Commons:Deletion requests/File:Homeless Crisis 40.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.
Near 1:1 duplicate of File:Homeless Crisis 39.JPG. Per COM:Redundant. BriefEdits (talk) 05:47, 13 August 2020 (UTC)
Weak keep In this case I find it useful to have two photographs taken a few seconds apart. ℺ Gone Postal (〠 ✉ • ✍ ⏿) 17:39, 17 August 2020 (UTC)
- How so, Gone_Postal? — BriefEdits (talk) 19:25, 17 August 2020 (UTC)
- For the same reason why a video would be better than a still image, it provides time flow. If we would only have inanimate objects in the frame, then this would not be the case. ℺ Gone Postal (〠 ✉ • ✍ ⏿) 19:38, 17 August 2020 (UTC)
- Hey Gone_Postal, I guess I disagree as the marginal utility of keeping it is rather small. Per COM:SPAM, the nominated photo adds nothing distinctively unique to the conversation as the time frame between them are slim and the composition is very similar. (if not identical) And per COM:NOTUSED, you don't need to keep every single photo to flesh out a theoretical usage or categorization. Meaning we don't need proof that he is sleeping when the subtext of the photo implies that much. — BriefEdits (talk) 20:09, 17 August 2020 (UTC)
- This is not the area where I contribute, but I simply attempted to voice my opinion trying to see things from the point of a potential reuser. But I suppose that it is ok to have a respectful disagreement. I will have no harsh feelings even if the file is deleted. ℺ Gone Postal (〠 ✉ • ✍ ⏿) 06:01, 18 August 2020 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination, redundant. --P 1 9 9 ✉ 02:40, 26 December 2020 (UTC)
