Commons:Deletion requests/File:Caprera old fort.jpg
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.
out-of-scope, unused Ricordisamoa 13:59, 27 June 2013 (UTC)
Keep. That a file is "unused" is certainly not a reason for deletion. And why should it not be in scope? It's a good example of artistic nude photography, which is in scope, with an old building as a backdrop that should be in scope as well. The user requesting the deletion seems to have the notion that this file is "not encyclopedic because not used" ("non enciclopedica perché non utilizzata"), at least he says so at it:Wikipedia:Bar/Discussioni/Nel frattempo, su Commons..., a page discussing recent events here at Commons.
- This notion is wrong of course, as we know, Commons is not just an image repository for Wikipedia. In fact, the deletion request seems to have been provoked by another user's displeasure, astonishment or whatever at finding the image in the Category:Caprera, "the island famous for being the last residence of Garibaldi", as "the picture that you did not expect to find" (translated from the Italian page named above). So they find an image they didn't expect and don't like in a category, and what do they do? They make a deletion request. Such sillyness. --Vydra (talk) 15:30, 27 June 2013 (UTC)
- Thanks for your analysis! --Aplasia (talk) 15:08, 28 June 2013 (UTC)
- Comment I think the question is not the deletion, but the category: in fact the island of Caprera is not the main subjet of the photo. File:00-Nudist woman desert 02.JPG is perhaps in the category "desert"? Or File:Breasts of a 41-year old mother of two.jpg in category "chair"? File:Girl Goes Nude shopping .jpg in category "shops" or "car parking"? When I made this file (just an example) I was in Montelibretti, but I did not think to put it in the category "Montelibretti"... --Retaggio (talk) 09:05, 2 July 2013 (UTC)
Kept: no consensus to delete FASTILY 21:56, 12 July 2013 (UTC)
