Commons:Deletion requests/File:Kogaru1.jpg
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.
File:Kogaru1.jpg[edit]
- Probably under copyright (uploader probably lied about that)
- Upload by banned user.
See Commons:Deletion requests/Files by User:Midnight68 for verification on both points. Herostratus (talk) 03:13, 14 March 2011 (UTC)
Keep Of course, it's under copyright, but it was released by the author under a free license. There is no strong ground for suspecting User:Midnight68 in plagiarism, see Commons:Undeletion requests/Archive/2010-08#File:Kogaru1.jpg -- he has provided preliminary sketches for this picture. #2 is irrelevant, we do not delete works by banned users per se (BTW the user was banned without any serious reason). Trycatch (talk) 04:03, 14 March 2011 (UTC)
- Where are the preliminary sketches? Herostratus (talk) 03:10, 16 March 2011 (UTC)
- Based on the understanding of the link provided : here Loreleil (talk) 15:43, 16 March 2011 (UTC)
- Ah, thank you. Herostratus (talk) 18:31, 16 March 2011 (UTC)
- Based on the understanding of the link provided : here Loreleil (talk) 15:43, 16 March 2011 (UTC)
- Where are the preliminary sketches? Herostratus (talk) 03:10, 16 March 2011 (UTC)
Comment That DR did not delete this image. So why should this image be deleted now. If the Admins in the discussion agree that the uploader is the author, then this image can likely be kept. The uploader was rightly banned for abusive behaviour (trolling) but not copyright violations which would likely require this image file to be removed from Commons, I believe. Regards, --Leoboudv (talk) 05:02, 14 March 2011 (UTC)
- Keep - the status of a user doesn't matter. If they create it - and there appears to be very good indication he did - then regardless of what we at Wikipedia do to his account at any time, it does not change his decision to release a work.Jinnai (talk) 21:35, 14 March 2011 (UTC)
Keep Per above, this image was being used in the wikipedia article as an example of fanservice, it is of free use. - 205.173.154.21 21:44, 14 March 2011 (UTC)- Keep as the image is within Common's scope and the copyright ownership has already been checked out. However, I do have an issue with the "Kogaru Diaries 1" along the side and I think it should be cropped out. TheFarix (talk) 01:05, 16 March 2011 (UTC)
Keep No reason to doubt the permission given. I agree the side-banner could be cropped, but that - and usage - is a matter for local wiki consideration (ie they can create a derivative if they like). Chzz ► 03:23, 16 March 2011 (UTC)- weak
Keep, based on my knowledge of us law, no problem with "lolicon" images (but on many countries laws are really a mess upon such topics), that the reason why it's a weak support. Copyright doesn't seem to be problematic (based on the previous deletion request). The last point is pointless for a deletion request. Loreleil (talk) 15:46, 16 March 2011 (UTC) - Based on the link that Lt Powers provided, I now think it is probably true that this is the user's own work (although he's a complicated and odd case, so...). So there's the question of work by a banned user. Not being a Commons regular I don't know what the rule for that is (or if there is one). I assume that work uploaded by a banned user after his banning (by making a new account) isn't allowed, but what about before? Does Commons take the stance of encouraging people to think "Well, I can troll Commons (and through that the entire range of Foundation projects), and sure, I'll get kicked out, but my 'contributions' will live on to disrupt, damage, and confound Foundation projects for (I hope!) years, and there's nothing they can do about that", or not? Herostratus (talk) 23:44, 18 March 2011 (UTC)
- This image does not live on to "disrupt, damage, and confound Foundation projects" though as explained above, it is a fair use image being used in the article "Fan service" over at wikipedia, that to me is an image serving a purpose. - 205.173.154.21 15:41, 20 March 2011 (UTC)
- I don't know if commons has a similar policy, but wikipedia has assume good faith and there's no reason to believe he created this to "troll" the Foundation. People can and do act differently at different times and to different people.Jinnai (talk) 22:52, 20 March 2011 (UTC)
- Based on what I could read about the user and his behavious and why he has been blocked, I can't say that he was a "troll", I can't say also that he was willing to disrupt the system with his contribution... But I can say that WP:AGF has not been taken into account during the previous Deletion Request (and the Block : no clear reason for infinite block, no clear discussion or warning), based on my analysis but I might have missed something (copyviolation was already considered as false but some logs show that the speed deletion was based on copyvio problem ....). The main stuff that I could see : he has only been working on "highly" sensitive matter. Loreleil (talk) 09:44, 21 March 2011 (UTC)
- The statement that we should have to assume good faith about a user who has been banned for life is ridiculous and annoying. We assume good faith up to a point, after which evidence of good faith has to be provided, and being banned for life is a good ways past that point. "Assume good faith" is not intended to prevent a person being being called out for egregious toxic behavior, for goodness sake. If you think he should be reinstated take it up with the responsible parties. Absent that I'd lay off this particular line of reasoning. Herostratus (talk) 06:53, 23 March 2011 (UTC)
- If that is the case seeing the current consensus in this article that the image does not violate anything, and is useful to keep why not someone else just reupload it? Problem solved. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 02:16, 24 March 2011 (UTC)
- The image was uploaded before the individual was banned. But the ban does not invalidate all of their contributions before the ban took place. The image either has to be out of scope (it's use on several articles), does not have a clear copyright (previously clarified), or does not have a valid free-use licensees (it's licensed under CC-BY-SA). However, all of your arguments have been to attack the uploader. This discussion should be about the image, not its creator and/or uploader. TheFarix (talk) 03:08, 24 March 2011 (UTC)
- The statement that we should have to assume good faith about a user who has been banned for life is ridiculous and annoying. We assume good faith up to a point, after which evidence of good faith has to be provided, and being banned for life is a good ways past that point. "Assume good faith" is not intended to prevent a person being being called out for egregious toxic behavior, for goodness sake. If you think he should be reinstated take it up with the responsible parties. Absent that I'd lay off this particular line of reasoning. Herostratus (talk) 06:53, 23 March 2011 (UTC)
- Based on what I could read about the user and his behavious and why he has been blocked, I can't say that he was a "troll", I can't say also that he was willing to disrupt the system with his contribution... But I can say that WP:AGF has not been taken into account during the previous Deletion Request (and the Block : no clear reason for infinite block, no clear discussion or warning), based on my analysis but I might have missed something (copyviolation was already considered as false but some logs show that the speed deletion was based on copyvio problem ....). The main stuff that I could see : he has only been working on "highly" sensitive matter. Loreleil (talk) 09:44, 21 March 2011 (UTC)
Keep Evidence of authorship is good. File is in use on multiple projects. Even if the uploader created this in bad faith, we have no policy-based reason to delete a perfectly useful, permissible image. Jujutacular talk 12:26, 23 March 2011 (UTC)
Kept: Per consensus — [ Tanvir | Talk ] 04:03, 28 March 2011 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.
File:Kogaru1.jpg 2[edit]
The author of File:Kogaru1.jpg is TGcomix. (potentially libelous information was removed. Trycatch (talk) 03:21, 1 April 2011 (UTC)) He's banned from DeviantArt. He's banned from Commons. And he's blocked from Wikipedia. TGcomix even earned himself an Encyclopedia Dramatica article. Please view his SpankingArtWiki article. File:Kogaru1.jpg is from TGcomix's Kogaru Diaries. There's nude and abused children in it. TG comix is also the author of Glory Bee, Selina the Moon Girl, Miho-Chan, Victory Girl, and Ikusa no Yukai.
TGcomix has a fetish for spanking and children's panties. Using TGcomix's artwork is more than bad taste; it's dangerous. Imagine the scandal if a children's rights organization or news agency finds out. (potentially libelous information was removed. Trycatch (talk) 03:21, 1 April 2011 (UTC)) --Michaeldsuarez (talk) 02:29, 1 April 2011 (UTC)
- Here's some archives of TGcomix's deleted images on Commons:
- http://www.webcitation.org/5rnBz43UU
- http://www.webcitation.org/5rnC0fdwP
- http://www.webcitation.org/5rnC278rM
- http://www.webcitation.org/5rnC44sYu
- http://www.webcitation.org/5rnC7WxCa
- http://www.webcitation.org/5rnBsbZ67
- http://www.webcitation.org/5rnBxRysQ
- http://www.webcitation.org/5rnBvhNSH
- http://www.webcitation.org/5rn7z7BOv
- As seen by these, hosting any sort of image related to "Kogaru Diaries" or TGcomix is an extremely bad idea. --Michaeldsuarez (talk) 02:51, 1 April 2011 (UTC)
Keep this one per the above discussion; note that the real name of the artist appears to be Gauis Marius (NSFW). — Jeff G. ツ 16:04, 1 April 2011 (UTC)
- wikipedia:Gaius_Marius – Are you sure it isn't another pseudonym? --Michaeldsuarez (talk) 16:35, 1 April 2011 (UTC)
- Comment – I just realized that TGcomix's artwork has sneaked its way back onto Commons:
- File:Gender_school_1.jpg – Paul Harald Kaspar placed "Own work" as the source and listed Blackshade as the author, but Paul Harald Kaspar links to his own userpage. Paul Harald Kaspar is obviously a sockpuppet created in order to evade Midnight68's ban.
- File:Genderschool2a.jpg
- File:Kogaru_3.jpg – Batzarro placed "Own work" as the source and listed Blackshade9 as the author, but Batzarro links to his own userpage. Batzarro is obviously a sockpuppet created in order to evade Midnight68's ban.
- Category:Sockpuppets_of_Midnight68 – Midnight68 has operated sockpuppets here in the past.
- As a result, I would like to continue this discussion at Commons:Deletion requests/Files by User:Midnight68 2 instead. Would that be alright? --Michaeldsuarez (talk) 17:26, 1 April 2011 (UTC)
- Keep These issues were addressed in the last nomination that was closed four days before be this second nomination. Renominating something so close to a solid consensus is usually grounds for a speedy closed over on Wikipeida for disruption. (w:WP:KEEPLISTINGTILLITGETSDELETED). TheFarix (talk) 20:40, 3 April 2011 (UTC)
- The previous deletion request doesn't even mention "Kogaru Diaries". Herostratus created the previous deletion request due to copyright concerns, not for the concerns about the nature of "Kogaru Diaries". I'm bringing up new ideas that weren't discussed before. This isn't a mirror of the previous discussion. --Michaeldsuarez (talk) 01:16, 7 April 2011 (UTC)
Delete Does this really have to go through another deletion request, it was kept by a solid consensus three days ago above with everybody for keep but the nom. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 20:30, 4 April 2011 (UTC)
-
- After seeing the link below, this should be removed not because it is a picture from a banned user but due to it's promotion of the fan site and per the links below. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 11:06, 8 April 2011 (UTC)
- Keep for attempt of disrupting wikipedia + commons (based on that search : google1 I suspect that there is a global attempt to control content inside WP-EN and Commons). It also seems that not the only "deletion request" that has been reopened because the result didn't fill their goal (one article in WP:EN). it also seems that this is a "war" that is beeing occuring in the previously cited "wiki" (encyclopediadramatica) based on the information we can found google2 (which shows why we have Michaeldsuarez fighting against him and his image on commons). This site has been blacklisted on all wiki (meta:Spam blacklist) due to [1]. Loreleil (talk) 16:05, 5 April 2011 (UTC)
- TGcomix / Rizden is actually pretty fond of me. Our interactions are actually quite friendly and polite. I just feel that it's wrong to host artwork that treat children as sex objects, especially when the artist has such a negative reputation. This isn't about Encyclopedia Dramatica or a "war". If it were so, then I wouldn't be the only ED member here. Couldn't we use images of adults instead? --Michaeldsuarez (talk) 21:07, 6 April 2011 (UTC)
- In fact, the nature of our conversations are so polite that TGcomix initially believed that someone was impersonating me here. We don't share any animosity with each other. --Michaeldsuarez (talk) 21:22, 6 April 2011 (UTC)
- Just curious but where does it mention that the image is of that of a child? You can not see the front part of the body here and anime artwork tends to be on the youthful side of the court. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 00:07, 7 April 2011 (UTC)
- http://spankingartwiki.animeotk.com/wiki/File:KogaruSpk.jpg – Read the text on the image. The characters of "Kogaru Diaries" are schoolgirls. --Michaeldsuarez (talk) 01:10, 7 April 2011 (UTC)
- The image description even confirms that it's a child: Comments: Lolicon and Panchira are common forms of fanservice in modern anime games. Also, if you click all of the links I've provided above, you'll see that most, if not all, of TGcomix's art concerns children. --Michaeldsuarez (talk) 01:35, 7 April 2011 (UTC)
- http://spankingartwiki.animeotk.com/wiki/File:KogaruSpk.jpg – Read the text on the image. The characters of "Kogaru Diaries" are schoolgirls. --Michaeldsuarez (talk) 01:10, 7 April 2011 (UTC)
- TGcomix / Rizden is actually pretty fond of me. Our interactions are actually quite friendly and polite. I just feel that it's wrong to host artwork that treat children as sex objects, especially when the artist has such a negative reputation. This isn't about Encyclopedia Dramatica or a "war". If it were so, then I wouldn't be the only ED member here. Couldn't we use images of adults instead? --Michaeldsuarez (talk) 21:07, 6 April 2011 (UTC)
Keep - While IMO the image in question is in poor taste, it does serve an educational purpose where it is used. The author's fetishes and internet history don't seem to have any bearing on this. What's at issue here is policy, and I don't see an argument from policy as to why it should be removed, beyond what was already discussed in the previous nomination. --Kraftlos (talk) 11:32, 7 April 2011 (UTC)
Delete - Having read through the legal links below I do not believe the image in question is in violation of those legal statutes; but the content of the work that the image was taken from is. I think it is reasonable to expect that someone might, after reading the title on the right, search out that work in question which does indeed seem to depict child sexual abuse. So because it does seem to advertise "Kogaru Diaries" I have changed my opinion here. --Kraftlos (talk) 06:51, 8 April 2011 (UTC)
- We can easily crop the advertising part, or change the caption. Trycatch (talk) 08:37, 8 April 2011 (UTC)
- Cropping the image won't change what it is or where is came from. --Michaeldsuarez (talk) 10:39, 8 April 2011 (UTC)
- I agree with that comment. We shouldn't touch anything from Kogaru Diaries with a barge pole; even when cropped, its provenance will always be clear from the file history. It's a piece of artwork from a non-notable roleplaying game with explicit themes of pedophilia and child sex abuse. That's just not a suitable source of media for this or other Wikimedia projects. --JN466 18:37, 8 April 2011 (UTC)
- Cropping the image won't change what it is or where is came from. --Michaeldsuarez (talk) 10:39, 8 April 2011 (UTC)
- We can easily crop the advertising part, or change the caption. Trycatch (talk) 08:37, 8 April 2011 (UTC)
Delete Advertises a work depicting child sexual abuse per [2] and [3] --JN466 00:51, 8 April 2011 (UTC)
Delete Offensive to a significant element of the global public; advertises a game which is offensive to a significant element of the global public. Fred Bauder (talk) 13:36, 8 April 2011 (UTC)
Delete "Kogaru Diaries" is thinly disguised animé/manga pedophile porn, and the Foundation should not give it any platform - Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 19:08, 8 April 2011 (UTC)
Keep I really don't understand what to discuss here. This picture is legal (if it's not legal or even borderline, why it was not deleted by WMF during infamous w:Reporting of child pornography images on Wikimedia Commons?), Commons is not censored, and the picture is heavily in use, therefore in scope. Trycatch (talk) 02:30, 9 April 2011 (UTC)
- Before making such a statement, it would be wise to examine how the image became so heavily used in the first place. TGcomix / Midnight68 added this image is those articles himself: [4], [5], [6], [7], [8], [9]. Midnight68 was promoting the use of his art on all of these Wikimedia projects. --Michaeldsuarez (talk) 02:53, 9 April 2011 (UTC)
- Also, this isn't about freedom of speech or censorship. I'm not purging Wikipedia of every perceptibly offensive images I see (I'm an Encyclopedia Dramatica sysop, for crying out loud!). I'm concerned with this image because of where it came from: the "Kogaru Diaries", which exploits children in order to please the audience sexually. Wikipedia's mission is making knowledge accessible, and the "Kogaru Diaries" doesn't have anything to do with knowledge. If you want free speech, create a blog, join a forum, or participate in a usenet group. Free speech is a means for Wikipedia to spread knowledge, but free speech isn't the end of Wikipedia's means. --Michaeldsuarez (talk) 03:11, 9 April 2011 (UTC)
- At least in Russian Wikipedia (I didn't check other wikis) pictures were added not by Midnight68, but by a highly reputable editor. Anyway the picture is in use for a very long time, and wasn't removed by local users. So it's legitimately in use. The fact you are a sysop at ED doesn't change anything -- so you don't care about photographs of genuine bestiality and explicit sex cartoons with Lisa Simpson (clearly forbidden by 1466A) hosted at ED, but for some reason you are trying to delete this relatively innocent and perfectly legal lolicon cartoon from Commons (hosted here not for "lulz" or private amusement, but for a valid encyclopedic use). Okay, anybody has their own likes and dislikes, sometimes weird -- and you are simply trying to delete without a valid reason a picture that offends personally you. It's an attempt to censor Commons plain and simple, no particularly different from deletion nominations from users, who see scary "porn" in every penis hosted on Commons or see blasphemy in hosted pictures of Muhammad. Trycatch (talk) 15:17, 9 April 2011 (UTC)
- Hypocrite. You censored my comments and told me not to use a certain "p"-word. That "p"-word is concise and easy to understand. You're forcing me to remove concise lexicon from my arguments and telling me to use your politically correct newspeak. Without conciseness, arguments against the state-sponsored status quo are weakened. The newspeak forced upon me is restrictive and makes my arguments unclear and difficult for the audience to understand. The "Kogaru Diaries" meets the characteristics of that "p"-word, yet I'm not allowed to say it. Don't you dare call me a hypocrite. I deleted plenty of pedophile art from ED:
http://encyclopediadramatica.com/index.php?title=Rugrats&diff=1998719871&oldid=1998719044. And just for you, I deleted all of the illegal Simpsons crap:http://encyclopediadramatica.com/index.php?title=The_Simpsons&diff=1998764912&oldid=1998706975. I fail to see how that image is of any encyclopedic use. They are better images of panchira from more reputable artists. --Michaeldsuarez (talk) 16:55, 9 April 2011 (UTC)- I've just removed only possible libel and grossly inappropriate personal attack that should be immediately removed on sight per explicit text of w:WP:CHILDPROTECT -- use any language you want, but please, abstain from potentially libelous statements about other users. "They are better images of panchira from more reputable artists." -- OK. Upload them, replace this picture in articles, then it can be easily deleted here and everyone will be happy. Trycatch (talk) 17:32, 9 April 2011 (UTC)
- I take back back then. I also can't find fee images of anime / manga panchira (although there are plenty of copyrighted ones), so I'll take back too. The best avenue would be to ask someone to draw a new image (or use the images 8Midnight6 linked to). --Michaeldsuarez (talk) 23:22, 9 April 2011 (UTC)
- I've just removed only possible libel and grossly inappropriate personal attack that should be immediately removed on sight per explicit text of w:WP:CHILDPROTECT -- use any language you want, but please, abstain from potentially libelous statements about other users. "They are better images of panchira from more reputable artists." -- OK. Upload them, replace this picture in articles, then it can be easily deleted here and everyone will be happy. Trycatch (talk) 17:32, 9 April 2011 (UTC)
- Hypocrite. You censored my comments and told me not to use a certain "p"-word. That "p"-word is concise and easy to understand. You're forcing me to remove concise lexicon from my arguments and telling me to use your politically correct newspeak. Without conciseness, arguments against the state-sponsored status quo are weakened. The newspeak forced upon me is restrictive and makes my arguments unclear and difficult for the audience to understand. The "Kogaru Diaries" meets the characteristics of that "p"-word, yet I'm not allowed to say it. Don't you dare call me a hypocrite. I deleted plenty of pedophile art from ED:
- At least in Russian Wikipedia (I didn't check other wikis) pictures were added not by Midnight68, but by a highly reputable editor. Anyway the picture is in use for a very long time, and wasn't removed by local users. So it's legitimately in use. The fact you are a sysop at ED doesn't change anything -- so you don't care about photographs of genuine bestiality and explicit sex cartoons with Lisa Simpson (clearly forbidden by 1466A) hosted at ED, but for some reason you are trying to delete this relatively innocent and perfectly legal lolicon cartoon from Commons (hosted here not for "lulz" or private amusement, but for a valid encyclopedic use). Okay, anybody has their own likes and dislikes, sometimes weird -- and you are simply trying to delete without a valid reason a picture that offends personally you. It's an attempt to censor Commons plain and simple, no particularly different from deletion nominations from users, who see scary "porn" in every penis hosted on Commons or see blasphemy in hosted pictures of Muhammad. Trycatch (talk) 15:17, 9 April 2011 (UTC)
- Also, this isn't about freedom of speech or censorship. I'm not purging Wikipedia of every perceptibly offensive images I see (I'm an Encyclopedia Dramatica sysop, for crying out loud!). I'm concerned with this image because of where it came from: the "Kogaru Diaries", which exploits children in order to please the audience sexually. Wikipedia's mission is making knowledge accessible, and the "Kogaru Diaries" doesn't have anything to do with knowledge. If you want free speech, create a blog, join a forum, or participate in a usenet group. Free speech is a means for Wikipedia to spread knowledge, but free speech isn't the end of Wikipedia's means. --Michaeldsuarez (talk) 03:11, 9 April 2011 (UTC)
- Before making such a statement, it would be wise to examine how the image became so heavily used in the first place. TGcomix / Midnight68 added this image is those articles himself: [4], [5], [6], [7], [8], [9]. Midnight68 was promoting the use of his art on all of these Wikimedia projects. --Michaeldsuarez (talk) 02:53, 9 April 2011 (UTC)
Delete - this kind of stuff has no place here. Once in a while, we ought to have some standards. --UserB (talk) 13:01, 9 April 2011 (UTC)
Comment - The more you try to crush the material you consider questionable, the more it will slip through the cracks of the crushing machine. Meanwhile, the power of the Dark Ones grows ever stronger. 68Midnight (talk) 13:55, 9 April 2011 (UTC)
- Every repost of already deleted content will be speedily deleted on sight. Trycatch (talk) 15:17, 9 April 2011 (UTC)
Keep, not illegal, illustration an existing kind of "art". ----MGuf (d) 15:33, 9 April 2011 (UTC)
-
-
-
- Here's a valid substitute for the Panchira files. thumb|300px Many thanks to Raymond for taking the time to follow women and flash them. It may be a little creepy, but it's for the good of free culture. 6Midnight8 (talk) 18:53, 9 April 2011 (UTC)
-
-
By the way, please cringe while i post the following links to a variety of Japanese material.
8Midnight6 (talk) 19:31, 9 April 2011 (UTC)
- Most of those images would fall under lolicon and not fan service in general. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 23:02, 9 April 2011 (UTC)
- Those images don't anything to do with "Kogaru Diaries", so I don't have anything to cringe or object to. In fact, those images are better examples of panchira than the Kogaru image. Can Wikipedia use these images under fair use? --Michaeldsuarez (talk) 23:22, 9 April 2011 (UTC)
- Most likely not those images are from the anime series Kodomo no jikan and are not under fair use. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 23:49, 9 April 2011 (UTC)
- It can't be uploaded as fair use, because these pictures are replaceable, thus violating the first criterion of NFCC. Moreover, fair use is not an option for numerous Wikipedias that do not allow non-free content (including Dutch, Sweden, Polish, Spanish and Deutsch WPs). Trycatch (talk) 02:39, 10 April 2011 (UTC)
- Comment - I have uploaded a non-advert version of the image so please make votes based on the current one, which addressed the problems of it being an advertisement for a website.Jinnai (talk) 23:42, 9 April 2011 (UTC)
- Same response as before. Removing the text doesn't change the source of the image, and it doesn't remove my concerns about the source. My vote won't change, but others may change their if they wish. --Michaeldsuarez (talk) 00:37, 10 April 2011 (UTC)
Delete No modification of the image, that can be made, can cut the link to its "very questionable" origin. Do we have to keep "all" free contents uploaded by groups that promote genders, racial, religious discrimination or homophobia? --KrebMarkt (talk) 11:12, 11 April 2011 (UTC)
Delete Advertising on the image aside, technical legality of the image aside--we should not play host to content that advocates pedophilia or the content of the game in any way, shape or form. David Fuchs (talk) 15:03, 11 April 2011 (UTC)
Kept. - as long as Wikipedia projects use it, we don't judge if it's "inappropriate" or "bad taste" or whatever quality or scope related argument - Jcb (talk) 21:21, 13 April 2011 (UTC)