File:Southern Cross Ten.svg (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (article|XfD|restore)

Maybe this file, should be recreated using the same format as File:Southern Cross.svg, right? This logo should be restored because it was a very important logo that was used for 11 years (August 2005 to June 2016). I may put it in the 10 (Southern Cross Austereo) article, if it’s undeleted. From Bassie f (his talk page) 22:25, 16 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse (or maybe even procedural close): the appellant doesn't give any reason why we should overturn the closure, which clearly reflected the policy-based consensus in the discussion. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 00:01, 17 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  I meant this might be recreated if I or someone else add sources featuring the logo to the linked article 10 (Southern Cross Austereo), but using the same format that File:Southern Cross.svg already has. From Bassie f (his talk page) 00:37, 17 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  I'm going to nominate File:Southern Cross.svg for deletion too: it suffers from the same problems as the other file. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 01:44, 17 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse the discussion could not have been closed in any other way. The issue is that the OP, while clearly editing in good faith, just doesn't seem to understand why other people didn't agree with their arguments and why their edits made in an attempt to prevent deletion did not do so. This is despite multiple people trying to explain it to them. Thryduulf (talk) 01:31, 17 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse - No policy-based argument presented to overturn, and a proper assessment of consensus. Robert McClenon (talk) 01:59, 17 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse per above. Also, DRV is not FfD redux. Disruptive nomination. -FASTILY 02:09, 17 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Endorse per above, I will never do this type of stuff again, unless asked to.

  From Bassie f (his talk page) 03:04, 17 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]