Commons:Deletion requests/File:20180503 Valuta SEK DKK (41868265461).jpg

This deletion discussion 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:20180503 Valuta SEK DKK (41868265461).jpg

and File:20180503 Valuta DKK SEK (41868266431).jpg
Out of Commons:Project scope: Unused chart. Should be in tabular data, MediaWiki graph or SVG if useful. EugeneZelenko (talk) 16:49, 7 December 2022 (UTC)

No valid reason of delete. 'Unused' not means 'out of scope' automatically. Requester should be punish for deletion-trolling. Matlin (talk) 16:58, 7 December 2022 (UTC)

•  Keep Perfectly usable. I don't think the reasons you're giving, other than your claim that this is somehow out of scope, are valid, but if they are, maybe you could point to any page that shows those are hideable offenses. Ikan Kekek (talk) 19:49, 7 December 2022 (UTC)

  @Matlin and Ikan Kekek: I don’t think the nominator is saying it is out of scope because it is unused. I think they are saying it is out of scope based on all the circumstances and, just for further confirmation, they are also saying it is unused. Brianjd (talk) 06:14, 8 December 2022 (UTC)

• Right, but my statement is that it is perfectly usable and that the other deletion reasons are not to my understanding valid. If there's a copyright problem, that's a different story. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 08:35, 8 December 2022 (UTC)

@Matlin I see that you wrote that comment after challenging several of @EugeneZelenko’s speedy deletion nominations; it seems that you have a problem with that other user. That should not affect the outcome of this DR. If you have a genuine complaint against another user, see Commons:Administrators' noticeboard/User problems.

I agree with you and Ikan Kekek that this file appears to be in scope, but I have a question about copyright. Why is it that the description mentions a CC BY 3.0 source but the file is tagged as CC BY 2.0? Brianjd (talk) 06:19, 8 December 2022 (UTC)

---

Kept: Within scope. The 2.0 vs 3.0 issue seems to be the result of the tag on Flickr vs. the stated license in the description on Flickr. Regardless of 2.0 vs. 3.0, the intent to release as CC-BY seems clear. --IronGargoyle (talk) 01:43, 14 December 2022 (UTC)