Commons:Deletion requests/File:Israeli soldier at Abraham mosque.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.
poor quality NatanFlayer (talk) 09:03, 8 October 2011 (UTC)
- Poor quality with 3,008 × 2,000 resolution? This is either the only image of the subject or this is part of a series of images of the subject so any other quality issues aren't that important. Given the perhaps political nature of the image I fear this may lead to political statementing one after another, I'd cation visitors whose home wiki is from other wikis to keep in mind that political arguments will be disregarded here on commons. -- とある白い猫 ちぃ？ 02:53, 11 October 2011 (UTC)
Kept: not a valid reason for deletion when we don't have many photos of the subject (i. e. Israeli controls at that mosque). Rosenzweig τ 09:48, 15 October 2011 (UTC)
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.
too dark and OB by File:Israeli soldier at Abraham mosque2.jpg Chesdovi (talk) 17:04, 28 November 2011 (UTC)
Comment File:Israeli_soldier_at_Abraham_mosque.jpg is the original file, File:Israeli soldier at Abraham mosque2.jpg is a derivative of it. We cannot delete the original file and keep the derivative. --Rosenzweig τ 17:11, 28 November 2011 (UTC)
- I see. Well spotted. What we'll have to do is upload the newer version onto the original page? Chesdovi (talk) 18:49, 28 November 2011 (UTC)
- Why should we do that? I don't see any need for it. --Rosenzweig τ 19:50, 29 November 2011 (UTC)
- To keep the original and do away with the useless image, thereby freeing up space. Chesdovi (talk) 23:53, 29 November 2011 (UTC)
- No space at all will be “freed up”, a file that gets “deleted” is only inaccessible to normal users, but it is still there. And I don't find any of the two files “useless”: one is the original, the other is a brightened version where one can discern the details better. --Rosenzweig τ 00:30, 30 November 2011 (UTC)
- I am aware that files recently deleted are saved out of sight for undeletion requests, but I would have thought and hoped that over time, such files would be permanently deleted. There is also something to be said for efficient use of space in the categories themselves. The original is low quality and once a better version has been provided, bye bye. Chesdovi (talk) 01:14, 30 November 2011 (UTC)
- Nope, there is no permanent deletion, not since 2006 or so, apart from a few technical mistakes where files were deleted by accident. Originals are not deleted because derivatives are based on them, and in many cases it is legally necessary to keep them (license attribution path). Even if it is not legally necessary, the original on which other versions are based should still be around, e. g. in case someone else wants to make another (perhaps better) derivative version. --Rosenzweig τ 14:26, 30 November 2011 (UTC)
- So I'll just upload the newer version over the original then. Thanks. Chesdovi (talk) 14:43, 30 November 2011 (UTC)
- Nope, there is no permanent deletion, not since 2006 or so, apart from a few technical mistakes where files were deleted by accident. Originals are not deleted because derivatives are based on them, and in many cases it is legally necessary to keep them (license attribution path). Even if it is not legally necessary, the original on which other versions are based should still be around, e. g. in case someone else wants to make another (perhaps better) derivative version. --Rosenzweig τ 14:26, 30 November 2011 (UTC)
- I am aware that files recently deleted are saved out of sight for undeletion requests, but I would have thought and hoped that over time, such files would be permanently deleted. There is also something to be said for efficient use of space in the categories themselves. The original is low quality and once a better version has been provided, bye bye. Chesdovi (talk) 01:14, 30 November 2011 (UTC)
- No space at all will be “freed up”, a file that gets “deleted” is only inaccessible to normal users, but it is still there. And I don't find any of the two files “useless”: one is the original, the other is a brightened version where one can discern the details better. --Rosenzweig τ 00:30, 30 November 2011 (UTC)
- To keep the original and do away with the useless image, thereby freeing up space. Chesdovi (talk) 23:53, 29 November 2011 (UTC)
- Why should we do that? I don't see any need for it. --Rosenzweig τ 19:50, 29 November 2011 (UTC)
- I see. Well spotted. What we'll have to do is upload the newer version onto the original page? Chesdovi (talk) 18:49, 28 November 2011 (UTC)
Keep Nom withdrawn. Chesdovi (talk) 14:51, 30 November 2011 (UTC)
Withdrawn by nominator. --Rosenzweig τ 19:47, 30 November 2011 (UTC)
