File talk:Algerie-Bentalha-Massacre-22septembre1997-1.jpg

Contested deletion[edit]

This file should not be speedy deleted as having an invalid fair-use claim, because it has one. Nominator has provided no rationale for deletion. --FunkMonk (talk) 17:37, 13 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The article is about the massacre, not the woman. Also the file is does not "significantly increase readers' understanding of the topic", thus violating NFCC#8. [1] -- FutureTrillionaire (talk) 17:40, 13 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It is the most widely circulated image from the massacre. So no. I guess this image[2] is irrelevant in the Vietnam War article too, since it's not about the girl? Sheesh, very subtle revenge edit, by the way. FunkMonk (talk) 17:41, 13 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Being the "most widely circulated image from the massacre" is NOT a fair use rationale. I don't see how that other image is relevant to the current discussion. And no, this is not revenge for you deleting the Hezbollah flag.-- FutureTrillionaire (talk) 17:46, 13 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It seems you don't understand what a fair use rationale is on Wikipedia. And yet again, how about that Vietnamese girl? How is she more relevant in the article? And no, I haven't deleted a single of your images, only nominated them. Other admins judged them to be violations too. FunkMonk (talk) 17:50, 13 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Let's focus here. How does this image in that article "significantly increase readers' understanding of the topic"? It simply DOES NOT. -- FutureTrillionaire (talk) 17:53, 13 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Let's focus here. There are precedents, this image has come to symbolise this incident, just like that Vietnamese girl with the Vietnam War. There is precedent, please don't be so childish. FunkMonk (talk) 17:54, 13 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You did not answer my question. -- FutureTrillionaire (talk) 17:56, 13 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I answered you with a precedent. In any case, she increases the readers understanding because her children had just been massacred in that incident when the photo was taken, and it has come to symbolise the incident. You simply don't have a case, this is utterly foolish. FunkMonk (talk) 18:01, 13 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

"children had just been massacred in that incident when the photo was taken, and it has come to symbolise the incident." What does that have to do with the image. I don't see children being killed in the photo. Do you? -- FutureTrillionaire (talk)

Let the admins decide. FunkMonk (talk) 18:05, 13 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Let's face it. It's just a photo of a crying woman. It does not significantly increase readers' understanding (not emotional reaction) of the massacre.-- FutureTrillionaire (talk) 18:08, 13 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Let's face it, that's your own opinion, and the Vietnamese girl is a good precedent. This'll be my last word here, good luck with convincing the admins. FunkMonk (talk) 18:18, 13 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]