Commons:Deletion requests/File:The Pharaoh - Wrestler.jpg
This file was initially tagged by McZusatz as no source (No source since): We need the actual source/author and not the guy who took his iPhone and photographed the photo. McZusatz (talk) 13:57, 18 May 2015 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:56, 25 May 2015 (UTC)
This file was for an article on Wikipedia that was deleted via AfD there and has no other use. There is a draft but it should be speedied very soon. Also note that the uploader has been blocked indefinitely from Wikipedia for socking in association with the article concerned (Tony Ricca).2001:8003:5999:6D00:7CDF:FEF:82B:12E6 10:38, 17 September 2019 (UTC)
- Update - the draft has been speedily deleted on Wikipedia. 2001:8003:5999:6D00:1C33:A67C:6860:91CE 22:31, 17 September 2019 (UTC)
• 
Keep The image was reviewed by FlickreviewR and was confirmed to be licensed under the terms of the cc-by-sa-2.0. The image was not just for the article that was recently deleted. The image might be used in other possible articles and should remain as that was the main reason for it being uploaded. There is use for the image. Georgivac (talk) 21:18, 19 September 2019 (UTC)
• 
Comment 2001:8003:5999:6D00:1C33:A67C:6860:91CE has not made any contributions to Wikimedia Commons and has chosen Nominated for deletion on all uploads under my account. Georgivac (talk) 22:39, 19 September 2019 (UTC)
- @2001:8003:5999:6D00:1C33:A67C:6860:91CE: If you want editors to assume good faith, please extend the same courtesy to them. Please read the Wikimedia Commons Etiquette. There are reasons for articles to be deleted but it is not a reason for an image to be deleted because an article it had been on was. The image can have many uses for other articles. Your explanation for this file is that the article on Wikipedia was deleted via AFD and there is no other use. My information demonstrates that there is. An article deleted doesn't mean that an image on it should be. You stated the uploader has been blocked indefinitely from Wikipedia for socking in association with the article concerned (Tony Ricca). Please note the uploader here isn't blocked indefinitely from Wikimedia Commons. On Wikipedia, it is blocked indefinitely not banned, for suspected sockpuppets. This is Wikimedia Commons and follow the proper guidelines. You stated "There is a draft but it should be speedied very soon." That statement doesn't show any contributions to helping someone that's drafting but demonstrates encouragement for it to not be there. That shows biased toward the individual. You're on Wikimedia Commons and nominated for deletion for the images of that individual. That is not permitted in the guidelines. Georgivac (talk) 22:39, 19 September 2019 (UTC)
- You have been blocked from Wikipedia for sock puppetry so you are exempt to the rules of AGF. Your information is wrong as the AfD there proves. He isn't notable. If anyone is biased in relation to this individual it's you. This picture and the others have NO other use. Not at all. (Note that I am the same person as the nominator as my IP changes constantly) 2001:8003:5999:6D00:9C80:257:E967:F8D4 06:49, 20 September 2019 (UTC)
- @2001:8003:5999:6D00:1C33:A67C:6860:91CE: If you want editors to assume good faith, please extend the same courtesy to them. Please read the Wikimedia Commons Etiquette. There are reasons for articles to be deleted but it is not a reason for an image to be deleted because an article it had been on was. The image can have many uses for other articles. Your explanation for this file is that the article on Wikipedia was deleted via AFD and there is no other use. My information demonstrates that there is. An article deleted doesn't mean that an image on it should be. You stated the uploader has been blocked indefinitely from Wikipedia for socking in association with the article concerned (Tony Ricca). Please note the uploader here isn't blocked indefinitely from Wikimedia Commons. On Wikipedia, it is blocked indefinitely not banned, for suspected sockpuppets. This is Wikimedia Commons and follow the proper guidelines. You stated "There is a draft but it should be speedied very soon." That statement doesn't show any contributions to helping someone that's drafting but demonstrates encouragement for it to not be there. That shows biased toward the individual. You're on Wikimedia Commons and nominated for deletion for the images of that individual. That is not permitted in the guidelines. Georgivac (talk) 22:39, 19 September 2019 (UTC)
- Delete Uploaded for the sole purpose of promotion of the subject and for no other purpose. Uploader is clearly acting on behalf of the subject and is therefore subject to a conflict of interest - already noted on his talk page on Wikipedia. Denial there is suspicious. In fact I hold the belief that this user is the subject concerned. There is no other way this information could have been acquired. Wikimedia in all respects is not a platform for promotion. 118.127.101.18 21:51, 21 September 2019 (UTC)
Delete - Outside the scope of WikiCommons under 2.2. No educational value demonstrated. 1.152.108.116 05:19, 5 October 2019 (UTC)
- Keep, per McZusatz’s addition of an OTRS ticket. Also, please, you two, stop raising arguments, both in favour and against deletion, that has nothing to do with Wikimedia Commons. -- Tuválkin ✉ ✇ 17:37, 14 October 2019 (UTC)
- The points have EVERYTHING to do with it! He's promoting this guy and has a conflict of interest which means self promotion which is not allowed under the rules HERE! Getting it? OTRS ticket is irrelevant. 2001:8003:5999:6D00:B8BA:BA1F:3B9F:F069 21:03, 14 October 2019 (UTC)
- Delete Clearly in violation of COM:HOST and COM:ADVERT. 02:22, 23 October 2019 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment was added by 150.101.89.115 (talk) 02:22, 23 October 2019 (UTC)
- And now a 4th Australian IP appears voting the same way on the same nominations. Quakewoody (talk) 10:30, 23 October 2019 (UTC)
Kept: no valid reason for deletion. --Sebari – aka Srittau (talk) 12:12, 23 October 2019 (UTC)
