Commons:Deletion requests/File:Akihabara August 2014 09.JPG
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.
File:Akihabara August 2014 09.JPG
COM:TOYS. G I Chandor (talk) 06:13, 26 March 2017 (UTC)
- Keep. De minimum, no particular toys in focus, just cabinets, all toys in low resolution. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 14:41, 26 March 2017 (UTC)
Kept: as per COM:DM. --Daphne Lantier 00:06, 2 April 2017 (UTC)
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.
File:Akihabara August 2014 09.JPG
consists almost entirely of copyrighted material, de minimis applies when copyrighted image is only a small part of image, figurines are everywhere in this photo. Grandmaster Huon (talk) 00:14, 11 March 2025 (UTC)
Keep per previous DR, as each figurine is de minimis in the image. The fact that there is a lot of figurines doesn’t change the de minimis-ness of each figurine. Tvpuppy (talk) 00:18, 11 March 2025 (UTC)
Speedy keep per @Tvpuppy. TzarN64 (talk) 01:22, 11 March 2025 (UTC)- Keep. Thank you for the speedy keep. I was going to say the same (de minimis). Please review speedy deletion requests made by the nom (this was tagged for speedy deletion first, sigh). Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 02:14, 11 March 2025 (UTC)
- I'm not convinced it's de minimis, but I don't see what the point was in reopening discussion 8 years after it was kept, without a new argument. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 04:12, 11 March 2025 (UTC)
- Then what do you have to add to justify your point? Grandmaster Huon (talk) 18:54, 11 March 2025 (UTC)
- A new argument. I consider your argument just a longer version of COM:TOYS that was addressed in 2017. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 20:39, 11 March 2025 (UTC)
- Then why do you think personally this is not de minimis? Grandmaster Huon (talk) 23:27, 11 March 2025 (UTC)
- I said I'm not convinced it's de minimis. Should I repost my remark? Ikan Kekek (talk) 01:28, 12 March 2025 (UTC)
Thus
Delete on Ikan's behalf regarding the fact that it is not de minimis according to their point of view. Grandmaster Huon (talk) 05:02, 12 March 2025 (UTC)- You are not allowed to vote for me! Since you're trying to do that, Keep due to the principle of stare decisis - essentially, that reasonable decisions should stand and not be relitigated. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 05:53, 12 March 2025 (UTC)
- You are not allowed to vote for me! Since you're trying to do that,
- I said I'm not convinced it's de minimis. Should I repost my remark? Ikan Kekek (talk) 01:28, 12 March 2025 (UTC)
- Then why do you think personally this is not de minimis? Grandmaster Huon (talk) 23:27, 11 March 2025 (UTC)
- A new argument. I consider your argument just a longer version of COM:TOYS that was addressed in 2017. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 20:39, 11 March 2025 (UTC)
- Then what do you have to add to justify your point? Grandmaster Huon (talk) 18:54, 11 March 2025 (UTC)
- I'm not convinced it's de minimis, but I don't see what the point was in reopening discussion 8 years after it was kept, without a new argument. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 04:12, 11 March 2025 (UTC)
- Keep Per countless precedents, such as Commons:Deletion requests/File:Akihabara August 2014 08.JPG. I don't really find the purpose of nominating these cases: it's either allowed or not. If we've kept one, there should be no universe where we delete another very similar case. Personally, its just disruptive and brings unnecessary conflicts.--Takipoint123 (💬) 04:45, 11 March 2025 (UTC)
- Keep De minimis applies here, just like the previous DR on this file. CutlassCiera 17:45, 11 March 2025 (UTC)
Kept: Snowball close, no new evidence since original DR which was closed correctly. --Abzeronow (talk) 19:09, 12 March 2025 (UTC)