Commons:Deletion requests/File:Stamp GB Edward VII 2d Tyrian plum.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.
Please, look here for better quality copy of the exactly same stamp. Nickpo (talk) 02:11, 20 July 2015 (UTC)
Keep Eh... different physical stamp (the perforations are different), and this one was uploaded in 2007 so was probably used in articles and is part of article history. It looks like the other linked image was a duplicate of the original upload of this one, and lesser quality, so it should have been deleted as a duplicate, but with your new higher-quality upload today they are no longer exact duplicates and the other is higher quality. Doesn't hurt anything to keep both though. Carl Lindberg (talk) 02:35, 20 July 2015 (UTC)
- No use in articles at all, look to the footer of its page for notification about. Nickpo (talk) 15:15, 20 July 2015 (UTC)
- No use is no reason to delete. I suspect it was used in articles. And yes it was, for many years, until you changed to your new upload (which is fine, but really this one should be kept, as going back in page history would show this one). There could also be links from outside Wikimedia (that is one of the purposes of Commons, as well). There's no real benefit to deletion -- we are not saving disk space. It's here if people want to use it, for whatever reason. Carl Lindberg (talk) 18:37, 20 July 2015 (UTC)
- Check it for my changes. Nickpo (talk) 05:40, 21 July 2015 (UTC)
- Yes, I see that you removed usage of this image from a Wikipedia article. That does not mean this should be deleted. It is part of the article's history (for years) if people go back and look at historical versions, and URLs to the image are likely in use around the Internet. It is quite simply not worth deleting this image. Commons is not about curating; it is about accumulating as much free material as we can. There harm in deletion; there is hardly any harm in keeping. We do not simply keep the "best" photo of a given subject; we keep all of them, and let galleries or Wikipedia articles or whatever pick the best ones for their purposes. Yes, we try to avoid having exact duplicates, but this is not an exact duplicate -- it is a separate scan of a different physical stamp. It wouldn't make much sense to have both on a Wikipedia article, but it can make sense to host scans of both on Commons. If they had both been uploaded at the same time... closer question, but given that this was the primary image for many years, the harm to the project (any any potential re-users across the Internet) far outweighs the similarity issue, to me (and I'm not sure I'd delete even on that). Carl Lindberg (talk) 16:40, 22 July 2015 (UTC)
- What article? Please, diff. Nickpo (talk) 17:05, 24 July 2015 (UTC)
- Yes, I see that you removed usage of this image from a Wikipedia article. That does not mean this should be deleted. It is part of the article's history (for years) if people go back and look at historical versions, and URLs to the image are likely in use around the Internet. It is quite simply not worth deleting this image. Commons is not about curating; it is about accumulating as much free material as we can. There harm in deletion; there is hardly any harm in keeping. We do not simply keep the "best" photo of a given subject; we keep all of them, and let galleries or Wikipedia articles or whatever pick the best ones for their purposes. Yes, we try to avoid having exact duplicates, but this is not an exact duplicate -- it is a separate scan of a different physical stamp. It wouldn't make much sense to have both on a Wikipedia article, but it can make sense to host scans of both on Commons. If they had both been uploaded at the same time... closer question, but given that this was the primary image for many years, the harm to the project (any any potential re-users across the Internet) far outweighs the similarity issue, to me (and I'm not sure I'd delete even on that). Carl Lindberg (talk) 16:40, 22 July 2015 (UTC)
- Check it for my changes. Nickpo (talk) 05:40, 21 July 2015 (UTC)
- No use is no reason to delete. I suspect it was used in articles. And yes it was, for many years, until you changed to your new upload (which is fine, but really this one should be kept, as going back in page history would show this one). There could also be links from outside Wikimedia (that is one of the purposes of Commons, as well). There's no real benefit to deletion -- we are not saving disk space. It's here if people want to use it, for whatever reason. Carl Lindberg (talk) 18:37, 20 July 2015 (UTC)
- No use in articles at all, look to the footer of its page for notification about. Nickpo (talk) 15:15, 20 July 2015 (UTC)
Keep: A better resolution is not a reason to delete because they are different images from different sources. Many images exist which have two or more copies, be they stamps, for example Category:British Guiana 1c magenta or Category:Penny Black, paintings, etc. There are many images that are not in use right now. What harm is there in keeping both? Ww2censor (talk) 15:23, 20 July 2015 (UTC)
- It's easy to describe the goals of keeping two or more copies of Penny Black or British Guiana 1c magenta (or smth another). But we can't describe the hypothetic goal of keeping more than one copy of this stamp. There're no any varieties of it. Nickpo (talk) 15:34, 20 July 2015 (UTC)
- Whatever. IMHO it's just a silly unnecessary deletion waste-of-time nomination. Ww2censor (talk) 18:03, 20 July 2015 (UTC)
- A weighty argument. Thanks. Nickpo (talk) 05:40, 21 July 2015 (UTC)
- Whatever. IMHO it's just a silly unnecessary deletion waste-of-time nomination. Ww2censor (talk) 18:03, 20 July 2015 (UTC)
Delete. Sure, it's a different physical stamp but it's still a duplicate. There is no benefit to keeping it. --P 1 9 9 ✉ 13:51, 10 August 2015 (UTC)
- Actually no this is different stamp. Yes it is from the same printing but if you inspect the perforations closely, especially the top left, you will see differences, so they are different stamps, proving this is NOT A DUPLICATE. And for rare stamps like this we should keep images of all the different examples we can find. Ww2censor (talk) 17:38, 10 August 2015 (UTC)
Kept: Don't tell a stamp collector that those are duplicates. He/She will die instantly. :-) Different stamps, not duplicates. Hedwig in Washington (mail?) 06:40, 25 August 2015 (UTC)
