clear, literal representation of something, or an icon that clearly portrays an idea. I think the problems with user generated art come when the images are open to interpretation, esp. if they dont have a clear use at the commons. Creating a work of art that is something "new" should probably not be hosted here if the work or artist is not known outside our community. I actually DR'd 2 original works of art that i created and posted, after considering the issues here, as they were new interpretations of the rainbow flag, not extant in the world, and have no obvious purpose at any project that i know of. Perhaps we should have a way to tag such original works, and if not used by a project within, say, a week, they are deleted. I know i really dont like using any of the user generated orginal art in articles, as thats blatant original research/synthesis, unless the artwork is an exact, clean copy of an object from history that we dont have a good photo of.Mercurywoodrose (talk) 18:34, 27 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Kept per INC, Cirt --A.Savin 19:30, 27 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Commons:Deletion_requests/Santorum_images&oldid=112786117"