Wikipedia talk:Articles for deletion/Steve Azzara

"inappropriate" images
Two images were removed as "inappropriate". If Azzara's article remains, they seem entirely appropriate. Also, it's entirely appropriate that somebody hoping that the article will remain should have these images. I've therefore readded them.

Anyone who wants to remove them again as "inappropriate" should first argue their inappropriateness. -- Hoary (talk) 07:17, 30 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Appropriate? Wikipedia is not censored (see Bill Henson, a photographer who has been slammed for child pornography, with no pages on the article). Kids who click 'Random Page' might stumble upon this page, seeing the nude images. I removed those images out of common sense.
 * Apparently these two images have been uploaded by a newbie who is not familiar with policy, and whose only edits are to the article, its AfD and the two uploaded images. In the policy, it clearly states that you are not allowed to show inappropriate images, unless for example, you show an image or a diagram of a penis in 'Penis' (describing what it looks like, and how it works). In this article, the pictures do not refer to why this guy is famous (there are other safe images in there) and instead are already provided in the text. His image uploads are vandalism and your readding them back shows a WP:COI/WP:POINT. In case you didn't see, you can see the breasts and the stance in 'Inappropriate pic No.1' and the posture in 'No.2'.
 * And can you please apologise for your incivil sarcasm that you added to my AfD comment you added on Wednesday. You look suspicious as a sock, seeing the edit history in the page. And please do not have a double personality - you nominated this for deletion, but you support the newbie's inappropriate images - ÆÅM «(fætsøn!) 23:41, 1 November 2008 (UTC)


 * It's rare for a single comment to charge me with having a conflict of interest, being disruptive, incivil, and sarcastic, and being a sockpuppet and having a double personality. Unusually bracing for my first glimpse of Wikipedia after my morning oats 'n' coffee. &para; Yes indeed, kids might chance on this page. And then they'd see any images that appeared within it. "you can see the breasts and the stance in 'Inappropriate pic No.1' and the posture in 'No.2'" (i) You have to search for the breasts. (ii) Women have breasts. Kids know that. And if they want to explore, the web offers squillions of large, explicit, color photos of them. (iii) What about the stance and posture? &para; "His image uploads are vandalism" I'll pretend for a moment that they're mildly pornographic. (After all, by Saudi or Victorian standards, they might be.) You've just said that they were uploaded by "a newbie who is not familiar with policy". Is he malevolent, or ignorant? &para; "your readding them back shows a WP:COI/WP:POINT" What interest of mine brings a conflict? &para; "And can you please apologise for your incivil sarcasm that you added to my AfD comment you added on Wednesday." There's nothing to apologize for. My comment stands. &para; "You look suspicious as a sock, seeing the edit history in the page. And please do not have a double personality - you nominated this for deletion, but you support the newbie's inappropriate images" (i) Of whom might I be a sock? Whoever it is, feel free to ask for a "checkuser" or whatever. (ii) Yes, I nominated this for deletion, and no I see nothing inappropriate about either the content of the images or their (re)addition by the other side in this dispute. The proponents of an article undergoing the AfD process are always welcome to attempt to improve the article so that the AfD process ends with "keep", or even to the point where the nominator is persuaded that he was wrong and withdraws the nomination. I've been persuaded of this before, and I intend to keep an open mind about the merits of this and any article. &para; However, there are legitimate concerns about the copyright status of the images. I was hazily aware of them earlier but too lazy to act on them; Crusio did just that. -- Hoary (talk) 01:39, 2 November 2008 (UTC) minor revision 05:11, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

The exchange above was originally posted to Talk:Steve Azzara. As that talk page has been deleted and some of the exchange is about this AfD, I thought its reposting here might be of some minor value.

I've no intention of wallowing in an argument that I perhaps should have allowed to disappear into Wiki-oblivion, and would certainly not take the lack of any further response to mean that my opponent above (or anybody) concedes that he has "lost" the argument; it's perfectly imaginable that I'm wrong and he's right (and justifiably bored). -- Hoary (talk) 06:09, 3 November 2008 (UTC)