Commons:Deletion requests/File:DaxServer.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.
This file was initially tagged by DaxServer as Speedy (Speedydelete) and the most recent rationale was: Author's request
Converted to regular DR, as there are a lot of external uses of this photography[1]. Nominator should check whether any are linking to our file, as deletion would break that. -- Túrelio (talk) 12:46, 31 October 2022 (UTC)
- @Túrelio Uploaded in 2021. Obviously not eligible for speedy deletion.
- When I followed your search link, all the page 1 results were from npm or GitHub. Presumably because at least one GitHub user uses this photo as their profile picture. How is this relevant to this deletion request? Brianjd (talk) 12:44, 2 November 2022 (UTC)
- This question is (somewhat) relevant for DRs as this one, which are based on courtesy instead of necessity. Of course, a copyvio will be deleted even if it's massively used on- and off-wiki. But this DR would be performed merely out of courtesy towards the requester. The requester himself has uploaded this image some time ago under a free license, which so far has not been questioned. External re-users may have relied on Commons' claim to provide freely licensed media. If this image is deleted, the formerly given (and called unrevokable) license is seemingly "retracted", at least the image is no longer available on Commons. Re-users who didn't download the file to their website, but used hot-linking to our file, will have no longer access to it. So, in order not to damage Commons' reputation, in DRs with a weak rationale, it should be checked for external re-uses and re-users eventually be notified. --Túrelio (talk) 13:24, 2 November 2022 (UTC)
- @Túrelio But the GitHub/npm results are not relevant for this purpose. Are there other results that are relevant?
- Also, the GitHub/npm results do not demonstrate that the image is in scope. Are there other results that demonstrate this? (The file is tagged {{User page image}}, implying that it is out of scope.) Brianjd (talk) 13:54, 2 November 2022 (UTC)
- This question is (somewhat) relevant for DRs as this one, which are based on courtesy instead of necessity. Of course, a copyvio will be deleted even if it's massively used on- and off-wiki. But this DR would be performed merely out of courtesy towards the requester. The requester himself has uploaded this image some time ago under a free license, which so far has not been questioned. External re-users may have relied on Commons' claim to provide freely licensed media. If this image is deleted, the formerly given (and called unrevokable) license is seemingly "retracted", at least the image is no longer available on Commons. Re-users who didn't download the file to their website, but used hot-linking to our file, will have no longer access to it. So, in order not to damage Commons' reputation, in DRs with a weak rationale, it should be checked for external re-uses and re-users eventually be notified. --Túrelio (talk) 13:24, 2 November 2022 (UTC)
- Thanks for the note @Túrelio I've updated the GitHub and npmjs pictures, they're not taken from Commons license anyways. The other search results were reflecting npmjs, so they would be updated [hopefully] soon. Other than these, I don't see any more usages. Thanks! -- DaxServer (talk) 10:58, 8 November 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination, courtesy-deletion (no dependent external uses found). --Túrelio (talk) 11:03, 8 November 2022 (UTC)
