Commons:Deletion requests/File:Joever meme.jpg: Difference between revisions

1. Background is a low-quality extract. 2. Factual accuracy is disputed, so should be made no longer COM:INUSE. Google Images never shows this photo for "Joever". 3. Therefore, out-of-scope non-educational private meme 142.113.140.146 18:28, 28 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

 Keep, I think this meme very obviously has educational value as an illustration of the "Joever" meme. Just because it isn't the exact same photo used in the most common image macro doesn't mean that it's "inaccurate", memes always have variants. See for example File:Doge homemade meme.jpg which is in use on Wikipedia in multiple languages despite using a different dog photograph than the original. Not to mention, this image is currently COM:INUSE on Spanish Wikipedia. Di (they-them) (talk) 18:37, 28 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

How would you counterargue its deletion reason from enwiki?

Unlike the Doge meme, this is plainly creative indulgence. The doge meme is a very specific image. This one is a random unflattering Biden pic that can be substituted with any other random unflattering Biden pic with a superimposed caption. See relevant policy [COM:EDUSE].
- hako9 20:56, 23 July 2024 (UTC)

I observe Joever is frequently text and infrequently an image macro. Doge, unlike this meme, has variation on Google Images and is a specific breed of "dog[e]". This meme associates either an arbitrary or wrong "Joe" Biden photo, so may exemplify "Files that contain nothing educational other than raw text" 142.113.140.146 18:57, 28 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

COM:INUSE specifically says:

It should be stressed that Commons does not overrule other projects about what is in scope. If an image is in use on another project (aside from use on talk pages or user pages), that is enough for it to be within scope.

it doesn't matter if it isn't used by Enwiki. Eswiki is using it so it's in-scope. Di (they-them) (talk) 21:08, 28 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

 I withdraw my nomination "Such a file is not liable to deletion simply because it may be of poor quality" You win on this technicality.

The eswiki article is an old translation of a problematic enwiki version. It has FP and RE. Nominating here, I can't pointily remove, and the talkpage is probably unwatched. Voted AfD keep, I can't pointily BFD either. We'll just have to wait for article deletion for others to re-nom. 142.113.140.146 23:02, 28 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]