The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the media below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the media's talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
I am highly offended to find such an offensive symbol invented by the Nazis in all these articles about Hindism. Hindus are not Nazis and don't hate Jews. Please delete this image immeditely. I'm a complete moron and should never say anything ever again. -
Roofus (
talk) 08:08, 19 November 2007 (UTC)reply
Err? --
Aqwis (
talk) 11:30, 19 November 2007 (UTC)reply
Closed. Clearly a Commons image, and this is probably just trolling. --
RG2 23:36, 19 November 2007 (UTC)reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Several free images of the same artist exists.
Liftarn (
talk) 14:58, 19 November 2007 (UTC)reply
keep -
User:Liftarn has been tirelessly promoting POV on the
Carlos Latuff article. I've been archiving work by Latuff for a short while now and encountered extreme resistance by him to anything that might make the artists' attacks on his usual objects (israel and the US) seem over the top and anti-semitic. current image was released as "copyright free" by the propagandist, however, he has used one image who's copyright status is not entirely clear. yes, there's a few more hatefull images by him, but there are no free images with sharon doing the hitler salute in such a clear manner. image should stay. —Preceding
unsigned comment added by
Jaakobou (
talk •
contribs) 15:29, 19 November 2007 (UTC)reply
CommentJaakobou has been tirelessly promoting POV on the
Carlos Latuff article by cherrypicking and distortion as well as adding unsourced statements. //
Liftarn (
talk)
"keep" I have seen a number of Latuff cartoons with comparisons between Israel and Nazis and also he tends to use the term "IsraeHell" in instead of Israel. However I've not yet seen a cartoon by him so clearly demonstrating the issue of his continuous statements that Israel= nazi Germany.I don't believe theres is a free replacement for this image. and if theres is,the delation nominator should provide it.
Batlily (
talk) 16:10, 19 November 2007 (UTC)reply
Image was uploaded for use in
Stretch Skin Therapy, which was speedied. I can't see any reason to keep this now...
uɐɔlnʌɟoʞǝɹɐs 18:27, 19 November 2007 (UTC)reply
Permisson given from copyright holder, but there is no indication that the image is released under a free license. Can't be used under fair use, since it is replaceable and fails
WP:NFCC#1Rettetast 20:26, 19 November 2007 (UTC)reply
Works of the U.S. federal government are automatically in the public domain. This isn't necessarily true for local or state governments. --
RG2 23:02, 19 November 2007 (UTC)reply
Copyright violation. Work of a school district, which is not part of the federal government and whose works are not automatically in the public domain. --
RG2 23:06, 19 November 2007 (UTC)reply
Copyright violation. This is a press photo, so it fails
non-free content criterion #2, as we clearly infringe on commerical opportunities. The claim on the image description page that this is "very rare" makes it that much more valuable to the copyright holder. Listing here as a courtesy, as press photos can be speedily deleted as copyright violations (
G12, see
this precedent). --
RG2 23:26, 19 November 2007 (UTC)reply
Keep. The fair use rationale seems to be valid.
Ngchen (
talk) 23:29, 23 November 2007 (UTC)reply
And there seems to be an awful bias that throwing up a generic fair use rationale is good enough -- at least for keeping the bots at bay. Unfortunately, a misleading rationale doesn't get around the fact that this image spectacularly fails our non-free content criteria. --
RG2 09:17, 24 November 2007 (UTC)reply
So how does the image detract from the Orange County register's business in any way?
Ngchen (
talk) 23:29, 24 November 2007 (UTC) The image is a nice illustration of the various FLOTUS's the U.S. has had.
Ngchen (
talk) 23:29, 24 November 2007 (UTC)reply
Keep - How are the two rationale's misleading?
Happyme22 (
talk) 17:07, 24 November 2007 (UTC)reply
Because this is such a blatant copyright violation that I should really speedy delete it. --
RG2 19:48, 24 November 2007 (UTC)reply
Please avoid copyright paranoia. But upon a seond look at
[1] you're right in that the image fails the guideline an image is only fair use if we're commenting on the imageitself. See especially the
Barry Bonds example. So, sadly, it is a case of delete.
Ngchen (
talk) 23:30, 24 November 2007 (UTC)reply
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the media below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the media's talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Copyright violation. This is a press photo, so it fails
non-free content criterion #2, as we clearly infringe on commerical opportunitieso. Listing here as a curtesy, as press photos can be speedily deleted as copyright violations (
G12, see
this precedent). --
RG2 23:30, 19 November 2007 (UTC)reply
Keep. As indicated in the page, this comes from a screen shot from the U.S. Senate cameras. As indicated by the C-SPAN website, this is in the public domain [
[2]] —Preceding
unsigned comment added by
Meamemg (
talk •
contribs) 03:43, 22 November 2007 (UTC)reply
Keep. Per Meamemg, the fair use rationale is amply documented. Even if fair use cannot be established, C-SPAN has released it into the public domain.
Ngchen (
talk) 23:28, 23 November 2007 (UTC)reply
Keep per above, as this is a public domain image, and therefore not a copyvio.
Lankiveil (
talk) 03:30, 24 November 2007 (UTC).reply
If it's a public domain image, someone should fix the tagging on the image description page and make sure the image is actually from C-SPAN. Given that the C-SPAN capture was in the public domain, there's no reason the AP couldn't take it, modify it, and relicense it. --
RG2 09:25, 24 November 2007 (UTC)reply
Keep per all above comments.
Happyme22 (
talk) 17:06, 24 November 2007 (UTC)reply
So did anyone actually want to try fix the problems? --
RG2 19:53, 24 November 2007 (UTC)reply
Done. The uploader is a very well-respected long-term contributor, as such there is no reason to doubt his assertion that the image came from C-SPAN.
Ngchen (
talk) 23:13, 24 November 2007 (UTC)reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the media's talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the media below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the media's talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
I am highly offended to find such an offensive symbol invented by the Nazis in all these articles about Hindism. Hindus are not Nazis and don't hate Jews. Please delete this image immeditely. I'm a complete moron and should never say anything ever again. -
Roofus (
talk) 08:08, 19 November 2007 (UTC)reply
Err? --
Aqwis (
talk) 11:30, 19 November 2007 (UTC)reply
Closed. Clearly a Commons image, and this is probably just trolling. --
RG2 23:36, 19 November 2007 (UTC)reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Several free images of the same artist exists.
Liftarn (
talk) 14:58, 19 November 2007 (UTC)reply
keep -
User:Liftarn has been tirelessly promoting POV on the
Carlos Latuff article. I've been archiving work by Latuff for a short while now and encountered extreme resistance by him to anything that might make the artists' attacks on his usual objects (israel and the US) seem over the top and anti-semitic. current image was released as "copyright free" by the propagandist, however, he has used one image who's copyright status is not entirely clear. yes, there's a few more hatefull images by him, but there are no free images with sharon doing the hitler salute in such a clear manner. image should stay. —Preceding
unsigned comment added by
Jaakobou (
talk •
contribs) 15:29, 19 November 2007 (UTC)reply
CommentJaakobou has been tirelessly promoting POV on the
Carlos Latuff article by cherrypicking and distortion as well as adding unsourced statements. //
Liftarn (
talk)
"keep" I have seen a number of Latuff cartoons with comparisons between Israel and Nazis and also he tends to use the term "IsraeHell" in instead of Israel. However I've not yet seen a cartoon by him so clearly demonstrating the issue of his continuous statements that Israel= nazi Germany.I don't believe theres is a free replacement for this image. and if theres is,the delation nominator should provide it.
Batlily (
talk) 16:10, 19 November 2007 (UTC)reply
Image was uploaded for use in
Stretch Skin Therapy, which was speedied. I can't see any reason to keep this now...
uɐɔlnʌɟoʞǝɹɐs 18:27, 19 November 2007 (UTC)reply
Permisson given from copyright holder, but there is no indication that the image is released under a free license. Can't be used under fair use, since it is replaceable and fails
WP:NFCC#1Rettetast 20:26, 19 November 2007 (UTC)reply
Works of the U.S. federal government are automatically in the public domain. This isn't necessarily true for local or state governments. --
RG2 23:02, 19 November 2007 (UTC)reply
Copyright violation. Work of a school district, which is not part of the federal government and whose works are not automatically in the public domain. --
RG2 23:06, 19 November 2007 (UTC)reply
Copyright violation. This is a press photo, so it fails
non-free content criterion #2, as we clearly infringe on commerical opportunities. The claim on the image description page that this is "very rare" makes it that much more valuable to the copyright holder. Listing here as a courtesy, as press photos can be speedily deleted as copyright violations (
G12, see
this precedent). --
RG2 23:26, 19 November 2007 (UTC)reply
Keep. The fair use rationale seems to be valid.
Ngchen (
talk) 23:29, 23 November 2007 (UTC)reply
And there seems to be an awful bias that throwing up a generic fair use rationale is good enough -- at least for keeping the bots at bay. Unfortunately, a misleading rationale doesn't get around the fact that this image spectacularly fails our non-free content criteria. --
RG2 09:17, 24 November 2007 (UTC)reply
So how does the image detract from the Orange County register's business in any way?
Ngchen (
talk) 23:29, 24 November 2007 (UTC) The image is a nice illustration of the various FLOTUS's the U.S. has had.
Ngchen (
talk) 23:29, 24 November 2007 (UTC)reply
Keep - How are the two rationale's misleading?
Happyme22 (
talk) 17:07, 24 November 2007 (UTC)reply
Because this is such a blatant copyright violation that I should really speedy delete it. --
RG2 19:48, 24 November 2007 (UTC)reply
Please avoid copyright paranoia. But upon a seond look at
[1] you're right in that the image fails the guideline an image is only fair use if we're commenting on the imageitself. See especially the
Barry Bonds example. So, sadly, it is a case of delete.
Ngchen (
talk) 23:30, 24 November 2007 (UTC)reply
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the media below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the media's talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Copyright violation. This is a press photo, so it fails
non-free content criterion #2, as we clearly infringe on commerical opportunitieso. Listing here as a curtesy, as press photos can be speedily deleted as copyright violations (
G12, see
this precedent). --
RG2 23:30, 19 November 2007 (UTC)reply
Keep. As indicated in the page, this comes from a screen shot from the U.S. Senate cameras. As indicated by the C-SPAN website, this is in the public domain [
[2]] —Preceding
unsigned comment added by
Meamemg (
talk •
contribs) 03:43, 22 November 2007 (UTC)reply
Keep. Per Meamemg, the fair use rationale is amply documented. Even if fair use cannot be established, C-SPAN has released it into the public domain.
Ngchen (
talk) 23:28, 23 November 2007 (UTC)reply
Keep per above, as this is a public domain image, and therefore not a copyvio.
Lankiveil (
talk) 03:30, 24 November 2007 (UTC).reply
If it's a public domain image, someone should fix the tagging on the image description page and make sure the image is actually from C-SPAN. Given that the C-SPAN capture was in the public domain, there's no reason the AP couldn't take it, modify it, and relicense it. --
RG2 09:25, 24 November 2007 (UTC)reply
Keep per all above comments.
Happyme22 (
talk) 17:06, 24 November 2007 (UTC)reply
So did anyone actually want to try fix the problems? --
RG2 19:53, 24 November 2007 (UTC)reply
Done. The uploader is a very well-respected long-term contributor, as such there is no reason to doubt his assertion that the image came from C-SPAN.
Ngchen (
talk) 23:13, 24 November 2007 (UTC)reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the media's talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.