Commons:Deletion requests/File:DEID wordmark.svg

No educational value. The website linked to a harassment campaign is run by one person. Daisy Blue (talk) 23:23, 19 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Possibly related to the ongoing Wikidata discussions (one, two) and if so, it could be an attempt by the same user to give more value to the DEIDetected Wikidata page nominated for deletion. Daisy Blue (talk) 23:34, 19 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• I will not even comment on such unfounded accusations and this topic you started has nothing to do with Commons. I'll just say that you omit the fact that you started to persistently remove/revert a useful source from Wikidata, which you disagree with for your own personal reasons ("disagreement with source" is not in any case is not a valid reason for removing sources on Wikidata), and you mention this topic here for some reason even though it has nothing to do with Commons...

As for the file itself  Speedy keep as this is just a simple text logo recreated by me. The logo doesn't exceed threshold of originality, so there is no valid reason for deletion. Regards Kirilloparma (talk) 03:26, 20 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

What is the rationale if not the use on that Wikidata page nominated for deletion, given that having wiki links is one of the three criteria under the Wikidata notability guidelines? Also, why the quotation marks around disagreement with source? It's not something I've ever said. The discussion is there in its entirety for everyone to see. Daisy Blue (talk) 07:34, 20 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This is an illustration of a simple text logo, it is in use, in scope and it does not exceed the threshold of originality. It was not created to have a sitelink on Wikidata, especially since the item now meets the other two criteria, i.e. criterion #2 and criterion #3, so this is purely your personal complaints, which have nothing to do with Commons like this thread you started...

As for disagreement with the source, you have demonstrated this repeatedly on Wikidata, as you have now also here, trying to remove anything related to this database, and this even though there is more than nothing wrong with this file on Commons. Regards Kirilloparma (talk) 23:42, 23 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]