| < December 7 | December 9 > |
|---|
December 8
File:Linda Lee (model).jpg
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
- 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 Peripitus ( talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 11:34, 17 February 2014 (UTC)
- File:Linda Lee (model).jpg ( delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Hangshimkim ( notify | contribs | uploads | upload log).
.jpg&action=delete&wpReason=%5B%5BWikipedia%3AFiles+for+deletion%2F2013+December+8%23File%3ALinda+Lee+%28model%29.jpg%5D%5D){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=history){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
Orphan image of non-notable "model". Even if model were notable, the image is focused on the young lady's midriff and not her face (which would be more useful for an encyclopedia. -- Тимофей ЛееСуда. 19:47, 8 December 2013 (UTC)
- 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:WP Reference Desk protocol.svg
- 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The result of the discussion was: nomination withdrawn, the sole concern is that we not have a file listed s wp protocol which is not indeed wp protocol
- File:WP Reference Desk protocol.svg ( delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by SteveBaker ( notify | contribs | uploads | upload log).
unencyclopedic μηδείς ( talk) 21:54, 8 December 2013 (UTC)
- This file neither reflects an existing policy, nor is there consensus to make it policy, although its name implies it reflects a WP protocol. It was created as part of a talk page argument, and serves no encyclopedic purpose. There's no objection to it being renamed neutrally to "suggested" protocol and being placed in the creator's user space. But we cannot have users uploading policy arguments labelled as facts.
μηδείς (
talk) 21:58, 8 December 2013 (UTC)
- Where is any "policy" argument noted? Where is the "argument" "labelled as fact"? Do you know the difference between a "policy", a "guideline" and a "humorous essay"? How do you suggest it's moved to "user space"? The Rambling Man ( talk) 22:13, 8 December 2013 (UTC)
- I ask that TRM recuse himself and that other editors note he's carrying on some sort of weird stalking obsession from the ITN Nomination desk, manifested here as a disingenuous pretense that he doesn't understand my rationale for the file's deletion. The following comments are all currently addressed to me at
ITN, although this has been going on for a while:
- Nope, that's not a policy, it's a "humorous essay". There's a big difference, you'd do well to learn that. The Rambling Man (talk) 8:37 am, Yesterday (UTC−5)
- They might also have consistently confused policy with guideline with essay. Hence the advice. The Rambling Man (talk) 4:32 pm, Yesterday (UTC−5)
- You make no sense. ... And while you're at it, please learn the difference between a policy and a guideline, which currently clearly evades you! Good luck. The Rambling Man (talk) 5:21 pm, 4 December 2013, last Wednesday (4 days ago) (UTC−5)
- The simple and relevant fact is that this file does not reflect any "protocol" or anything else at the Ref Desks, and should be deleted as serving no encyclopedic purpose. μηδείς ( talk) 23:11, 8 December 2013 (UTC)
- I ask that TRM recuse himself and that other editors note he's carrying on some sort of weird stalking obsession from the ITN Nomination desk, manifested here as a disingenuous pretense that he doesn't understand my rationale for the file's deletion. The following comments are all currently addressed to me at
ITN, although this has been going on for a while:
- Strong Oppose: It's not supposed to be encyclopeadic - it's a part of an ongoing discussion about Wikipedia reference desk policies which has not yet arrived at the point of appraising consensus. Since it is well established that User:Medeis is opposed to this change in the WP:RD guidelines, and his/her controversial actions in responding to questions are the main reason for considering new guidelines, it's very clear that this FfD request is merely a case of an upset user attempting to muzzle discussion on the topic of reforms to the WP:RD guidelines on answering user questions. It's possible that the image will be removed at some time in the future - but it would be disruptive to ongoing discussions to remove it right now. "Moving to user space" would be an entirely reasonable idea - but it doesn't seem to be technically possible for images that are required to reside in File: space...so that's a non-starter. SteveBaker ( talk) 23:08, 8 December 2013 (UTC)
- This file is used as an illustration on Wikipedia_talk:Reference_desk where it's still under discussion.
- This is obviously a WP:POINT nomination from
User:μηδείς because he or she is one of the people who stray furthest from this proposed guideline/idea/whatever.
APL (
talk) 23:39, 8 December 2013 (UTC)
- There's nothing pointy about this, I mentioned it on the file talk page a week ago, and have had no response. There's no desire to remove the file itself, simply not to have it portrayed as protocol, which it isn't. The simple answer is to move it to a neutral name. μηδείς ( talk) 00:58, 9 December 2013 (UTC)
- 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.
| < December 7 | December 9 > |
|---|
December 8
File:Linda Lee (model).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 Peripitus ( talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 11:34, 17 February 2014 (UTC)
- File:Linda Lee (model).jpg ( delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Hangshimkim ( notify | contribs | uploads | upload log).
Orphan image of non-notable "model". Even if model were notable, the image is focused on the young lady's midriff and not her face (which would be more useful for an encyclopedia. -- Тимофей ЛееСуда. 19:47, 8 December 2013 (UTC)
- 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:WP Reference Desk protocol.svg
- 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: nomination withdrawn, the sole concern is that we not have a file listed s wp protocol which is not indeed wp protocol
- File:WP Reference Desk protocol.svg ( delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by SteveBaker ( notify | contribs | uploads | upload log).
unencyclopedic μηδείς ( talk) 21:54, 8 December 2013 (UTC)
- This file neither reflects an existing policy, nor is there consensus to make it policy, although its name implies it reflects a WP protocol. It was created as part of a talk page argument, and serves no encyclopedic purpose. There's no objection to it being renamed neutrally to "suggested" protocol and being placed in the creator's user space. But we cannot have users uploading policy arguments labelled as facts.
μηδείς (
talk) 21:58, 8 December 2013 (UTC)
- Where is any "policy" argument noted? Where is the "argument" "labelled as fact"? Do you know the difference between a "policy", a "guideline" and a "humorous essay"? How do you suggest it's moved to "user space"? The Rambling Man ( talk) 22:13, 8 December 2013 (UTC)
- I ask that TRM recuse himself and that other editors note he's carrying on some sort of weird stalking obsession from the ITN Nomination desk, manifested here as a disingenuous pretense that he doesn't understand my rationale for the file's deletion. The following comments are all currently addressed to me at
ITN, although this has been going on for a while:
- Nope, that's not a policy, it's a "humorous essay". There's a big difference, you'd do well to learn that. The Rambling Man (talk) 8:37 am, Yesterday (UTC−5)
- They might also have consistently confused policy with guideline with essay. Hence the advice. The Rambling Man (talk) 4:32 pm, Yesterday (UTC−5)
- You make no sense. ... And while you're at it, please learn the difference between a policy and a guideline, which currently clearly evades you! Good luck. The Rambling Man (talk) 5:21 pm, 4 December 2013, last Wednesday (4 days ago) (UTC−5)
- The simple and relevant fact is that this file does not reflect any "protocol" or anything else at the Ref Desks, and should be deleted as serving no encyclopedic purpose. μηδείς ( talk) 23:11, 8 December 2013 (UTC)
- I ask that TRM recuse himself and that other editors note he's carrying on some sort of weird stalking obsession from the ITN Nomination desk, manifested here as a disingenuous pretense that he doesn't understand my rationale for the file's deletion. The following comments are all currently addressed to me at
ITN, although this has been going on for a while:
- Strong Oppose: It's not supposed to be encyclopeadic - it's a part of an ongoing discussion about Wikipedia reference desk policies which has not yet arrived at the point of appraising consensus. Since it is well established that User:Medeis is opposed to this change in the WP:RD guidelines, and his/her controversial actions in responding to questions are the main reason for considering new guidelines, it's very clear that this FfD request is merely a case of an upset user attempting to muzzle discussion on the topic of reforms to the WP:RD guidelines on answering user questions. It's possible that the image will be removed at some time in the future - but it would be disruptive to ongoing discussions to remove it right now. "Moving to user space" would be an entirely reasonable idea - but it doesn't seem to be technically possible for images that are required to reside in File: space...so that's a non-starter. SteveBaker ( talk) 23:08, 8 December 2013 (UTC)
- This file is used as an illustration on Wikipedia_talk:Reference_desk where it's still under discussion.
- This is obviously a WP:POINT nomination from
User:μηδείς because he or she is one of the people who stray furthest from this proposed guideline/idea/whatever.
APL (
talk) 23:39, 8 December 2013 (UTC)
- There's nothing pointy about this, I mentioned it on the file talk page a week ago, and have had no response. There's no desire to remove the file itself, simply not to have it portrayed as protocol, which it isn't. The simple answer is to move it to a neutral name. μηδείς ( talk) 00:58, 9 December 2013 (UTC)
- 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.