Orangemike doesn't identify which part of WP:CSD#F7 applies (Have I whined recently about how bad an idea it is to merge speedy deletion criteria that are only superficially similar? Well, I have now.), so I've got to guess.
It was tagged {{Non-free fair use in}}, which, though not terribly specific, isn't "clearly-invalid".
It's not, so far as I can tell with Tineye, owned by a commercial image source.
It wasn't tagged {{rfu}} or {{dfu}} at all, let alone for 2/7 days, so it's not those either. Though I'd be tentatively supportive of a dfu tag based on the usually-incorrect source of instagram, of all places.So I'm strongly leaning overturn here, absent more information from the deleting admin. —Cryptic 23:40, 28 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note If the issue here is SOLELY the source I'd be far more than happy to re-upload it from a different source. TheDoctorWho(talk) 00:03, 29 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I see no applicable CSD reason to remove the file. An XFD challenge is fair if there's question of replaceability, but cast photos are allowed images if all other parts of NFC are met, so CSD cannot be used. --Masem (t) 00:18, 29 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn as it wasn't tagged with anything to qualify for F7 the image would have to either have a clearly invalid fair use tag or come from a commercial source, neither appears to be the case. I would definitely recommend that the uploader clarify the source though. Hut 8.5 06:48, 29 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn and list at FFD. The file doesn't appear to meet CSD:F7 as-is; therefore, the deletion was incorrect. There is at least an arguable case that it should be deleted for insufficient compliance with WP:NFCC, but that is something to be hashed out at FFD. Stifle (talk) 11:11, 29 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn. File was not tagged with an incorrect non-free license (for example, {{Non-free audio sample}} or some other clearly inappropriate license) nor did it originate from a commercial source like Associated Press or Getty Images. The remaining two bullet points require the file to be tagged for deletion with either {{Rfu}} for two days or {{Dfu}} for seven days, which it was not. ℯxplicit 07:03, 31 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.
Highly relevant, authentic and meticulously collected information, touching upon manifold facets and contributions, has been speedily deleted, showing the deleter's utter unawareness of the fundamentals of the topics involved along with their deep-seated aversion to scholarly research. Khasif746 (talk) 17:42, 28 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I think it might be a reference to Ignác Goldziher, where the lister added a lot of content which got reverted. Stifle (talk) 11:07, 29 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.
