Commons:Deletion requests/File:Incel flag.svg

From Wikimedia Commons, the free media repository
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.

SVG version of File:Inceldom flag.png. Same rationale:

Flag design created by a non-notable Tumblr blog with no evidence of wider use. If there was evidence that this "pride flag" was widely or publicly used then there would be some educational value, but as it stands now it is out of scope. RA0808 (talk) 17:25, 24 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

As discussed a number of times before, we have many hundreds of "Special or fictional" flags on Commons, and they're not usually deleted just for being "special or fictional" , unless there's some additional aggravating element (such as being hoaxing or hatemongering...) -- AnonMoos (talk) 03:07, 25 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. No educational use. No indication that this flag design is used by reliable sources to identify anything in particular. Sandstein (talk) 08:12, 26 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, variations have existed on multiple sites other than this one. 88.104.46.200 22:09, 29 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep This image is on a user page, in a userbox. It is, afaik, not notable in the real world and should not appear in articles but calling this userbox icon 'out of scope' would bring a majority of other Wikipedia userspace frivolities into question. I understand the advocate for deletion is a Canadian and may have "Feelings" about anything incel related, but gaming the rules to suppress others and enforce one's own POV is not why Wikipedia exists. Aquinassixthway (talk) 08:25, 19 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The userbox in question was created 3 weeks after this deletion request was filed, but that does not change the reasoning behind my request. To my knowledge COM:INUSE does not apply to images used in user or talk spaces on Wikimedia projects. In any case, I object to the ad hominem comment that I am "gaming the rules to suppress others". RA0808 (talk) 23:30, 19 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Object if you like, but your own argument undermines that objection. Let's not kid each other, incels are a controversial current topic. If as you say NO original-content-in-userspace images qualify for Commons hosting, then can you tell us what has motivated you to select THIS image in particular for deletion if not a personal bias? Aquinassixthway (talk) 14:00, 20 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
This particular image came up because it was in a former revision of the Toronto van attack article. I was curious about where the flag design came from (I've seen a lot of different types of Pride flags and like to know the symbolism behind them) and looking at its origins is what prompted this proposal. It was invented by a Tumblr blog with no evidence of wider use (compare the rainbow, lesbian pride, bisexual pride, etc flags). I don't think Commons should be a catalogue of every pride flag created by the owner of the "Beyond-MOGAI-Pride-Flags" blog with no evidence of wider adoption by the community it is supposed to represent. RA0808 (talk) 15:57, 25 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Kept: in use. --Sebari – aka Srittau (talk) 19:25, 10 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]