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.
Keep. Relax. -- RG2 06:23, 27 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Forgot to add that. Thanks, RG2! — BQZip01 —talk 06:25, 27 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
From the instructions on this page: "Images used on userpages should generally not be nominated on this basis alone unless the user is violating the Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not policy by using Wikipedia to host excessive amounts unencyclopedic material (most commonly private photos)" This image is one of only two images on my user page that is not used on another article/WP page. — BQZip01 —talk 06:22, 27 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
"Please upload only files that are used (or will be used) in encyclopedia articles or project pages; anything else will be deleted." ThreeE 07:14, 27 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This quote is taken out of context. It ignores the title associated with this quote ("File storage areas"...I am not using this to store random images for use elsewhere or as a gallery) and does not give the source of said quote (came from here). It is also painfully obvious that this image is being used on a user's personal page (mine) and is well within the stated exception of Wikipedia:No original research#Original images. It certainly could be added to an article on helmets, pilots, life support equipment, etc.
I'm not claiming that the image is original research... The quote is taken from the link I provided: WP:NOT.ThreeE 07:44, 27 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - per BQZip's stated reasons. Nomination seems awfully frivolous to me. - BillCJ 06:33, 27 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per BQZip. This nomination, coupled with the nominator's other actions toward BQZip and Texas A&M-related articles, may constitute harressment. →Wordbuilder 15:02, 27 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Move to commons and speedy delete this image, I don't know why we would remove this image otherwise from Wikipedia. Cumulus Clouds 16:22, 27 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Not deleted and speedy closed. Review of nom's contributions, including the discussion at Image talk:Aggie Band Drum Major.JPG, and the warnings left on nom's talk page clearly show that this was deliberate harrassment aimed at BQZip01; I'd reconsider, however, if nom attempts to IfD the image Image:WM2006 0060.jpg under the same criteria. Closed as kee as a bad faith nom and an obvious snow. AKRadeckiSpeaketh 17:15, 27 October 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.
Copyright violation. No source is provided, and there is no indication the image has been released under the terms of the GFDL. -- RG2 06:26, 27 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weed Harper is a sock puppet of banned user Herschelkrustofsky. This picture was uploaded after ArbCom instituted a ban on HK against promoting LaRouche and/or editing any articles relating to Lyndon LaRouche and his movement. ArbCom would later find that HK created a number of socks which he used to circumvent the ban, including the username Weed Harper. This image was uploaded after HK's ban on editing LaRouche-related articles and in direct contravention to that ban. Because of this and other related edits, ArbCom opened LaRouche 2, in which HK would be banned and his socks uncovered. This image should be deleted to come into compliance with ArbCom's original ban on HK against editing LaRouche related materials. This image and others uploaded by HK were previously listed under speedy deletion, and though several of them were deleted, an administrator dissented (without explanation) in this case and requested this image be listed here. Cumulus Clouds 16:17, 27 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with this logic. The image was uploaded and exists under false pretences, since we've established that "Weed Harper" doesn't exist as a unique editor, but rather as a sock of another user. ·:· Will Beback·:· 19:34, 27 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Point of information: the image was uploaded on September 21, 2004, and Weed Harper was not banned until January of 2005, so your logic is flawed. Anyway, the question ought to be, is the image helpful to the project? --Masai warrior 06:17, 28 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
But Herschelkrustofsky, who was using Weed Harper as a sock, uploaded the image in violation of his ban from ArbCom on uploading or modifying any information related to Lyndon LaRouche. The logic here has nothing to do with when Weed Harper was banned, but rather when the image was uploaded and whether or not that was in compliance with ArbCom's initial rulings in LaRouche 1. Cumulus Clouds 17:02, 28 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This cannot possibly be true unless Herschelkrustofsky boarded a time machine after he was banned in 2005, and went back to upload the photo in 2004. --Masai warrior 13:48, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The ban I'm talking about was on the substance of Herschelkrustofsky's edits, as ruled by the Arbitration Committee in LaRouche 1 on August 2, 2004. HK knowingly subverted this block with a sock puppet and uploaded this image which violates the rulings in LaRouche 1 and as such should be deleted. The only relevance that LaRouche 2 bears on this case is that HK would later be blocked from editing because of his violations in LaRouche 1. Cumulus Clouds 17:59, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Here is the direct quote from ArbCom's Enforcement section in LaRouche 1: "Supporters of Lyndon LaRouche are instructed not to add references to Lyndon directly to articles except where they are highly relevant, and not to engage in activities that might be perceived as "promotion" of Lyndon LaRouche." I would argue that this picture is not "highly relevant" since it is a very poor picture of a group of people standing in a room. In addition, HK knowingly uploaded this picture in direct violation of the ban by trying to circumvent the ban with a sock puppet. Since HK is currently banned for his violations in editing LaRouche related articles, this image should be deleted to come into compliance with both rulings in LaRouche 1 and 2. Cumulus Clouds 17:07, 28 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I happen to find this picture very interesting, and I do find it "highly relevant" as a view into one part of the LaRouche Youth Movement. Plus, it's been around forever. Do you have a better picture? Grandmasterka 10:54, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The seniority of the image in this case shouldn't be considered because it isn't relevant to any of the facts under debate. I would argue that you find the picture interesting because of the caption, since nothing in the picture identifies this as the LaRouche Youth Movement. It's also very low resolution. This picture cannot therefore provide any substantive aid to the article in which it's displayed, and is only considered useful because of its own caption, which may be OR anyway. Cumulus Clouds 14:49, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You misrepresent me - the picture shows me that the LaRouche movement choir is very large, well-organized and diverse, things beyond what simple words would do to describe it in my opinion, and things that help give the topic as a whole some perspective. (The non-use of uniforms is interesting as well.) I think the picture quality is fine, and if you have something better, by all means upload it. The "seniority" of the picture (as you put it) matters in that I would think if it was that bad and irrelevant it would have been removed and stayed removed in the ~three years it's been there. It certainly made me more interested in this topic when I first saw it a while back. I do admit, I have some choir background. Grandmasterka 01:05, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Since you claim this picture has influenced your opinion of that movement, I have to ask, why do you believe this picture is of the LYM? Cumulus Clouds 01:34, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
So who do we believe is the actual owner of the image, and have they given proper consent for its release under GFDL? I don't think that the length of time it's been here, the quality of the image, or its informativeness are germane. If we think the image was uploaded under false pretences we should remove it. ·:· Will Beback·:· 20:29, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note - Masai warrior has been blocked for engaging in "tendentious editing" of LaRouche related articles, namely for removing negative materials from LaRouche's biography. For purposes of community consensus, MW's (somewhat confusing) objections should be ignored because of the bias evidenced by the block. Cumulus Clouds 07:18, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I think we're on the edge of this debate coming to a no-consensus close, but given no response to Will Beback's concerns, I'm going to move to delete it. If there are new concerns or rebuttals, please feel free to bring them up on my talk page. -- RG2 12:29, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
UE - Picture is a cartoon that does not aid the article in a substantial way. More than likely, it will tend to distract readers from the content in the article itself. The cartoon also contains text which may qualify as OR, though I leave that up to the discretion of community consensus. Cumulus Clouds 20:56, 27 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This image should be deleted under rationale similar to LYM.jpg, however in this case it was uploaded by a different sock of Herschelkrustofsky (MaplePorter) after HK's ban in LaRouche 2. Additionally, it is a poor quality image that does not contribute significantly to the article and includes text which may be used in attempt to circumvent WP:OR to advance a controversial point of view. Cumulus Clouds 21:21, 27 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with this assertion. The image was uploaded under false pretenses by a sock puppet. The image is not being criticized and is simply an illustration, so does not meet the fair use criterion. ·:· Will Beback·:· 22:08, 27 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Replaceable fair use. I have this at my library and would be able to get a free picture of it. (Note: kind of useless to notify uploader...) ALTON.ıl 23:53, 27 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
