- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. 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.
The result was
unable to be acted upon by en: community, as media is at Wikimedia Commons. See commons:Template:Deletion requests for nominating Commons images for deletion. Jkelly 18:43, 14 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Uploaded by Geogre (notify | contribs). Divisive, non-encyclopaedic. --Ligulem 18:04, 14 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Appears to be a WP:POINT action vis a vis Wikipedia:Categories for deletion#Category:Administrators open to recall. Keep. —Bunchofgrapes (talk) 18:13, 14 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Thank you for AGF. I have always found this banner to be divisive. I have tolerated it until now. Since everybody here starts to find everything divisive, I'm now free to express that I find this box extremely divisive. Also the notion of a rouge-admin is highly divisive. Yes, if you find Category:Administrators open to recall divisve, then I find this picture divisive too. And much more harmful than Category:Administrators open to recall. --Ligulem 18:22, 14 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: the image is in frequent use as a humorous flag. I'm not sure who can be excluded by a "divisive" use, since the only group satirized by it are those who cannot spell "rogue." That's a fairly small set. Further, it is generally self-applied and not done via template or userbox. I should rather see it kept than deleted, but, since I uploaded it way back, I'll let the community speak for itself. Geogre 18:15, 14 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Please speedy close this, WP:POINT. Nobody's offended by that image, please. - CrazyRussian talk/email 18:23, 14 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- I must agree - this image doesn't hurt anyone and it's a completely free image for that matter. Cowman109Talk 18:26, 14 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Wrong forum: this image is on Commons and should be discussed there. I favor keep, in any case. Kelly Martin (talk) 18:27, 14 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm not sure how it's divisive; it's meant to be light-hearted. -- tariqabjotu 18:30, 14 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - it's not the image that's divisive, but the actual admins who act in a manner that is characterized by a shade of red. --badlydrawnjeff talk 18:32, 14 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- I must also add that this banner was used by an Italian terrorist organisation, who kidnapped and murdered an italian prime minister. See the picture at Red Brigades. Is this what you want to be affiliated with? There are people in the world that find this offensive. --Ligulem 18:38, 14 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- This EXACT image?? I find the hammer and sickle offensive but have no problem with others using it for things either. ++Lar: t/c 18:40, 14 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- When I uploaded it and Photoshopped it, I was concerned that Italians might be offended. Had this been based on a complaint that it seemed to glamorize a terrorist group, I would have pleaded "no contest." However, where I got the idea for the image was not from the Red Brigades, but from The Clash, who used it for their records. No matter how revolutionary you think The Clash were, they weren't actually successful in leading The Revolution or killing anyone. Geogre 18:48, 14 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - As for take this discussion to Commons? maybe maybe not. It's technically the wrong forum here, yes, but this is where the image is used... discussion on Commons might not find the right audience. That said, I am proud to have been awarded this image, it signifies my membership in a category (recently surviving a CfD by the way) of admins who are willing to Do The Right Thing without letting process wonkism stop them. I see no dichotomy with this category and admins open to recall (or else I wouldn't have asked about both on recent RfAs) and am baffled at any connection. ++Lar: t/c 18:40, 14 August 2006 (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.