On 2/11/07, Bryan Derksen <bryan.derksen(a)shaw.ca> wrote:
Images might be orphans due to vanadalism on some other article, and
there's no way to check that directly from the image page itself. If
orphaned fair use images were more rapidly deleted then vandalism on the
low-traffic pages that use them becomes a lot more destructive.
As Thomas said above, for images claimed as fair use, one simply needs
to check the fair use rationale on the image description page to see
which articles the image is claimed to be fair use in. If there is no
such rationale, then the image is speedy deleteable anyway.
And it's not necessarily that easy to reupload an
image. The original
uploader might be long gone from Wikipedia, or he might not have
retained a local copy of it, etc.
Completely unnecessary: image undeletion has been available since June
last year. It's as trivial to undelete an image mistakenly deleted as
it is to undelete an article mistakenly deleted.
On a tangential note, I proposed last month that all the "waiting
periods" in the image criteria be removed, since they were only added
in the first place because image undeletion didn't exist at the time.
The only good argument I heard against the proposal was that bots like
OrphanBot need some waiting period in which to do their business. I
don't see why images can't simply be put into a pool for bots like
OrphanBot to work on, then put into another pool to be deleted
immediately - with no further delays - once the bots are done.
--
Stephen Bain
stephen.bain(a)gmail.com