Commons:Deletion requests/File:Xblansh 056.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.
Change to DR from speedy nomination by User:Malo, original speedy nomination "out of scope, self promotional, unusable otherwise." --KTo288 (talk) 21:31, 15 May 2010 (UTC)
KeepIf its self promotional he hasn't done a very good job of it, the file is unused in wikimedia projects so it can't be said he's plastering his picture all over the place. In which case if its unused it must be out of scope you say and should therefore be deleted as such. Have a look at Category:Album covers, most album covers are not freely licensed it says, and this one is. Most of the ones we have are old, this one would be one the only one we have from the 21stC. But he's not notable you say Ghits for "double sortie de flow" produces 635 ghits, and for "Sillex" double sortie de flow 3350 ghits which is no measure of quality or notability. But we are not music critics and we are not wikipedia. The image could be used to illustrate common hip hop memes, the rise of self publishing in the music industry, hip hop culture in France. The issue of usability is an issue of categorisation. Categorise the image right and any suitably licensed image is usable, someone might just be looking for this image or one similar to it to illustrate their article in a wikimedia project or elsewhere (remember we're not here to just serve the wikimedia projects.KTo288 (talk) 21:52, 15 May 2010 (UTC)
- Keep Kto has a good point.--Giorgiomonteforti (talk) 04:22, 16 May 2010 (UTC)
Deleted, out of project scope. Kameraad Pjotr 20:47, 6 November 2010 (UTC)
