Wikipedia:Files for deletion/Replaceable fair use/File:CheFlagGate.jpg

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of a fair use image as a replaceable image. Please do not modify it.

The result was to delete the image.

The "discussion" of the image isn't even notable enough to have its own article or even notable enough to have a significant place in a related article. The image was slipped into Che Guevara in popular culture after it was rejected from Barack Obama presidential campaign, 2008. Now, it is in no articles and is orphaned. →Wordbuilder (talk) 05:20, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

On 23 Feb, image was not orphaned (despite Wordbuilder's ironically fitting "guerrilla" revert at the Che Guevara in popular culture article!) :^) And, meanwhile, several editors still argue over on Barack Obama presidential campaign, 2008's discussion page that the image would be an appropriate contribution there, nonetheless the article is still locked at the moment due to an unrelated edit war. --Justmeherenow (talk) 19:18, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

(Self-correction, due my momentarily having forgetten the particulars of Wordbuilder's reverts): While s/he only appropriately tagged the caption and didn't revert at Che Guevara in popular culture, s/he did initially delete text at Barack Obama presidential campaign, 2008 referencing the incident. --Justmeherenow (talk) 19:33, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

Just to make it clear, at the time I referred to this image as orphaned, it was indeed orphaned. It had been removed from Che Guevara in popular culture by another editor after I tagged it (check the timestamps). Justmeherenow later re-inserted it. →Wordbuilder (talk) 19:44, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

Uh, OK, a quick re-check! I reinstated image in referenced article 23 Feb at 0516 hours. Wordbuilder referenced it above as orphaned at 0520 hours (four minutes later). :^) --Justmeherenow (talk) 20:04, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

I should have heeded my own advice and checked the timestamp. You must have put the pic back as I was typing my message. My mistake. →Wordbuilder (talk) 20:17, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

"María Isabel has been identified as being Captain 002 of Obama's Houston campaign, and she is also president of the Houston Obama Leadership Team." "Sen. Barack Obama's campaign said...We were disappointed to see this picture because it is both offensive to many Cuban Americans and Americans of all backgrounds, and because it does not reflect Senator Obama's views, the Democratic presidential hopeful's campaign said in a press release to El Nuevo Herald." "...the image of the deceased Argentine revolutionary, whom the majority of Cuban exiles in the United States holds responsible for the executions of hundreds...became the target of numerous conservative blogs and the main topic of discussion on Miami's Cuban radio stations."

If Isabel doesn't say it was an ignorant mistake and/or Obama doesn't distance himself from her as well as the image this one becomes a legit issue against him. Dunno how much traction this either has or will get (but it's alleged - I haven't checked this out - that American POWs were tortured by Cuban agents in Vietnam, so it's hard to imagine McCain supporters leaving this one alone if that's true), but if the issue is covered with more than a sentence use of the image will, I think, be fair use. Deletion of the image on the grounds that it is not necessary at Radical Chic will not prejudice a future reappearance in campaign articles. Andyvphil (talk) 10:45, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

Adding this to Chic (style) is just an effort to propagate its presence on Wikipedia. It's not needed in Che Guevara in popular culture since free images are available to illustrate that subject. It is also not needed in Chic (style) since there are free images to illustrate that subject as well. →Wordbuilder (talk) 01:32, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

It can be described using simply text. нмŵוτнτ 00:47, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it.