Commons:Deletion requests/Files in Category:2015 aerial photographs of Bangalore

From Wikimedia Commons, the free media repository
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.

The three images nominated are representatives of the problem with the entire category Category:2015 aerial photographs of Bangalore. There are a *lot* of images of landscape shot from a plane window, but it's not clear where they were taken, which nullifies most- if not all- of their usefulness to Commons. Most obviously *aren't* of the city Bangalore itself, and it's not clear how many are of rural Bangalore district, or whether they're just part of some guy's trip to Bangalore.

Some of these are quite nice pictures, and I'm sure that if there was some accurate background they'd be a lot more useful and in-scope, but there isn't, and until then, they're probably not.

Any thoughts on how many- if any- of these are worth keeping for Commons' use?

(This follows Commons:Categories for discussion/2016/02/Category:2015 aerial photographs of Bangalore).

Ubcule (talk) 19:32, 4 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

 Comment I suppose we could move them up to Category:2015 aerial photographs of India, copy them to Category:Unidentified locations in India and hope that someone can figure out the locations. For some of the ones further down on the category page, that might actually work. --El Grafo (talk) 16:20, 8 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
You're right that the later ones are more likely to be identified than others, but there are a *lot* of these images.
The ones of unidentified mountainous landscape are unlikely to be identified; they look okay at a large scale, but when the contrast is adjusted and they're viewed more closely they exhibit the usual smartphone camera softness and lack of detail (caused by noise reduction). They're likely not worth that much guesswork!
I have to admit that I still kind of like a lot of them as photos, but the wing in every photo is ultimately a hindrance and the amount of (arguable) overlap in content is also an issue. They *would* almost all be worth keeping if they were better-identified, but I strongly suspect even the original photographer couldn't place some of the more generic ones!
The essential question is, if they hadn't already been uploaded, would we consider uploading them all? Ubcule (talk) 19:40, 8 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: . .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 15:01, 15 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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.

As per Commons talk:Deletion requests/Files in Category:2015 aerial photographs of Bangalore these images are of all very similar, of doubtful utility and without any clear description, are likely totally useless. I've nominated all but a few images in the category for deletion. If there are others specific images that people can justify saving, that's fine with me.

Themightyquill (talk) 13:12, 6 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted: as above. ~riley (talk) 07:07, 13 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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.

As per Commons talk:Deletion requests/Files in Category:2015 aerial photographs of Bangalore these images are of all very similar, of doubtful utility and without any clear description, are likely totally useless. I've nominated all but a few images in the category for deletion. If there are others specific images that people can justify saving, that's fine with me.

Themightyquill (talk) 13:16, 6 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted: as above. ~riley (talk) 07:07, 13 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]