Opinions

• Keep I've made my position quite clear on this on the foundation-l list. This is "OMG! I don't like it." There is no valid deletion criteria listed. --Brianmc 11:35, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

As you've probably guessed, both DragonFire1024 and I are not Commons regulars, hence the oppose votes as opposed to keep/delete. What's the norm for Commons - or will these be kept as is? And, as an aside, this was first brought up on the foundation-l mailing list under the impression it was an appeal to the board to "delete this terribly offensive content" (paraphrase). --Brianmc 12:03, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

I converted both your votes to use {{vk}}. I hope you don't mind. -- Bryan (talk to me) 12:07, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

Thank you. I'm glad to see I judged Commons appropriately on this issue and my comments on foundation-l about not deleting this stuff - so far - are borne out by the voting. --Brianmc 13:27, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

• Keep I think this request shows a fundamental misunderstanding of the role of a media bank. A mass deletion request like this for non copyright violation reasons is unlikely to succeed. I do not believe any of the reasons you have stated are sufficient reasons for deletion from commons, I can conceive of valid uses for all the images of this group that I have looked at, most have been quite valid, pointed, political cartoons about politicians and their actions. Good taste is not their strong point, but then they are about very distasteful events that involve trivial things like people getting killed. --Tony Wills 11:43, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

 Comment The only common thread seems to be the cartoonist, some are relatively 'mild', they can not be considered as a group to delete, your best bet would be to pick off images like Image:Alan_dershowitz_by_Latuff.jpg for their deformation potential --Tony Wills 12:15, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

"...deformation potential..." - get it?!? Hahahahah! Anyway, people who put themselves into the public eye through public service are pretty exempt from defamation protection, especially about their public service. And, in this particular case, we're archiving images already in the public eye elsewhere. -- Peter Blaise Peterblaise 13:55, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

• Keep (keep images) There is no valid reason to delete any of these images. There is no copyvio, and they are properly formatted. Commons etc is not censored. DragonFire1024 11:59, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
• Keep Commons is not censored. I'm not yet sure whether or not we should include the cartoons in their subjects main galleries, but that is anyways a different matter. -- Bryan (talk to me) 12:04, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
• Keep - not a valid reason for deletion even if the allegations were true. // Liftarn
• Keep "...shocking..." is reason enough to KEEP 'em! Now, on the other hand, Hitler would have quashed cartoons against him. If we don't want to be compared to Hitler, then let's not act like Hitler in trying to quash criticism and ridicule against us, as illustrated in these cartoons! (See reaction) By the way, thanks for leading us to Latuff's cartoons - GREAT! -- Peter Blaise Peterblaise 12:25, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

• Godwin's law. -- Bryan (talk to me) 18:35, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

• I know, I know. But Hitler's such a clear example of so many wrong things that it hard to resist (especially in this context). Peterblaise 19:10, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

• Keep - do I like them - no, not all of them. Will they offend someone - probably. However there is plenty of material out there like that. Can I see a valid reason for deleting them, no --Herby ^{talk thyme} 12:29, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
• Keep - If these are controversial or offensive, then all the more reason to keep. Free speech may not fly too far around here because that's not really to do with project scope, but there's a serious issue here. Commons isn't censored - so who cares if you're offended?! I may be too, but that's not a reason to delete anything. I thought the response on foundation-l would have been enough to deter this spurious nomination which seems to be going nowhere. —the preceding unsigned comment was added by Mike.lifeguard (talk • contribs)
• Keep per Tony Willis, Brianmc, et al -- Infrogmation 14:07, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
• KeepThe criteria of usefulness needs examining. This is not the Wikipedia. It's a media collection for use, now and in the future, by all the Wikimedia projects. That includes Wikipedia articles yet to be written and Wikiversity courses yet to be created. The use to which images are put will be determined by the imagination and creativity of future editors; of course this will be limited by the lack of imagination of we editors who delete potentially useful media. --Simonxag 15:11, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
• Keep Please also request to burn all archives of «Известия», «Крокодил», «Вожык» and all books about Кукрыниксы. --EugeneZelenko 16:02, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
• Keep - I find some of these cartoons offensive and overdone. But I am also against censoring stuff because people find something offensive. If people (like me for instance) find something offensive they have the choice not to look at something. Waerth 16:06, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
• Keep Commons is not and should not be censored --Markie 16:09, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
• Keep Not censored, nothing wrong. --Oldak Quill 16:56, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
• Keep, the cartoons probably shouldn't be featured on main gallery pages of the people they represent like Ariel Sharon and the likes, but commons isn't censored and there's a place for these images in the right context. Yonatan ^talk 17:15, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
• Keep Worrying tendency is to see pushing of censorship. However, I am glad to see a completely opposite picture here, at Commons. --Millosh 17:56, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
• Keep No valid reason for mass deletion. Yann 19:58, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
• Keep We're not censored, the images may prove useful for some purpose on some project. Nick 20:38, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

Speedy kept per overwhelming votes. -- Infrogmation 21:19, 6 December 2007 (UTC)