Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Lost images


 * The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the miscellany page below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the page's talk page or in a deletion review).  No further edits should be made to this page.  

The result of the debate was delete. Tito xd (?!? - help us) 21:10, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

Lost images
Quite simply, this article appears to be a blackhole. Things get added, but no one appears to be taking any action on the entries in there. It's misleading as it suggests someone will perform some sort of backup recovery. I suggest we either use it, or delete it. --Rebroad 20:09, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete --Rebroad 20:09, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete - This article might encourage people to upload the images again. Ruby 20:53, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete, I see no real sign of any action being taken. And yes people could just attempt to re-upload what got deleted... GarrettTalk 02:01, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment I don't see the major problem with people re-uploading images. If they don't adress the issues that caused the image to get deleted in the first place just hit them over the head with a cluebat and delete it again. The page is rather under-used though, most major mirrors seem to update on a daily or even hourly basis these days so it's rarely possible to find images that have been deleted for more than a couple of days out there. A few people have old image dump files, but these are only usefull for images that have been around for several months. Personaly I would simply recomend that admins be instructed to always save a backup of images they delete (a better solution would naturaly be to make images undeletable, simply "hide" deleted image revisions but otherwise keep them on the server for a month or two before they are actualy deleted), so if it turns out an image was deleted wrongfully, or that whatever problem it had can be fixed it can be restored if the uploader doesn't already have a local copy. As for this page: Why not just redirect it to Deletion review or something, add a seperate image section there or whatever. --Sherool (talk) 15:00, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
 * For the record, OrphanBot keeps a copy of every image it encounters, so if an image was deleted in the past month or so for lack of source or copyright information, odds are I've got a copy. Of course, in order to get me to re-upload the image, the original uploader will need to convince me that they've found the source and the image has acceptable license status. --Carnildo 07:48, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Does it "advertise" this fact though? My experience is that most people are clueless as to who deleted theyr image and why, so it seems unlikely they will contact you to see if OrphanBot kept a copy (though granted they don't know about Lost Images or Deletion Review or anyting else either so I guess we can only do so much). On a unrelated note I see the bot is acused of vandalism for spamming talk pages of users with a lot of unsourced images. I find it a little amusing because Gmaxwell ocationaly take a lot of flak because his bot does not notify people when an image is no longer used. Damned if you do and damned if you don't I guess :P --Sherool (talk) 14:01, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete seems a bit useless. And also encourages people to reupload images that really shouldn't be here. Stifle 14:35, 25 January 2006 (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 page's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.