Commons:Deletion requests/File:A big pen for a little animal (2833092598).jpg

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

File:A big pen for a little animal (2833092598).jpg

In my opinion the file is out of project scope due to low educational value. But if you find here some kind of value, that's OK for me. Taivo (talk) 09:06, 19 June 2017 (UTC)

•  Delete I don't find anything, not even the pen. --E4024 (talk) 09:12, 19 June 2017 (UTC)

• Try to find a pencil, then? -- Tuválkin ✉ ✇ 14:42, 19 June 2017 (UTC)

• I wasn't looking for one, I was only trying to understand the stupid title. --E4024 (talk) 14:46, 19 June 2017 (UTC)

•  Keep The title can be changed, and the absence of a pen is not fatal to its future here. It's a typical scene at an agricultural show and may therefore have educational value as such. However, that value is severely diminished when Flickr tags are applied, leading to miscategorisation, and I have removed them and the erroneous categories. I will continue to do this whenever and wherever I see them causing problems, because I think quality of images should trump quantity any day. Rodhullandemu (talk) 09:40, 19 June 2017 (UTC)

• Miscategorisation doesn’t reduce the intrinsic value of the image, and it can be corrected. -- Tuválkin ✉ ✇ 14:42, 19 June 2017 (UTC)

•  Keep, obviously. -- Tuválkin ✉ ✇ 14:42, 19 June 2017 (UTC)

•  Keep Image with educational value. Also the title is not stupid. Also about the title, when you speak of pen, if your thinking of en:pen, you should instead think of en:Pen (enclosure), that this image shows, albeit a small part. Tm (talk) 18:11, 21 June 2017 (UTC)
•  Delete - indeed out of scope, with or without a 'pen' - Jcb (talk) 17:33, 25 June 2017 (UTC)

 Comment Jcb, do you care to explain whay do you think that this image is out of scope, in more than a common, generic and abstract comment? Tm (talk) 23:59, 25 June 2017 (UTC)

---

Kept: no valid reason for deletion - reasonable quality. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 09:43, 26 June 2017 (UTC)