Commons:Deletion requests/File:FashionSquareJan2023.jpg
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
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.
We really don't need content from Kiwi Farms. SarekOfVulcan (talk) 23:46, 15 March 2023 (UTC)
- Yet File:Joshua Conner Moon.png exists, which was uploaded by the owner of the site himself. It is not from Kiwi Farms though. Even if it wasn't, there is no reason to remove an image of a mall with a valid license. 38.34.245.124 23:50, 15 March 2023 (UTC)
Keep Not a deletion reason. If you don't like the photo or subject matter, don't look at it. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 04:18, 16 March 2023 (UTC)- Delete Intended for vandalism/trolling. Ohnoitsjamie (talk) 14:24, 16 March 2023 (UTC)
- It was never used for such reasons. 95.16.17.4 06:33, 17 March 2023 (UTC)
Delete per Deletion policy. 1AmNobody24 (talk) 15:33, 16 March 2023 (UTC)
Comment I don't think innocuous, in scope photos that are nevertheless somehow used for vandalism are meant to be deleted per that policy, though it may need to be rephrased more clearly. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 18:48, 16 March 2023 (UTC)
- @Ikan Kekek If the photos are only used for vandalism/attacking, doesn't that make them out of scope per definition? 1AmNobody24 (talk) 06:09, 17 March 2023 (UTC)
- I don't think so, but let's see what the closing admin thinks. For example, let's say some vandal put a photo of Hitler on someone's user talk page. That would be an act of vandalism, but it wouldn't make the photo itself vandalism. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 06:13, 17 March 2023 (UTC)
- How is a photo of a mall obviously uploaded to be used for good faith vandalism? The editor who put it on the article page was banned for no valid reason too. The way I see it, someone is obsessed with the idea of it somehow being only notable due to an indirect connection to an online figure, but that is obviously bogus. Does the 2020 Trump Campaign logo deserve to be removed because the person who is running it is a nutjob? This is not what Commons is about, it's for free-use images and not arbitration. 95.16.17.4 06:36, 17 March 2023 (UTC)
- Comment what are Kiwi Farms and how can this photo be associated with them? RodRabelo7 (talk) 06:49, 17 March 2023 (UTC)
- Comment I had forgotten, but there is a Wikipedia article about them. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 16:50, 17 March 2023 (UTC)
- The photo is not associated with them, it is from a Wiki which belongs to a hosting company owned by Kiwi Farms. They didn't upload it themselves, it is a work from the Wiki by a user who took that picture, and it is CC0. 88.169.60.110 03:28, 20 March 2023 (UTC)
- Keep This is a useful photo of the mall's main entrance which is both recent and properly licensed; not liking its source (which isn't Kiwi Farms but rather a CWCki user) doesn't constitute a valid reason to delete it. Philroc (talk) 03:45, 23 March 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: in scope but copyvio: taken from https://www.reddit.com/r/ChrisChanSonichu/comments/10iwydn/made_the_pilgrimage_observations/. --P 1 9 9 ✉ 14:42, 12 April 2023 (UTC)
