Commons:Deletion requests/File:David Sassoon Library, Mumbai.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.
Not in scope as not realisticaly useful given the poor quality (focus, lighting, framing) and the availability of a version with better framing as well as much higher quality images of the same facade. ELEKHHT 05:34, 28 January 2014 (UTC)
- Focus, lighting and framing is not a criteria for any image to stay in Wikimedia Commons. You can not expect everyone to upload photos with a DSLR. -- ♪Karthik♫ ♪Nadar♫ 05:59, 28 January 2014 (UTC)
- I only expect you to read the full sentence above and follow the links. --09:20, 28 January 2014 (UTC)
- Not in scope of what? Is there a 'Minimum Quality Criteria' out there? I see nothing wrong with this image being on the commons and I think it deserves to STAY. --Rsrikanth05 (talk) 14:07, 28 January 2014 (UTC)
- COM:SCOPE: "Must be realistically useful for an educational purpose. The expression "educational" is to be understood according to its broad meaning of "providing knowledge; instructional or informative"." The image does not add anything realistically educational to the collection of images on Commons. Sorry for being blunt, but as you insist, it just spams the Category:David Sassoon Library, making the search for useful images more tiresome.--ELEKHHT 21:57, 28 January 2014 (UTC)
- The Policy only states that the file is redundant, not that it is disallowed. --Rsrikanth05 (talk) 11:06, 29 January 2014 (UTC)
- "there is no purpose in our hosting many essentially identical poor quality images that have no realistic educational value" [...] "poor or mediocre files of common and easy to capture subjects may have no realistic educational value, especially if Commons already hosts many similar or better quality examples." --ELEKHHT 22:20, 29 January 2014 (UTC)
- The Policy only states that the file is redundant, not that it is disallowed. --Rsrikanth05 (talk) 11:06, 29 January 2014 (UTC)
- COM:SCOPE: "Must be realistically useful for an educational purpose. The expression "educational" is to be understood according to its broad meaning of "providing knowledge; instructional or informative"." The image does not add anything realistically educational to the collection of images on Commons. Sorry for being blunt, but as you insist, it just spams the Category:David Sassoon Library, making the search for useful images more tiresome.--ELEKHHT 21:57, 28 January 2014 (UTC)
- Not in scope of what? Is there a 'Minimum Quality Criteria' out there? I see nothing wrong with this image being on the commons and I think it deserves to STAY. --Rsrikanth05 (talk) 14:07, 28 January 2014 (UTC)
- I only expect you to read the full sentence above and follow the links. --09:20, 28 January 2014 (UTC)
Deleted, there is no minimal quality criteria in Commons, but there is enough better alternatives in Category:David Sassoon Library and the file is redundant to them. The quality is not very bad. If it would be the only photo about the building, then desicion would be "keep", but now there are better photos. Taivo (talk) 19:25, 19 February 2014 (UTC)
