On 2/11/07, Bryan Derksen bryan.derksen@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.