Commons:Deletion requests/File:Street art sign.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.
File is out of project scope - non educational, and only used on a User page is not enough reason to hold the image. Adds nothing distinct from other examples of street art already held here. BarkingFish (talk) 18:48, 8 January 2011 (UTC)
Keep it is similar to File:Signs_in_Vienna_austria_Margareten_bizirk_streetart_Danny_hennesy.jpg but better quality. Same kind of street art as e.g. File:Voie_sans_issue_Clet_Abraham_Florence.jpg and hence should be kept --Wegmann (talk) 19:13, 8 January 2011 (UTC)
- Comment, per Commons:Project Scope, use of a non educational image only on a userpage does not give it generally enough significance to keep it. If it's not attached to an article, it's not within project scope. The only exception is normally a small number of photos of yourself. Since there are other images of similar nature, this doesn't add anything which is distinct from other files we hold already. Essentially, they're all examples of street art. BarkingFish (talk) 22:41, 8 January 2011 (UTC)
- o.k. - I do agree, but (irrespective of the author) I would rather vote to keep a high res. image, rather than a low res. image. I will keep the Project Scope in my mind for further images - thanks for reminding --Wegmann (talk) 22:45, 8 January 2011 (UTC)
- Comment, per Commons:Project Scope, use of a non educational image only on a userpage does not give it generally enough significance to keep it. If it's not attached to an article, it's not within project scope. The only exception is normally a small number of photos of yourself. Since there are other images of similar nature, this doesn't add anything which is distinct from other files we hold already. Essentially, they're all examples of street art. BarkingFish (talk) 22:41, 8 January 2011 (UTC)
- Dismiss. What is "educational" is highly subjective. What is "not used" is less so: a span of three months is too short for a "useless and worthless" verdict. I'd say give it ten, or at least five, years, before another DR. NVO (talk) 19:05, 9 January 2011 (UTC)
- There is no time limit set for something Not in use, NVO. If it's not in use, and not educational, it's not in scope. Period. Per Commons:Project_scope#File not legitimately in use, "A media file which is neither: realistically useful for an educational purpose, nor legitimately in use as discussed above falls outside the scope of Wikimedia Commons." This image meets those criteria. - It's NOT educational, and it's NOT in use. BarkingFish (talk) 20:13, 9 January 2011 (UTC)
- You might say that the file is not realistically useful or "not educational" (whatever it means). This is your private opinion. Mine is different. This is what I mean by "highly subjective": no consensus and no bright line. NVO (talk) 21:43, 9 January 2011 (UTC)
- Actually, "Educational" in terms of commons is defined here, clearly too, on the Project Scope page. "The expression “educational” is to be understood according to its broad meaning of “providing knowledge; instructional or informative”. This image does not provide knowledge anymore than any other of the large number of examples held. It isn't instructional, and it isn't informative. It serves no purpose here, and doesn't comply with the rules. BarkingFish (talk) 22:31, 9 January 2011 (UTC)
- Again, no purpose to you, no knowledge to you etc. Please don't speak for the rest of the world and don't turn FFD into your private popularity contest. If there is a "large number of examples held", why keep those and del this? Why not just do the opposite? NVO (talk) 03:55, 14 January 2011 (UTC)
- Actually, "Educational" in terms of commons is defined here, clearly too, on the Project Scope page. "The expression “educational” is to be understood according to its broad meaning of “providing knowledge; instructional or informative”. This image does not provide knowledge anymore than any other of the large number of examples held. It isn't instructional, and it isn't informative. It serves no purpose here, and doesn't comply with the rules. BarkingFish (talk) 22:31, 9 January 2011 (UTC)
- You might say that the file is not realistically useful or "not educational" (whatever it means). This is your private opinion. Mine is different. This is what I mean by "highly subjective": no consensus and no bright line. NVO (talk) 21:43, 9 January 2011 (UTC)
- There is no time limit set for something Not in use, NVO. If it's not in use, and not educational, it's not in scope. Period. Per Commons:Project_scope#File not legitimately in use, "A media file which is neither: realistically useful for an educational purpose, nor legitimately in use as discussed above falls outside the scope of Wikimedia Commons." This image meets those criteria. - It's NOT educational, and it's NOT in use. BarkingFish (talk) 20:13, 9 January 2011 (UTC)
Kept. Trycatch (talk) 03:28, 15 January 2011 (UTC)
