Commons:Deletion requests/File:Bus in Petersfield.jpeg
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
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.
Very miniscule image of a bus, At 110x96 not a great deal can be seen, Thanks –Davey2010Talk 17:26, 29 August 2022 (UTC)
Kept: no valid reason for deletion. --Wdwd (talk) 07:26, 7 September 2022 (UTC)
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.
(Renominating per guidance given to me at AN[1]) Not educationally useful - Very miniscule image of a bus - We have much larger images of this vehicle here, here, here, here and here, Thanks, –Davey2010Talk 12:47, 10 September 2022 (UTC)
Comment It's not very useful, but you can't nominate this repeatedly, 3 days after every time it's not deleted. Why don't you give up and do something more productive? -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 02:16, 11 September 2022 (UTC)
- @Ikan Kekek I never said I was going too did I?, And how is nominating a tiny image for deletion not productive?, Had you bothered to ask I would've told you that I went to AN over this image and was told I needed to provide images proving we had images of this vehicle in larger sizes.... so that's what I have done .... By all accounts my rationale for deletion is 1000x better than the previous one. I would suggest you go and do something productive instead of leaving pointless comments at DRs. –Davey2010Talk 11:21, 11 September 2022 (UTC)
_%D8%B1%D9%88%DB%8C%D8%B4_%D8%B3%D8%A7%D8%AE%D8%AA%D9%85%D8%A7%D9%86%D9%87%D8%A7_%D8%A8%D9%84%D9%86%D8%AF_%D9%85%D8%B1%D8%AA%D8%A8%D9%87_%D8%AF%D8%B1_%D8%AF%D8%A8%DB%8C_%D8%AF%D8%B1_%D8%A7%D9%85%D8%A7%D8%B1%D8%A7%D8%AA_%D9%85%D8%AA%D8%AD%D8%AF%D9%87_%D8%B9%D8%B1%D8%A8%DB%8C.jpg){kind=link}
- It's not very useful to nominate images for deletion repeatedly, but seeing whether there's a way to save potentially useful images from deletion is productive. To be clear, I'm not opposed to deleting this image for the reasons you offered this time or last time, but I also don't see why it's that important to delete that repeatedly nominating it is worth anyone's time. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 18:43, 11 September 2022 (UTC)
- That's your opinion. In cases such as this I would argue it's absolutely fine to renominate the image providing your rationale is an improvement or clearer to the last one which in this specific case it is, That being said 2nd nom would be my limit I certainly have no intention or desire to keep renominating the same file over and over again but as explained this was only renominated due to the guidance given to me at AN.
- Again there's no usefulness to this image, As an inclusionist/keepist I always try and find means and ways of keeping images and my uploads prove that.
- You bang on about me "being un-productive" yet ironically you don't do anything productive here other than make pointless comments at DRs and comment at QI/FP/VI nominations ..... I do a damn sight more on this project in a day than you do in a year. So unless you're going to actually !vote here then I would kindly suggest you leave the DR and go and pester someone else. –Davey2010Talk 19:31, 11 September 2022 (UTC)
- Sorry for misjudging your intentions. I also pass a bunch of nominations at QIC and cause many VIC nominations to pass by being the lone supporter of them without nominating any of my own photos, so one could argue that's selfless on my part. I also nominate some photos (of course always by others), mostly at FPC. And if you think all my comments at DR are "pointless", OK, whatever. As for voting on this, if there's no feature of this bus that needs documentation, even in such a tiny picture, I would indeed support deletion. Have a nice day. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 19:58, 11 September 2022 (UTC)
- "if there's no feature of this bus that needs documentation, even in such a tiny picture, I would indeed support deletion" - You could've said that 19 hours ago and saved us both the need to keep coming here. You have a nice day too. –Davey2010Talk 20:25, 11 September 2022 (UTC)
- You're right. I'm sorry; my remarks were truly annoying. I'll try to be more careful. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 23:10, 11 September 2022 (UTC)
- "if there's no feature of this bus that needs documentation, even in such a tiny picture, I would indeed support deletion" - You could've said that 19 hours ago and saved us both the need to keep coming here. You have a nice day too. –Davey2010Talk 20:25, 11 September 2022 (UTC)
- Sorry for misjudging your intentions. I also pass a bunch of nominations at QIC and cause many VIC nominations to pass by being the lone supporter of them without nominating any of my own photos, so one could argue that's selfless on my part. I also nominate some photos (of course always by others), mostly at FPC. And if you think all my comments at DR are "pointless", OK, whatever. As for voting on this, if there's no feature of this bus that needs documentation, even in such a tiny picture, I would indeed support deletion. Have a nice day. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 19:58, 11 September 2022 (UTC)
- It's not very useful to nominate images for deletion repeatedly, but seeing whether there's a way to save potentially useful images from deletion is productive. To be clear, I'm not opposed to deleting this image for the reasons you offered this time or last time, but I also don't see why it's that important to delete that repeatedly nominating it is worth anyone's time. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 18:43, 11 September 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination, unusable. --P 1 9 9 ✉ 01:53, 24 September 2022 (UTC)
