< October 1	October 3 >

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the media below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the media's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was: Delete; deleted by Explicit (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 20:14, 10 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Fails WP:NFCC#8 as well as WP:NFCC#3a. The image is easily describable from the single cover artwork and removing a similar image is not detrimental for the article. The rationale also gives no indication of why this non-free image is particularly uploaded except for generic rationale which does not do the task. —Indian:BIO ^{[ ChitChat ]} 06:31, 2 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep A critic gave a detailed explanation of what she thought the significance of breaking out of their boxes meant in relation to the lyrics of the song.

for identification and critical commentary on the music video in question

on the English-language Wikipedia, hosted on servers in the United States by the non-profit Wikimedia Foundation,

It passes both of these. — Calvin999 08:17, 2 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This segment of the video is already adequately described in the prose, and is therefore redundant. It doesn't tell us anything that cannot be described using words alone. Fails NFCC #1. -- Diannaa (talk) 15:40, 10 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep While the segment is already described in the prose, I would argue that it is not adequately described to people who are unfamiliar with what "Barbie-doll" packaging looks like, and "adequately describing it" would take so many words that it would weaken the article as a whole. In other words, if this were an encyclopedia only an audience that knew what this packaging looked like then I would be saying "delete." davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 17:22, 10 October 2015 (UTC) Delete the nominator is correct, the single-cover artwork, File:Up Out My Face Mariah Carey.png adequately serves the purpose served by the image under discussion, so we don't need both. However, if that image is deleted in the future and no similar image is placed in the article, I think the image under discussion should be un-deleted and restored to its present location in the article, as it better serves the particular stated purpose than the single-cover artwork image does. On the whole though, the single-cover artwork "wins the battle" because it serves multiple purposes including the long-accepted purpose of being the identification artwork for a music single. So, for now at least, it must go. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 17:30, 10 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the media's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the media below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the media's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was: Delete; deleted by Explicit (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 20:14, 10 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Fails WP:NFCC#8 since the image is easily describable by words and removal is not detrimental for the article. The rationale also gives no indication of why this non-free image is particularly uploaded except for generic rationale which does not do the task. —Indian:BIO ^{[ ChitChat ]} 06:33, 2 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I get that it's not the best image in the world (the rest of the video just features Carey hugging herself on a beach). Just trying to illustrate the article with some media. A critic does say that she inscribes in the name of the song into the sand, so there is critical commentary. — Calvin999 08:18, 2 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Delete with allowances for un-deletion if a future deletion review demonstrates that the image can meet the non-free-usage criteria. ONE way to to that is if the image is "official cover art" for the video AND no superior image accomplishes the same task. Offtopic: What the page H.A.T.E.U. really needs is official cover art for the single itself to go in the infobox. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 17:40, 10 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- davidwr If it had artwork, don't you think I would have included it? It was an airplay single, so it never got artwork..... — Calvin999 18:42, 10 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment this will likely be moot by October 12, as the image has not been used on any article since at least October 4 and it's been tagged for "removal after 7 days" since then. Once the page is deleted, any non-admin can procedurally close this discussion (see WP:Non-admin closure). davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 17:40, 10 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the media's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the media below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the media's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was: Delete; deleted by Explicit (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 20:14, 10 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Fails WP:NFCC#8 as well as WP:NFCC#3a. The image is easily describable from the single cover artwork and removing a similar image is not detrimental for the article. The rationale also gives no indication of why this non-free image is particularly uploaded except for generic rationale which does not do the task. —Indian:BIO ^{[ ChitChat ]} 06:34, 2 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - A critic said how Carey and Legend performing at the piano together was a demonstration of their combined musical creativity and talent. Again, I'm trying to illustrate the article with some media.

for identification and critical commentary on the music video in question

on the English-language Wikipedia, hosted on servers in the United States by the non-profit Wikimedia Foundation,

It passes both of these. I've given rationales for each of these screenshots. I understand that the one for "H.A.T.E.U." isn't the best in the world, but I don't understand your reasoning for the other two. From the comments you've given, I expect you should be going on a deletion spree of images across multiple Wikiprojects very soon, because if you think these ones should go, then I can think of many more than should according to you. — Calvin999 08:21, 2 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This segment of the video is already adequately described in the prose, and is therefore redundant. It doesn't tell us anything that cannot be described using words alone (and in fact is already described using words). Fails NFCC #1. -- Diannaa (talk) 15:42, 10 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete If this were either official artwork or if it were an image that clearly expressed something that could not be expressed to all audiences in words, such as a clip of the "Charlie Brown Christmas" (which not all English-speaking people are familiar with), then I might be less "pro-delete". However, given the small (or arguably non-existent) "critical commentary" of the use of the Charlie Brown Christmas clip in the article text, I would still give a "thumbs-down" to using such a clip. As for official cover art, if it's not significantly different from the album cover art then I would also give thumbs-down as "not helpful enough to the article to overcome copyright concerns". In other words, official cover art of the video is merely the two artists singing or playing the piano, it would have me asking the question "is this art 'official' in name only or was it really widely used as the identification for a video release?" davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 17:56, 10 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment If this article is kept the file's description page will need to be improved so anyone can easily find the video in question. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 17:56, 10 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the media's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the media below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the media's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was: Delete; deleted by Diannaa (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 17:12, 10 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Unused fictional map. Kelly ^hi! 07:42, 2 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the media's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the media below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the media's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was: Delete; deleted by Diannaa (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 17:12, 10 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Unused file, lacks evidence for given license (predates the OTRS system). We have other, higher-res images of this structure at Commons:Category:Newport Bridge, River Tees. Kelly ^hi! 07:47, 2 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the media's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the media below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the media's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was: Delete; deleted by Diannaa (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 17:12, 10 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Unused file, low resolution. Missing clear evidence of permission (predates OTRS system). We have other images at Commons:Category:Inner harbor and Motif 1. Kelly ^hi! 07:50, 2 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the media's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the media below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the media's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was: Delete; deleted by Diannaa (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 17:12, 10 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Unused, low resolution, no clear evidence of perrmission (predates OTRS). We have better images at Commons:Category:Gleditsia triacanthos (leaves). Kelly ^hi! 07:54, 2 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the media's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the media below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the media's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was: Delete despite uploader's original request, the copy at Commons seems to be better licenced. Nthep (talk) 13:44, 23 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Unneeded local copy of file on Commons. Kelly ^hi! 08:09, 2 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. It has a template on it indicating that the uploader requested a local copy be kept. This is an acceptable reason to keep it. ···日本穣^? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 22:52, 2 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Where is that reason documented? WP:CSD#F8 says that files with that template are ineligible for speedy deletion as a dupe of a Commons file, but this is a deletion discussion, and deletion discussions are subject to other policies. Policies for deletion discussions seem to be silent on the matter, as far as I can see. To me it therefore seems unclear how cases like this should be handled in deletion discussions. --Stefan2 (talk) 12:07, 10 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  - I concur with Stefan2, the presence of the ((keep local)) does not prohibit a "delete" outcome. It DOES strongly suggest that we attempt to ask the uploader ( Done per Kelly's remark that the uploader had been inactive since 2009) and that we attempt to discern if there is any good reason to keep the local copy. It is only used on two articles, neither of which is on the main page, neither of which is a featured article, and neither of which is exceptionally high-trafficked (Malaysian Indian gets 100-200 views a day, but the image is not critical on this article, Asha Gill gets under 100 views a day), all of which are plausible reasons to keep a local copy. Are there any other plausible reasons to keep a local copy? I can't think of any. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 18:13, 10 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I would be more concerned about the permission being verifiable. All we have is an assertion from the uploader that it's allowed. Stifle (talk) 13:36, 7 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Good point, perhaps the page on the Commons needs a copyright review? davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 18:13, 10 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
There's more information at the Commons copy saying that it's a grandfathered old file. The uploader hasn't been active since 2009 so I can't imagine any reason another copy would be needed here. Kelly ^hi! 14:28, 7 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Conditional delete - Delete with the condition that the Commons description page be modified stating that if the version uploaded to the Commons on 20:03, 11 June 2013 is ever deleted from the Commons it should be transwikied back to the English Wikipedia per the result of this FfD, but not necessarily under the same filename unless doing so would violate the policies of the English Wikipedia (e.g. if the permission was found to be flawed AND the image was ineligible for use as a non-free image). Any such move that changes the :en filename should be logged both on the English Wikipedia and on the Commons in a place where people looking at File:Asha Gill.jpg on the English Wikipedia are likely to see either the log entry or a link to the log entry. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 18:13, 10 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the media's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the media below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the media's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was: Delete; deleted by Diannaa (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 17:12, 10 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Obsoleted by File:New England pine flag.svg. Kelly ^hi! 09:01, 2 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the media's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the media below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the media's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was: Delete Nthep (talk) 13:49, 23 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Unneeded local copy of file on Commons. Kelly ^hi! 09:35, 2 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

~~Keep~~. It has a template on it indicating that the uploader requested a local copy be kept. This is an acceptable reason to keep it. ···日本穣^? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 20:42, 2 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as uploader is fine with it being deleted here. ···日本穣^? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 00:42, 22 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Where is that reason documented? WP:CSD#F8 says that files with that template are ineligible for speedy deletion as a dupe of a Commons file, but this is a deletion discussion, and deletion discussions are subject to other policies. Policies for deletion discussions seem to be silent on the matter, as far as I can see. To me it therefore seems unclear how cases like this should be handled in deletion discussions. --Stefan2 (talk) 12:07, 10 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Holding opinion until I get feedback from the uploader I just asked Atsme to give a reason why the image needs to be kept when it exists on the Commons. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 04:40, 11 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - not sure why the file was added to Commons. It was a local upload with a request to keep local. I've had two attempts by Commons volunteers to delete the commons file even though all the licensing is in order. Atsme^📞📧 06:45, 11 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- It was probably uploaded to the Commons as a matter of routine transferring of Commons-eligible media to the Commons so that it can be used by other projects. I only found one past deletion, Commons:File:Dr. Gabor B. Racz.jpg, but I'll take your word for it on the second one. The current image on the Commons, Commons:File:Gabor B. Racz.jpg, has the OTRS permissions template was copied from the English Wikipedia so there should be no further deletion attempts, at least none based on copyright/permissions issues. If the previously-deleted image had a clear and correct OTRS template on it at the time of deletion, someone probably made a mistake. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 18:53, 11 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral to very weak keep - The harm that can occur if the Commons and English version ever get out of sync with each other multiplied by the small risk of that happening (i.e. the "gambler's risk") is approximately or slightly-more-than offset by the harm done by not respecting the wishes of an active contributor. If there were any policy- or practice- grounds that said deletion was required or required absent a strong justification to keep then I would be recommending deletion. If the editor had abandoned Wikipedia and could not be contacted, I would be recommending deletion or renaming to avoid the potential of the files getting out of sync with each other. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 19:11, 11 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Possible alternative - Assuming Atsme still objects to deletion, would all parties agree to renaming the file on the English Wikipedia, so that the file on the Commons "showed through"? If this is not done and either file ever ever changes, having it "hidden" by the copy on the English Wikipedia would prevent the Commons version from being used at all on the English Wikipedia. If we do this, a tag would have to be placed on the English image linking to the differently-named Commons version. It would also need a tag requesting that, should either version ever change, the English version should not be copied to the Commons with the same name as the English version with a link-back to this discussion (if either version ever changes, someone WILL eventually copy the English version back to the Commons even if you ask them politely not to, "because they can" per the license and because the image is within Commons:Commons:SCOPE. The best we can realistically ask is that they use a different name). davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 19:11, 11 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The file was uploaded to the Commons by User:Kelly at 09:34, 2 October 2015. This discussion was opened by the same user a minute later, at 09:35, 2 October 2015 (UTC). While I can't speak for Kelly, the sequence of events appear to be "routine" and part of the normal process of moving Commons-eligible files from the English Wikipedia to the Commons. If this is the case, perhaps the "usual way of doing things" may need to be tweaked so that the editor is contacted after the image is copied to the Commons but prior to a deletion nomination when BOTH of the following conditions are true: 1) The file description page has a "keep local" or similar template on it AND 2) the uploader is still active or there is some other reason to believe the editor will quickly respond to attempts to being contacted. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 19:23, 11 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment by uploader - I'm ok with whatever is best for the article, and maintaining the correct image without recurring issues. David, whatever you need to do to make it work correctly, there won't be any objection from me. Are you saying the Commons file has a different image name than the local file, and that we can simply change file names to the Commons file and not upset the article? Thx in advance. Atsme^📞📧 20:07, 11 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the media's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the media below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the media's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was: Withdrawn - Keep The Flickr copyright status is incorrect. The photo was published in 1913: [1], so is public domain. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 09:30, 8 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Possible copyright violation. According to Flickr this photo was not published, but belongs to photographer Walter Frank Winn's family. Winn died in 1939 so copyright would not expire until 2039. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 10:25, 2 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the media's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the media below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the media's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was: Delete; deleted as F8 by Rogerd (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) A file with this name on Commons is now visible. AnomieBOT ⚡ 02:00, 4 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Practical duplicate of Commons image linked from page. Images are not hash identical though. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 11:07, 2 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the media's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the media below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the media's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was: Delete; deleted as F8 by Magog the Ogre (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) A file with this name on Commons is now visible. AnomieBOT ⚡ 15:09, 31 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Practical duplicate of the Commons image, but there seems to be a licensing concern, and OTRS mismatch. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 11:09, 2 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Reconcile errors and if the Commons image (which came from :de ) is not deleted (e.g. due to licensing issues) then delete this one. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 04:46, 11 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the media's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the media below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the media's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was: Delete; deleted by JohnCD (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 18:12, 9 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned userphoto. Kelly ^hi! 12:15, 2 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the media's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the media below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the media's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was: Delete; deleted by Explicit (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 20:14, 10 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned derivative work. Kelly ^hi! 12:21, 2 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the media's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the media below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the media's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was: Delete; deleted by Explicit (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 20:14, 10 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned screenshot. Kelly ^hi! 12:48, 2 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the media's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the media below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the media's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was: Delete; deleted by Explicit (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 20:14, 10 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Unused icon. Kelly ^hi! 12:50, 2 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the media's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the media below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the media's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was: Procedural close (file kept) - Commons image Commons:File:Clube Oriental de Lisboa.png was deleted, nominator's rationale no longer applies, no other editors recommended deletion. No prejudice against quick re-listing under a different rationale. (non-admin closure) Note: I participated in the discussion but as this close is clearly a procedural matter with only one possible outcome, the spirit of WP:INVOLVED doesn't apply. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 23:33, 11 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Practical duplicate for image at Commons. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 13:19, 2 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Suspend deliberations as Commons:File:Clube Oriental de Lisboa.png was nominated for deletion as a copyright violation at 18:31, 10 October 2015‎ (UTC???). If that page is deleted then procedurally close this as "keep / nominator's rationale no longer true." davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 04:52, 11 October 2015 (UTC) See closing statement. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 23:33, 11 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the media's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the media below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the media's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was: Delete; deleted by Explicit (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) A file with this name on Commons is now visible. AnomieBOT ⚡ 20:14, 10 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Practical duplicate for Commons image. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 13:27, 2 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the media's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the media below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the media's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was: Delete; deleted by Explicit (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) A file with this name on Commons is now visible. AnomieBOT ⚡ 20:14, 10 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned, likely no encyclopedic use. Kelly ^hi! 13:33, 2 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the media's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the media below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the media's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was: Delete; deleted by Explicit (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) A file with this name on Commons is now visible. AnomieBOT ⚡ 20:14, 10 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Practical duplicate for Commons file. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 13:37, 2 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the media's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the media below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the media's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was: Delete; deleted by Explicit (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) A file with this name on Commons is now visible. AnomieBOT ⚡ 04:03, 12 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Unneeded local copy of a file on Commons. Kelly ^hi! 13:40, 2 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. It has a template on it indicating that the uploader requested a local copy be kept. This is an acceptable reason to keep it. ···日本穣^? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 22:49, 2 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Where is that reason documented? WP:CSD#F8 says that files with that template are ineligible for speedy deletion as a dupe of a Commons file, but this is a deletion discussion, and deletion discussions are subject to other policies. Policies for deletion discussions seem to be silent on the matter, as far as I can see. To me it therefore seems unclear how cases like this should be handled in deletion discussions. --Stefan2 (talk) 12:07, 10 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Holding opinion until I get feedback from the uploader. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 19:41, 11 October 2015 (UTC) Delete per uploaders' consent to delete. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 20:04, 11 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Possible alternative - Assuming SlimVirgin objects to deletion, would all parties agree to renaming the file on the English Wikipedia, so that the file on the Commons "showed through"? If this is not done and either file ever ever changes (which it has several times), having it "hidden" by the copy on the English Wikipedia would prevent the Commons version from being used at all on the English Wikipedia. If we do this, a tag would have to be placed on the English image linking to the differently-named Commons version. It would also need a tag requesting that, should either version ever change, the English version should not be copied to the Commons with the same name as the English version with a link-back to this discussion (if either version ever changes, someone WILL eventually copy the English version back to the Commons even if you ask them politely not to, "because they can" per the license and because the image is within Commons:Commons:SCOPE. The best we can realistically ask is that they use a different name). The author of Commons:User:OgreBot would also have to be in-the-loop, as that bot recently copied a two-year-old change from the English version to the Commons version. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 19:41, 11 October 2015 (UTC) Update recommendation withdrawn as irrelevant due to uploader's consent to delete. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 20:04, 11 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for pinging me, David. I have no objection to the deletion. Sarah ^(talk) 20:01, 11 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the media's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the media below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the media's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was: Keep. Apologies to Ms. Fokker. Non-admin closure. Oiyarbepsy (talk) 13:02, 16 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Personal photo of long-absent user. Kelly ^hi! 13:42, 2 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Procedurally re-list, Neutral to weak keep, or soft-delete - has anyone tried contacting the editor through email? If she does not respond to attempts to contact her I recommend procedurally closing this and re-listing it with both this image and File:E. Fokker2.jpg. My opinion is "neutral or weak keep" but if either or both images are deleted, I recommend "soft deletion" so that if the editor comes back she can retrieve them. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 19:49, 11 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I think this should be permitted under Wikipedia:User pages#What may I have in my user pages? as "Limited autobiographical content". Also, the user has returned and made these edits in late October: 1, 2, and 3. Cunard (talk) 06:51, 5 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the media's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the media below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the media's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was: No consensus this probably needs a wider discussion about ((Keep local)) Nthep (talk) 11:09, 21 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Unneeded local copy of file on Commons. Kelly ^hi! 13:45, 2 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. It has a template on it indicating that the uploader requested a local copy be kept. This is an acceptable reason to keep it. ···日本穣^? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 22:50, 2 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Where is that reason documented? WP:CSD#F8 says that files with that template are ineligible for speedy deletion as a dupe of a Commons file, but this is a deletion discussion, and deletion discussions are subject to other policies. Policies for deletion discussions seem to be silent on the matter, as far as I can see. To me it therefore seems unclear how cases like this should be handled in deletion discussions. --Stefan2 (talk) 12:08, 10 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  - If you're trying to discourage folks from uploading content, I can think of no better way than to attack them for wanting to keep their content on a specific project. Well played. —Locke Cole • t • c 22:26, 11 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep, explicitly included a template indicating this should be kept local by using ((Keep local)). —Locke Cole • t • c 19:16, 3 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Question - why are we keeping a local copy when the same uploader put it on Commons? Kelly ^hi! 14:35, 7 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Question: Why are we trying to delete an image the uploader provided to both projects? I really regret uploading it to Commons, and will refrain from doing so in the future if this is the outcome. —Locke Cole • t • c 22:26, 11 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral to very weak keep - The harm that can occur if the Commons and English version ever get out of sync with each other multiplied by the small risk of that happening (i.e. the "gambler's risk") is approximately or slightly-more-than offset by the harm done by not respecting the wishes of an active contributor. If there were any policy- or practice- grounds that said deletion was required or required absent a strong justification to keep then I would be recommending deletion. If the editor had abandoned Wikipedia and could not be contacted, I would be recommending deletion or renaming to avoid the potential of the files getting out of sync with each other. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 19:55, 11 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Possible alternative - Since Locke Cole objects to deletion, would all parties agree to renaming the file on the English Wikipedia, so that the file on the Commons "showed through"? If this is not done and either file ever ever changes, having it "hidden" by the copy on the English Wikipedia would prevent the Commons version from being used at all on the English Wikipedia. If we do this, a tag would have to be placed on the English image linking to the differently-named Commons version. It would also need a tag requesting that, should either version ever change, the English version should not be copied to the Commons with the same name as the English version with a link-back to this discussion (if either version ever changes, someone WILL eventually copy the English version back to the Commons even if you ask them politely not to, "because they can" per the license and because the image is within Commons:Commons:SCOPE. The best we can realistically ask is that they use a different name). davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 19:55, 11 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- I uploaded both images... I explicitly asked for the local copy here to be kept as Commons is (in my view) dysfunctional and randomly decides to delete content. As I rarely visit Commons, I usually only become aware of the deletions after the damage has been done. Even if there were a notification mechanism that worked across projects, I'd still rather work by EN.WP's rules than by rules that seem arbitrary over at Commons. —Locke Cole • t • c 22:26, 11 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  - @Locke Cole:: Would you object to renaming the file on enwiki so that both showed up? ···日本穣^? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 01:01, 22 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    - I uploaded both images (the one here and the one on Commons). So... yes? I explicitly uploaded it on this project because I know Commons can be dysfunctional. I uploaded it there as the source license meant it (should) be compatible with that project. I never imagined my willingness to share it at that project would ever cause me issues with the version I uploaded here. Back to the core of your question: I don't see the harm in there being two files with the same name on both projects. It would be an issue for something with a generic name, perhaps, or something where there could conceivably be derivatives. But this is a very specific filename of a very specific subject and I expect if another version is ever uploaded it will be to a new filename. —Locke Cole • t • c 03:13, 22 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the media's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the media below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the media's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was: Delete; deleted by Diannaa (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 17:12, 10 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Unused personal photo. Kelly ^hi! 13:46, 2 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the media's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the media below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the media's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was: Delete; deleted by Explicit (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) A file with this name on Commons is now visible. AnomieBOT ⚡ 20:14, 10 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Practical duplicate of commons file. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 21:20, 2 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the media's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the media below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the media's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was: Delete; deleted by Explicit (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 20:14, 10 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Obsolete and, as a result, orphaned. replaced by File:Lost girls single-volume hardcover edition.jpg. This is the latest cover used in print Lost Girls, and best represents the article for which it's intended. —f3ndot ^{(TALK) (EMAIL) (PGP)} 23:00, 2 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete - while I wouldn't have bothered updating the image myself (I'd tend to favour the first collection cover over the most recent one), it has been done and doesn't degrade the article by its replacement, so the older one might as well go. (Emperor (talk) 16:11, 7 October 2015 (UTC))[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the media's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

October 2

File:Up Out My Face Screenshot.png

File:H.A.T.E.U. Screenshot.png

File:When Christmas Comes Screenshot.png

File:North-western middle-earth.jpg

File:NewportMbro.jpg

File:Motif Number 1, Rockport.jpg

File:Locustfoliage.jpg

File:Continental.gif

File:Babasab patil durring colleage days.jpg

File:Edward witten cropped.png

File:WP BasicSearchBoxesScreenshot.jpg

File:Wikipedia Adventure Wings.png

File:Nightfoxx.jpg

File:Lostgirls cover.jpg