Commons:Deletion requests/Files in Category:Fogbridge - 2015-02-18

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.

Files in Category:Fogbridge - 2015-02-18

[edit]

COM:NOTUSED files that are low quality, not educationally useful and provide no benefit over the other files already existing in Category:Fogbridge - 2015-02-18. The uploader is encouraged to further curate this category as many of the images are redundant.

~riley (talk) 20:58, 14 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  •  Keep in scope, you're supposed to fight the long time abusers, not our regulars. Multichill (talk) 21:57, 14 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Pigsonthewing: Please note that this is not an attack on your files or photography, but rather decluttering the category so that your more prominent and useful images can be noticeable. There is no question that the images of this topic are notable, just curating the ones that do not reflect much of the topic. ~riley (talk) 22:36, 14 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Keep pigsonthewing's images are the only and therefore best quality images we currently have and they are not more or less educationally useful than other images on the Commons. Using a deletion request to "encourage" a user to curate his uploads is just not cricket. Moreover, if you are interesated in making "more prominent and useful images noticeable", please feel encouraged to create Fogbridge. Galleries offer a decent solution to your problem. Regards, Christoph Braun (talk) 18:52, 15 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. This appears to be a very POINTy response to my request for the restoration of an improperly deleted file from the same series. That file has since been restored, but is currently and separately nominated for deletion, also by ~riley, with clear community consensus to keep it at the time of writing, seeing support from User:LX, User:Christian Ferrer, User:Multichill (whose closure as keep was reverted by ~riley) and User:Pokéfan95. The only deletion support has come from ~riley and from User:Jcb, the admin who made the original incorrect deletion (and who is now on his third different, and fallacious, deletion rationale, the first two having already been unequivocally refuted). In the light of the aforesaid events, and the wording used ("low quality, not educationally useful... no benefit"), I view this vexatious nomination very much as "an attack on my files and photography". The nominated images are part of a series - already curated and selectively chosen from many more originals - documenting a never-to-be-repeated public art event, by Fujiko Nakaya, an artist of international renown; in which a bridge was deliberately hidden by fog (the clue is in the name of the artwork: "Fogbridge"), its progression through time, and peoples' reactions to it. The series are probably the only - and certainly the only free - images to do so, or indeed any of the artist's works. As such their educational worth is indisputable. The nominated files include the only one also in the category 'Fogbows', the only one also in the category 'Cygnus olor swimming (families in February)', the only two images also in the category 'Shadow of the photographer', and the only one (that nominated elsewhere) in the category 'People taking selfies' - they are thus far from "redundant", and it is clear that due diligence has not been done prior to this nomination. As I said in the original undeletion request, "I could do without this unnecessary aggravation." Quite what this tedious, wasteful timesink can achieve, other than to demotivate both me and observers, and perpetuating the trolling of the now globally-blocked vandal who made the original, malicious deletion nomination, is not clear. Andy Mabbett (talk) 12:40, 16 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Keep as per my comment there, the choice to nominate these files just after a previous disagreement is not appropriate to calm a conflict. I can not imagine that it is to score a point, is it? Christian Ferrer (talk) 13:17, 16 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Kept: no valid reason for deletion. ~riley (talk) 00:30, 17 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Commons:Deletion_requests/Files_in_Category:Fogbridge_-_2015-02-18&oldid=196455146"