File:Nibiru-5.jpg

A composite of images deleted as unused. This image is also unused, and thus out of COM:SCOPE. Ellin Beltz (talk) 19:05, 20 January 2015 (UTC)

•  Keep. I wanted to use File:Nibiru-5.jpg in the wiki on the mythical planet, Nibiru. Right now, the wiki claims a star that is 20,000 light years away to have been purported to be Nibiru. But,a cursory search over google will show that much of this conspiracy theory is based on unorthodox lens artifact captured near the sun. I wanted to keep this image to archive that, as well better represent the wiki on Nibiru. P.S. I also edited several of these artifacts into File:Alberto's Nibiru compilation.jpg. Emphatik, 2015-01-23; 17:38:07
•  Keep. Considering the poor ^{(Sorry, Ellin!)} closing of Commons:Deletion requests/Files uploaded by Nidrac36, The best way to procede would be to use this in an article in wikipedia, maybe en:Nibiru cataclysm. Care should be made in telling apart claims that «this photo is seen by some to be proof of Nibiru» and «photos like this are seen by some to be proof of Nibiru». -- Tuválkin ✉ 07:00, 24 January 2015 (UTC)

ok. what is your opinion on keeping File:Alberto's Nibiru compilation.jpg? I wanted to link it to the File:Nibiru-5.jpg image (which I wanted to put in the nibiru cataclysm wiki as u suggest). That way readers can see it from a broader context & see, "Oh ok. This is what that conspiracy theory is all about." Emphatik (talk) 11:06, 24 January 2015 (UTC)

•  Comment The poor closure was three deletes to one keep and one comment. It was closed 17 days after nomination which is ten days over the minimum time. Two of the delete votes were by one individual, later found to be a sock puppet. That left the score 1 delete, 1 keep and 1 comment. I read all of them carefully. It was fairly clear that what was at issue were a pile of low quality images purporting to be of something that doesn't exist, i.e. Nibiru. I don't think the closure was poor, I think the closed out images were of poor quality and out of scope. Hence these DWs of the deleted images, same. Ellin Beltz (talk) 17:51, 24 January 2015 (UTC)

Yes, Nibiru doesn’t exist. Neither does Santa Claus and we host files of its depictions and impersonations. That’s why your closure was poor, and the post above is too. (Sorry again — I generally have your work in high regard, Ellin, yet somehow we seem to “meet” only when I have a complaint. ) If otherwise okay (license), this image should be kept, as there is value in a trivial image which some regard extraordinary, it enriching the documenting of that belief. -- Tuválkin ✉ 21:13, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

•  Delete, out of scope, better photos of the sun available. –Be..anyone (talk) 00:17, 31 January 2015 (UTC)
•  Comment: Emphatik, do we know whether Nidrac36 (the uploader and supposedly author of this photo) him/herself claims that this photo shows Nibiru? Or does anyone at Zeta Talk or any other pseudoscientifical organization making that claim, for this exact photo? If so, I will mantain my vote, but if not, well, there are in Commons much better images of this effect. -- Tuválkin ✉ 01:12, 31 January 2015 (UTC)

Nidrac36 is a friend of mine. Here is a post he made purporting these to be supposed claims of this so-called planet. Also, I just want to be clear... the picture isn't about the sun, but the lens artifact near the sun. The current picture on the Nibiru cataclysm wiki shows V838 Mon (a star that is 20,000 light years away). If you do a quick search on google, you will see the majority of claims on Nibiru are actually lens artifacts & not V838 Mon.

This image provides a more accurate representation on this Nibiru theory than the current pic in the wiki. As per your advice, I will attach it to the article then. cheers Emphatik (talk) 16:39, 31 January 2015 (UTC)

Emphatik, you are not answering my question above. Is this documentation or just illustration? Please respond. If the latter, I’ll be changing my vote to favour deletion as there are far better examples of lens flares in Commons. -- Tuválkin ✉ 03:02, 3 February 2015 (UTC)

•  Delete, unencyclopedic nonsense. Bluntly speaking, this is about as obvious a case of lens flare as you can get, and folks who believe otherwise simply need to educate themselves. — Huntster (t @ c) 18:37, 2 February 2015 (UTC)

Of course the article on Nibiru belief needs to be illustrated with actual images of this non-existing subject, that’s right. (Bluntly speaking…) -- Tuválkin ✉ 03:02, 3 February 2015 (UTC)

Maybe projects concerned with non-existing subjects such as the w:Principality of Sealand or w:Indigo children, if that page still exists, should also host the relevant media for claims and counterclaims. Is this at least a decent lens flare remotely educational here, or is it another case of overrepresented male boldy parts in all sizes below 100 KB JPEG? –Be..anyone (talk) 16:49, 3 February 2015 (UTC)

Yes, the article on w:Indigo children still exists, as it should. An encyclopedia must cover all topics, including hoaxes and superstition. I only wish the same level of sound debunking were excercised in all wikipedias and all subjects (e.g., w:Theology). -- Tuválkin ✉ 04:02, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

•  Comment This is where Alberto puts the rest of his pictures. https://www.flickr.com/photos/130205543@N08/. Some of these are hard to explain away as normal lens flares. & is what partly fuels this nibiru conspiracy. -Emphatik (talk) 01:11, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

edit* - Leaving link to a video shot recently re:second sun. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sfrnNvjvT7A -Emphatik (talk) 02:22, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

And how is that relevant to this DR, other than you pushing this BS pseudoscience? — Huntster (t @ c) 02:55, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

It is relevant because the image whose deletion we are discussing is at http://www.flickr.com/photos/130205543@N08/15741100734/ (CC BY 2.0) and it is not just a token lens flare which could illustrate the statement that «deluded conspirationists see lens flares like this one as a proof of the existence of Nibiru» but rather the much more interesting and objective (and thus enabling more solid debunking) the statement that «deluded conspirationists see this lens flare, i.a., as a proof of the existence of Nibiru». I renew my vote for keeping, and suggest that the original flickr url is added as source and the fillres version be uploaded instead. -- Tuválkin ✉ 04:02, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

Deleted: Hunster put it perfectly -- "Unencylopedic nonsense". .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 21:43, 25 February 2015 (UTC)