Whether it's "distasteful" or not is completely irrelevant. As pointed out already,
Wikipedia is not censored. Additionally, the note does serve encyclopedic purpose, given its relevance to the so-called conspiracy around his death. However, this image should be deleted because it is a recreation of deleted material: File:Cobainnote.jpg. This image is very similar to that one, if it's not the exact same graphic. I don't know the reason that Cobainnote.jpg was deleted - I believe it was deemed not to be fair use. --
ChrisB 02:25, 15 January 2007 (UTC)reply
Words and images that might be considered offensive, profane, or obscene by other Wikipedia readers should be used if and only if their omission would cause the article to be less informative, relevant, or accurate, and no equally suitable alternatives are available. Including information about offensive material is part of Wikipedia's encyclopedic mission; being offensive is not.
Consequently, the offensiveness of any given image is a relevant consideration in the determination as to whether or not it should be deleted. Furthermore, in response to the claim that "the note does serve encyclopedic purpose, given its relevance to the so-called conspiracy around his death", I would observe that any use of this photograph in
Kurt Cobain to argue for a particular interpretation of the causes of his death would constitute
original research.
John254 03:02, 15 January 2007 (UTC)reply
If you'd read the entirety of my post, I noted that it should be deleted on other grounds. Regardless, your argument is flawed - the picture of the note passes every one of those requirements: its absence makes the article less informative, relevant, or accurate, and no equally suitable alternative is available. One of the main elements of the conspiracy is the visible difference in handwriting between the bulk of the note and the lines at the top and bottom. The original image was made by Tom Grant, a private investigator, who was provided the suicide note by Courtney Love while he was employed by her. Grant asserts that the top and bottom lines suggest suicide, while the rest of the note does not. The conspiracy is categorically not original research - Grant is the one who asserted it. There have been several books written on the topic, including two by respected journalists. I'm not trying to lend credence to the conspiracy - but Wikipedia's discussion of the topic meets all the necessary guidelines. --
ChrisB 21:11, 15 January 2007 (UTC)reply
Both deleted without prejudice. Both images were unsourced and were tagged as the obviously false {{PD-USGov}}. Both images can only be used under a claim of fair use and neither was in use. --
BigDT 02:09, 21 January 2007 (UTC)reply
Delete - This is not a good picture and some users may find it offensive and it doesn't have any encyclopedic relevance.Tellyaddict 22:52, 15 January 2007 (UTC)reply
Delete - Image has no encyclopedic value at all, taste or what not doesn't really come into it, it's just a really pointless photograph. --Kind Regards -
Heligoland 21:57, 19 January 2007 (UTC)reply
Uploaded by
Lincalinca (notify |
contribs). Uploader claims that creator of Webcomic panel has released all rights without any such evidence. Possible CV, as well as OR. — Rebelguys2talk 08:55, 15 January 2007 (UTC)reply
Uploaded by
Lincalinca (notify |
contribs). Uploader makes a vague claim that the creator of a Webcomic panel has released the image into the public domain, but has used the wrong tag (PD self). Based on the uploader's other contributions, this is a possible CV, as well as OR. — Rebelguys2talk 08:55, 15 January 2007 (UTC)reply
Uploaded by
Lincalinca (notify |
contribs). Uploader claims that a Webcomic panel has been released into the public domain, but has used the wrong tag (PD self). Based on the uploader's other contributions, this is a possible CV, as well as OR. — Rebelguys2talk 08:55, 15 January 2007 (UTC)reply
Not deleted as this image is in use and appears to qualify for
fair use. I will retag it as such. --
BigDT 02:50, 21 January 2007 (UTC)reply
Uploaded by
Lincalinca (notify |
contribs). Uploader claims that creator of Webcomic panel has released all rights without any such evidence. Possible CV, as well as OR. — Rebelguys2talk 08:55, 15 January 2007 (UTC)reply
Uploaded by
Lincalinca (notify |
contribs). Cannot find this specific image under a suitable license on Flickr, and no source with licensing information is provided; a likely CV, given the uploader - see Missyhiggins.jpg listing above. There are plenty of free alternatives on Flickr, however. — Rebelguys2talk 09:05, 15 January 2007 (UTC)reply
Not deleted - I have found the source image and confirmed that it is licensed under an acceptable license. I updated the image description page to include the exact source and the correct licensing information. --
BigDT 02:37, 21 January 2007 (UTC)reply
Uploaded by
Dehertymus (notify |
contribs). Orphan, uploader's only contribution. Uploader claims to be the author, but this is dubious, as this appears to be an album cover. —
Bkell (
talk) 15:07, 15 January 2007 (UTC)reply
Uploaded by
Havarhen (notify |
contribs). CV; unfree image used purely for decoration. This is a screenshot from Futurama of the "30th Century Fox" logo. It could possibly be used in such articles as
Futurama or
20th Century Fox, but is not and hasn't been for some time. It is only used in
30th century; there, it is used purely for injection of a decorative piece of trivia. FU rationale is given but does not seem to cover that use at all, and the image is used nowhere else. —
Mangojuicetalk 17:56, 15 January 2007 (UTC)reply
Agreed, I uploaded the current version, but it has since been removed from the article it was intended for it should be deleted as it is a non-free image. --LorianTC 09:47, 16 January 2007 (UTC)reply
Uploaded by
MARAISHER (notify |
contribs). Copyright violation. The image was tagged as GFDL by the uploader, but that is a falsehood. The image is actually a copyrighted image taken from
here.
Uncle G 21:28, 15 January 2007 (UTC)reply
Uploaded by
Roarkgodard (notify |
contribs). Orphan. This is a scan from a magazine; GFDL claim almost certainly has no basis. —
Bkell (
talk) 21:49, 15 January 2007 (UTC)reply
Whether it's "distasteful" or not is completely irrelevant. As pointed out already,
Wikipedia is not censored. Additionally, the note does serve encyclopedic purpose, given its relevance to the so-called conspiracy around his death. However, this image should be deleted because it is a recreation of deleted material: File:Cobainnote.jpg. This image is very similar to that one, if it's not the exact same graphic. I don't know the reason that Cobainnote.jpg was deleted - I believe it was deemed not to be fair use. --
ChrisB 02:25, 15 January 2007 (UTC)reply
Words and images that might be considered offensive, profane, or obscene by other Wikipedia readers should be used if and only if their omission would cause the article to be less informative, relevant, or accurate, and no equally suitable alternatives are available. Including information about offensive material is part of Wikipedia's encyclopedic mission; being offensive is not.
Consequently, the offensiveness of any given image is a relevant consideration in the determination as to whether or not it should be deleted. Furthermore, in response to the claim that "the note does serve encyclopedic purpose, given its relevance to the so-called conspiracy around his death", I would observe that any use of this photograph in
Kurt Cobain to argue for a particular interpretation of the causes of his death would constitute
original research.
John254 03:02, 15 January 2007 (UTC)reply
If you'd read the entirety of my post, I noted that it should be deleted on other grounds. Regardless, your argument is flawed - the picture of the note passes every one of those requirements: its absence makes the article less informative, relevant, or accurate, and no equally suitable alternative is available. One of the main elements of the conspiracy is the visible difference in handwriting between the bulk of the note and the lines at the top and bottom. The original image was made by Tom Grant, a private investigator, who was provided the suicide note by Courtney Love while he was employed by her. Grant asserts that the top and bottom lines suggest suicide, while the rest of the note does not. The conspiracy is categorically not original research - Grant is the one who asserted it. There have been several books written on the topic, including two by respected journalists. I'm not trying to lend credence to the conspiracy - but Wikipedia's discussion of the topic meets all the necessary guidelines. --
ChrisB 21:11, 15 January 2007 (UTC)reply
Both deleted without prejudice. Both images were unsourced and were tagged as the obviously false {{PD-USGov}}. Both images can only be used under a claim of fair use and neither was in use. --
BigDT 02:09, 21 January 2007 (UTC)reply
Delete - This is not a good picture and some users may find it offensive and it doesn't have any encyclopedic relevance.Tellyaddict 22:52, 15 January 2007 (UTC)reply
Delete - Image has no encyclopedic value at all, taste or what not doesn't really come into it, it's just a really pointless photograph. --Kind Regards -
Heligoland 21:57, 19 January 2007 (UTC)reply
Uploaded by
Lincalinca (notify |
contribs). Uploader claims that creator of Webcomic panel has released all rights without any such evidence. Possible CV, as well as OR. — Rebelguys2talk 08:55, 15 January 2007 (UTC)reply
Uploaded by
Lincalinca (notify |
contribs). Uploader makes a vague claim that the creator of a Webcomic panel has released the image into the public domain, but has used the wrong tag (PD self). Based on the uploader's other contributions, this is a possible CV, as well as OR. — Rebelguys2talk 08:55, 15 January 2007 (UTC)reply
Uploaded by
Lincalinca (notify |
contribs). Uploader claims that a Webcomic panel has been released into the public domain, but has used the wrong tag (PD self). Based on the uploader's other contributions, this is a possible CV, as well as OR. — Rebelguys2talk 08:55, 15 January 2007 (UTC)reply
Not deleted as this image is in use and appears to qualify for
fair use. I will retag it as such. --
BigDT 02:50, 21 January 2007 (UTC)reply
Uploaded by
Lincalinca (notify |
contribs). Uploader claims that creator of Webcomic panel has released all rights without any such evidence. Possible CV, as well as OR. — Rebelguys2talk 08:55, 15 January 2007 (UTC)reply
Uploaded by
Lincalinca (notify |
contribs). Cannot find this specific image under a suitable license on Flickr, and no source with licensing information is provided; a likely CV, given the uploader - see Missyhiggins.jpg listing above. There are plenty of free alternatives on Flickr, however. — Rebelguys2talk 09:05, 15 January 2007 (UTC)reply
Not deleted - I have found the source image and confirmed that it is licensed under an acceptable license. I updated the image description page to include the exact source and the correct licensing information. --
BigDT 02:37, 21 January 2007 (UTC)reply
Uploaded by
Dehertymus (notify |
contribs). Orphan, uploader's only contribution. Uploader claims to be the author, but this is dubious, as this appears to be an album cover. —
Bkell (
talk) 15:07, 15 January 2007 (UTC)reply
Uploaded by
Havarhen (notify |
contribs). CV; unfree image used purely for decoration. This is a screenshot from Futurama of the "30th Century Fox" logo. It could possibly be used in such articles as
Futurama or
20th Century Fox, but is not and hasn't been for some time. It is only used in
30th century; there, it is used purely for injection of a decorative piece of trivia. FU rationale is given but does not seem to cover that use at all, and the image is used nowhere else. —
Mangojuicetalk 17:56, 15 January 2007 (UTC)reply
Agreed, I uploaded the current version, but it has since been removed from the article it was intended for it should be deleted as it is a non-free image. --LorianTC 09:47, 16 January 2007 (UTC)reply
Uploaded by
MARAISHER (notify |
contribs). Copyright violation. The image was tagged as GFDL by the uploader, but that is a falsehood. The image is actually a copyrighted image taken from
here.
Uncle G 21:28, 15 January 2007 (UTC)reply
Uploaded by
Roarkgodard (notify |
contribs). Orphan. This is a scan from a magazine; GFDL claim almost certainly has no basis. —
Bkell (
talk) 21:49, 15 January 2007 (UTC)reply