Endorse. A single AfD produces a consensus in respect of the article being discussed. No further. There is no overriding policy or guideline here that compelled the closing admin to set aside a very clear consensus to keep. Given the overwhelming consensus in that direction, and the near impossibility of reversing it with further discussion, a re-listing would be an unnecessary clogging-up of the daily AfD log. --Mkativerata (talk) 10:27, 26 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse - it's a list, with no policy reason for deletion, with a strong headcount in favour of keeping (and since listing is mostly content organisation, rather than inclusion/exclusion, headcount weighs more heavily). The nomination statement includes the demonstratably false assertion that it's an indiscriminate list, and then makes a couple of assertions that are essentially unrelated to the matter at hand - i.e., the only delete argument is based on a factually incorrect assertion. There's no way to close this as anything other than keep. WilyD16:47, 27 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The file wasn't uploaded on en wikipedia, but on wikipedia commons so admins here can't restore or see the image. As I've no idea what the permission said it's pretty difficult to tell. If it said "you can use this on wikipedia", then the deletion on Commons was fine, Commons only accepts free images i.e. those with broader licenses for everyone to use including for commercial purposes. En wikipedia has a similar policy, though in some circumstances fair use claims can be made. --86.2.216.5 (talk) 15:42, 25 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
