File:AMAA Statuette.jpg ( talk| | history| logs| links| watch) ( article| XfD| restore)

This image was nominated for deletion on a baseless claim of unclear copyright information. The nominator's reason for nominating the image was that "I" said that "Africa Film Academy owns the copyright" and not me. Meanwhile what I said in the link he provided was that I couldn't give the image a free licence, since it is a derivative work. In other words, Africa Film Academy owns the copyright to the statuette, whereas I only own the copyright to the image. This is what the user misinterpreted to mean that I didn't own the image. I initially thought any admin deleting the image would investigate properly before deleting, that was why I just ignored the user's deletion request. Since no one commented, I was thinking the discussion would be closed as no consensus, but the closing admin says otherwise. I already contacted the admin. Thanks. Jamie Tubers ( talk) 16:18, 27 April 2016 (UTC) reply

• Relist. There's clearly been a miscommunication here.— S Marshall T/ C 16:30, 27 April 2016 (UTC) reply
• Relist the whole discussion here seems a bit bizarre so I can understand some frustration and maybe less so the misunderstanding, it's a pity one of the regular image "experts" didn't chime in on the deletion discussion. It's also a pity the closing admin didn't volunteer to simply relist when you raised the point, it doesn't seem something which should have proved too controversial. -- 82.14.37.32 ( talk) 19:05, 27 April 2016 (UTC) reply
• Relist and a trout to the deleting admin. Not for the deletion, but for not just relisting this on his/her own. Hobit ( talk) 01:00, 28 April 2016 (UTC) reply
• It's been undeleted by User:Graeme Bartlett after a parallel request at WP:REFUND; I expect he wasn't aware of either the DRV or the deleting admin's refusal to restore. — Cryptic 04:45, 28 April 2016 (UTC) reply
  • Yes I undeleted based on that it was a WP:soft delete, in that no one, not even the nominator had asked to delete this. Since the statuette is used under fair use, the actual copyright holder is not so relevant, and more important that the item is genuine. Now that other issues are rolled into WP:FFD there may now be a presumption that the files are to be deleted, rather than other corrective action taken. I suppose I had better check what the deleting admin had to say, as the normal method would be to ask the deleting admin to reconsider their action first. And I did not know that this review had started before the ping above! Graeme Bartlett ( talk) 07:16, 28 April 2016 (UTC) reply

    Since I already got my portion of shit for spending my free time on closing FFDs, I am not going to contest undeletion, and the review can be closed as far as I am concerned.-- Ymblanter ( talk) 07:32, 28 April 2016 (UTC) reply

    • closing FFD's seems to be pretty thankless, and I got complaints in the last week too when I closed some. Thanks Ymblanter for trying to cut that backlog. Graeme Bartlett ( talk) 09:51, 28 April 2016 (UTC) reply

    • FFDs default to full delete if nobody opposes, because of the volume of cases as compared to the volume of observers. Stifle ( talk) 10:28, 28 April 2016 (UTC) reply
      • Yes, but particularly now FFD is Files For Discussion the nomination should propose deletion for deletion to be the default. I don't know about FFD but at AFD articles are sometimes nominated merely to get people's opinions. Thincat ( talk) 15:59, 28 April 2016 (UTC) reply

I have changed the administrator instructions at WP:Files for discussion/Administrator instructions#Express closure guidelines although I expect I'll be reverted. Thincat ( talk) 16:24, 28 April 2016 (UTC) reply

Wikipedia:Files for discussion/heading says that a file which has been listed on FFD can be deleted after seven days if no one has opposed deleting the file. Now that FFD is files for discussion, it should maybe be updated to say that there also needs to be at least one user (for example the nominator) who supports deleting the file. For example, if a user writes that 'This file is unfree but I suspect that it actually is free' then it would be inappropriate to close the request as delete. Instead, the admin should evaluate the claim that the copyright status isn't correctly indicated. I suggest relisting this file as important details about the file have been provided here in the deletion review. -- Stefan2 ( talk) 23:45, 28 April 2016 (UTC) reply