Wikipedia:Files for discussion/2016 October 20

< October 19	October 21 >

October 20

File:Bob Dylan - Bringing It All Back Home.jpg

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: remove from Sally Grossman ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 14:10, 10 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Non-free cover art being used in Bringing It All Back Home and Sally Grossman. File has a non-free use rationale for both uses; the one for the stand-alone article seems fine per WP:NFC#cite_note-2, but I'm not so sure about the other one per Number 6 of WP:NFC#UUI. Although there is some sourced discussion of the cover art in the Grossman article, the subject is also covered in Bringing It All Back Home#Cover art. Moreover, the non-free use rationale as written probably needs to be tweaked to more accurately reflect the way the file is being used in the article since it cannot be used in the main infobox to identify Grossman herself. Probably a different non-free template should be used instead. Suggest keep for the stand-alone album, but would like other opinions on the use in "Sally Grossman". -- Marchjuly (talk) 02:47, 20 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep on Bringing It All Back Home, remove on Sally Grossman. The fair use for the Sally Grossman article does not outline a reason why it is required on the article and there is no critical commentary on the article itself either. Salavat (talk) 06:02, 22 October 2016 (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.

File:Bob Dylan - The Freewheelin' Bob Dylan.jpg

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: Relisted on Wikipedia:Files for discussion/2017 January 10#File:Bob_Dylan_-_The_Freewheelin'_Bob_Dylan.jpg}}

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.

File:Bonnie Jean Hamilton at the Renaissance Faire.jpg

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. The copyright law is clear here. The only "leeway" is when a copyright holder dies and the copyright passes onto their beneficiaries, usually descendants. As for husband/wife, we need the photographer to submit permission via OTRS for this. ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 13:38, 10 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Uploader not copyright holder. Kelly ^hi! 16:24, 6 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It was my understanding that there was a degree of leeway granted in respect of photos taken by family members of the subject, possibly with a shared camera. Image is in use on user page.Sfan00 IMG (talk) 09:04, 13 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — ξ ^xplicit 04:38, 20 October 2016 (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.

File:Fifi Cooper performing.jpg

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 Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 17:08, 28 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Promotional photo, missing EXIF, possible copyvio - see c:Commons:Deletion requests/Files uploaded by KingWire FASTILY 06:52, 20 October 2016 (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.

File:3DSDUDE1107 TV 2016.png

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 Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 17:08, 28 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Unused personal image, no encyclopedic use FASTILY 06:55, 20 October 2016 (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.

File:7HD 2016 logo.png

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. (non-admin closure) Primefac (talk) 18:48, 31 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Unused, superior version exists: File:7HD 2016 Logo.svg FASTILY 07:08, 20 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nomination. As to the SVG version: since the threshold of originality in Australia is very low, a fair use file appears to be the correct alternative as opposed to PD-textlogo. De728631 (talk) 22:02, 21 October 2016 (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.

File:25th anniversary of IYF - 1981.jpg

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. (non-admin closure) Primefac (talk) 18:47, 31 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Unused logo, no encyclopedic use FASTILY 07:12, 20 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per Fastily's rationale. De728631 (talk) 21:54, 21 October 2016 (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.

File:425px-Naciones Unidas 3 repaired and.png.png

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: Relisted on Wikipedia:Files for discussion/2017 January 10#File:425px-Naciones_Unidas_3_repaired_and.png.png}}

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.

Furcadia screenshots

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 for two reasons. First, these are orphaned and seem unlikely to be used anytime soon, which led Deryck C. to say he was fine with deletion. Second, we have no OTRS verification of the identity of the uploader, who is a specific notable person. The uploader does not claim to be the copyright holder but claims to represent them, and such claims must go through OTRS as per current policy. As Czar points out, they're usually incorrect. ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 13:45, 10 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Because User:Sanct is a Furcadia developer, and had authorization to release it. GreenReaper (talk) 23:47, 11 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Deryck C. 08:46, 20 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - I've initially closed this as "keep" per GreenReaper's argument but reopened this on Czar's request (see User talk:Deryck Chan#Furcadia). On further discussion and investigation, I found that Wikipedia file policy at the time of this image's upload did not require OTRS notification for previously published material.[1] Given the image description and User:Sanct's userpage, I think it would be an undue assumption of bad faith to claim that the uploader didn't have the rights to donate the material, unless we have direct evidence from Furcadia to the contrary. But I'll be happy to accept delete as orphan because it seems that these image haven't been used on the Furcadia article for some time already. Deryck C. 08:56, 20 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
As I said on Deryck's talk page, assuming good faith is about good intentions and not blind trust that contributors understand copyright law. A plurality of OTRS requests are simply informing image donators that photographers own the copyright to images, even if the subject thinks the right is their own. They mean well, and "AGF" is about responding to that in kind. But in summary of what I said at User_talk:Deryck_Chan#Furcadia, we don't have proof that the uploader has the right to relicense as free use. The work is a screenshot of a video game and is either communally owned or copyrighted to the artist/interface designer, of which the uploader is neither. (The uploader claims to be Asikainen, as claimed on their user page and who worked on other portions of the project, though we typically verify such claims through an email from an official address.) See Deryck's talk page for more detail. I emailed the company and have not heard back other than that my email has been forwarded. As of now, I've fulfilled any obligation I have of showing my case and the burden is on proving that Asikainen was a representative of the development group that had the rights to license as such. Absent official word, we should not be hosting these images or transferring them to Commons. Not watching this page, please {{ping}} me if you'd like a response. czar 16:54, 20 October 2016 (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.

File:Kgrimeshead.jpg

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 F9 by De728631 (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 16:08, 21 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Speedily deleted as obvious copyright violation Image can be found at Myspace. De728631 (talk) 14:18, 21 October 2016 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Unlikely to be uploader's own work. Kelly ^hi! 09:06, 20 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

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.

File:Mwilliamshead.jpg

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 F9 by De728631 (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 16:08, 21 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Speedily deleted as obvious copyright infringement. The file was cropped from a non-free graphic at this website. De728631 (talk) 14:12, 21 October 2016 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Unlikely to be uploader's own work. Kelly ^hi! 09:06, 20 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

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.

File:McClintock1.jpg

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 Deryck Chan (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 15:07, 4 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Unlikely to be uploader's own work. Kelly ^hi! 09:07, 20 October 2016 (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.

File:JazzFestival.jpg

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 Deryck Chan (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 15:07, 4 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

No evidence uploader is copyright holder. Kelly ^hi! 09:13, 20 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Permission needs to be sent to OTRS by the original artist Colin Cotterill. De728631 (talk) 14:01, 21 October 2016 (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.

File:ColinCotterill.jpg

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 Deryck Chan (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 15:07, 4 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Editor has uploaded multiple works by others claimed as "own work". No evidence uploader is copyright holder. Kelly ^hi! 09:17, 20 October 2016 (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.

File:Cowboy 040.jpg

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. (non-admin closure) Primefac (talk) 18:43, 31 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - unused userphoto. Kelly ^hi! 09:22, 20 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nomination. Wikipedia is not a personal photo album. De728631 (talk) 13:59, 21 October 2016 (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.

File:St Marys Church Trefriw.jpg

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. (non-admin closure) Primefac (talk) 18:41, 31 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - unused, low resolution. Obsoleted by c:File:Eglwys y Santes Fair, Trefriw, St Mary's church, Trefriw, Conwy, Cymru Wales 49.jpg. Kelly ^hi! 09:35, 20 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nomination. De728631 (talk) 13:58, 21 October 2016 (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.

File:Cowlyd access.jpg

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 per Deryck C.'s argument. ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 14:09, 10 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Missing evidence of permission. Kelly ^hi! 09:51, 20 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

There is an almost identical image by T. Hughes on Geograph.uk but it differs by the shroud of mist in the upper left part before the hill. De728631 (talk) 13:56, 21 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Same author attribution as the Geograph image. No reason to assume this isn't just a slightly different digital edition of the same picture. The Geograph image is licensed under CC-BY-SA. Deryck C. 15:46, 4 November 2016 (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.

File:Cofiwch Dryweryn.jpg

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 ⚡ 04:04, 15 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Missing evidence of permission. Kelly ^hi! 09:54, 20 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The attribution to Nic Dafis appears to be correct but currently the image is marked as non-commercial on Flickr [2]. This may have changed after the image was uploaded here but we don't know the original licence. De728631 (talk) 13:38, 21 October 2016 (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.

File:Afon Machno.jpg

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 Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 11:05, 29 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Missing evidence of permission. Kelly ^hi! 09:55, 20 October 2016 (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.

File:Life Force Homeopathy.jpg

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 Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 11:05, 29 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned logo from an article speedy-deleted as spam. Probably not usable for any encyclopedic or other educational purpose. Psychonaut (talk) 12:20, 20 October 2016 (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.

Keep local vs. Commons

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 is a crazy nomination, frankly. It's no surprise we haven't come to any consensus, since so many files by many different uploaders have been nominated. With so many different arguments floating around and the nominator wishing to withdraw and an exception being carved out for a single uploader, it's impossible to find consensus either way here. ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 13:52, 10 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

A list of files that can be deleted because they are now available on commons. They are tagged with {{Keep local}}, but I see no reason to keep them here instead of commons.

File:Naches WA, November 2015.jpg (delete | talk | history | links | logs)

--XXN, 16:22, 20 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

--XXN, 23:18, 20 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Neutral on files which are used in articles, Delete files which are not linked in any article per WP:NOTWEBHOST -FASTILY 05:37, 21 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@XXN: Some editors have had bad experiences in the past with personal files they have uploaded being moved to Commons. Commons editors and Wikipedia editors sometimes see things differently, so an editor may be tagging their uploads with "Keep local" as a safeguard just in case the file is deleted from Commons. I'm not saying this is proper justification for keep local, only that some editors have strong negative feelings about Commons. You've nominated quite a lot files for discussion. Did you notice the part of the "Keep local" template which says "This file does not meet CSD F8, and should not be tagged as a Commons duplicate. If you desire to nominate it for deletion, notify the tagging editor."? Did you notify the each file's uploader of this discussion using {{fdw}} or {{fdw-multi}}? If you haven't done so already, I think it would be a really good idea for you to go back through these files and notify these editors so that they can respond and explain why they want a local copy. I want to also point out that WP:MTC#What not to transfer does say the following about this:
Some users request that their work remain on Wikipedia, and does not move to Commons. Don't fight them over it; with tens of thousands of files to transfer, it's not worth it. There is no commonly used template to indicate a desire to keep one's files off Commons, however many users who wish to keep their work off Commons use custom templates or the {{keeplocal}} or {{Do not move to Commons}} templates, neither of which are designed for that purpose. The {{esoteric file}} template can be used for files of no interest outside Wikipedia, for instance self-portraits uploaded purely for use on a Wikipedia userpage.
so it's also possible that some of these files were transfered to Commons and the local copy left alone out of respect for the uploader's wishes. -- Marchjuly (talk) 14:29, 21 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Notified 2 uploaders.--XXN, 20:45, 21 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Other users interested in this discussion (probably): ping@Magog the Ogre and Sfan00 IMG:. --XXN, 20:47, 21 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or close discussion. I will CSD A6 every file that I am the author of sooner than placing them on Crappy Commons. Respect my choice. {{keep local}} exists for this reason, and this reason alone. A trout to the nominator. - Floydian ^τ _¢ 23:22, 21 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

ACTUALLY, looking over things... this user, with brazen disregard and disrespect for content contributors, uploaded each of these files to commons and then nominated them for deletion here. I am reverting the addition of the FFD template to my contributions, as the keep local template makes things quite clear. Put your focus elsewhere. - Floydian ^τ _¢ 23:28, 21 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Please assume good faith and tone down the rhetoric. No one is acting with "brazen disregard," and voting to keep in order to punish the nominator might be disrupting Wikipedia in order to prove a point. There is no need to be attacking other users who are legitimately trying to contribute. Magog the Ogre (t • c) 01:37, 22 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I'm merely scolding the nominator; I voted keep because a majority of the nominated images are my uploads. This should have been raised at Template talk:Keep local, rather than as a mass nomination of nearly 100 images, as the template is at the centre of the issue. - Floydian ^τ _¢ 00:57, 23 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

No, this is probably the right place for a deletion discussion. Any discussion there would have been redirected here. As long as the uploaders are notified it seems OK. Magog the Ogre (t • c) 21:07, 23 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete all per WP:NOTWEBHOST. Kelly ^hi! 06:56, 24 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep files by Floydian - for the sake of completeness, harmony, and maintenance, it is unfortunate that we cannot use only a shared repository. But in my opinion, s/he has made a valid request to keep local that should be honored. (Note: for licensing reasons, we can transfer the files to Commons anyway if we wish; we just can't delete them here). Magog the Ogre (t • c) 05:23, 27 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I think the {{keep local}} tag was misused in many cases (in general on en.wp). There should be a policy for usage of this tag. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia and not a [media] repository. Commons is the right place for all free files. Only files which are in 'danger' at Commons perhaps may be kept here (for example the case of FOP photos). Anyway, some day such files will be deleted too, even after all other free files [not tagged {{keep local}}] will be moved to commons. --XXN, 09:47, 27 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

In response to the three comments above, by Kelly, Magog the Ogre and XXN:
1. You are misconstruing WP:NOTWEBHOST. In technicality, it says images used in articles (or will be used) are valid for inclusion. In rational thought, it implies that Wikipedia isn't a repository for your photos. In my case, all the images re encyclopedic with regard to the article covering them, though they may not be used in the article (a point I feel is covered by "(or will be used)".
2. Although I appreciate your support, I must insist that this issue is beyond myself. I'm the rickety shopping cart wheel here. I don't believe anybody would locate and make use of the keep local tag unless they were both familiar with our practices and policies, as well as determined enough to locate this template. EVERY contributor, barring obvious abusive usage by random accounts with no content contribution, deserves the same respect of choice that I expect. As mentioned above, the image can also be uploaded to commons (as the CC-SA licence allows), but the local copy should be kept. As I said above, if this is an issue, it should be raised with the template itself.
3. I agree with most of what you said. I only feel that images that have encyclopedic potential (even if not used in an article, yet) can still be included here. I dislike the way I was treated by the Commons community, and spent almost 4 years trying to get a bureaucratic government copyright office to jump through moving hoops to satisfy a law that anybody with a stable mind could deduce from the applicable Canadian law. In the end I was proven right, and I will flip them bird forevermore.

--Floydian ^τ _¢ 04:56, 29 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Can I withdraw this nomination for deletion? I saw that there a lot of other files wanted to be kept here, but without any valid reasons for this. Probably it's unfair to Floydian and another uploader(s) to bring up for discussion here only their uploads. As I stated above, something is wrong with the {{keep local}} tag. It shouldn't be used simply when uploader wants, but only in some cases regulated by a policy. I want to live to see the day when all remaining free files on en.wikipedia (thousands, tens of thousands) will be tagged with Template:Keep local. --XXN, 21:41, 31 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
As the editor who created 18 of the 20 images nominated for deletion in XXN's first round, I'll explain that my reasons for using {{keeplocal}} are pretty much as Marchjuly stated. At the very least, I'd ask that my uploaded files be given the same consideration that has been shown to those created by Floydian. Orange Suede Sofa (talk) 04:21, 1 November 2016 (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.

File:Mount Pisgah NC.jpg

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: Relisted on Wikipedia:Files for discussion/2017 January 12#File:Mount_Pisgah_NC.jpg}}

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.