Commons:Deletion requests/Low quality redundant highway shields

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.

Add {{delete|reason=Fill in reason for deletion here!|subpage=Low quality redundant highway shields|year=2024|month=December|day=03}} to the description page of each file.
Notify the uploader(s) with {{subst:idw||Low quality redundant highway shields|plural}} ~~~~
Add {{Commons:Deletion requests/Low quality redundant highway shields}} at the end of today's log.

Low quality redundant highway shields

There is a number of redundancies in these JPGs to the SVG versions of these shields that User:Route11 has made. The category here at Category:Pennsylvania Route shields. Honestly they have no value and would be unused. As a bonus, on a quasi-related note, there seems to be a questionable amount of needed images at the gallery of his uploads. Anyway my request is to get consensus on these. We at the US Roads project know they are useless to the high quality SVGs. --Mitch32^{(Transportation Historian)} 01:26, 22 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as redundant and unneeded poor quality images. --Admrboltz (talk) 01:35, 22 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Poorly named, poorly drawn, and completely redundant and inferior to the existing SVG route markers. --TMF ^{Let's Go Mets - Stats} 01:38, 22 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Per nom. Dough 48 72 01:39, 22 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - clearly low quality. They are inferior to the SVGs which were created using actual transportation department specifications. Imzadi 1979 → 01:40, 22 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. They clearly already exist as better versions, and these are very scratchy as well. --P C B 01:42, 22 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Per nom, as well. They serve no plausible purpose. DanTheMan474 (talk) 01:44, 22 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - SVG is the preferred format for diagrams, including those of signs. Since those svg's already exist, there is no need for these redundant versions that look like they were saved at the lowest quality possible. - Floydian (talk) 02:27, 22 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Low quality versions that serve no purpose since SVG replicas to actual specs are available. Bitmapped (talk) 04:47, 22 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Route11 (talk) 04:47, 22 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. Do you have any reasoning behind this vote? As other users in the Wikimedia community, we've searched rather hard for a reason to keep these shields, per the nomination. --P C B 23:36, 22 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete no reason to keep these around, shields are inaccurate too. --Rschen7754 (talk) 22:17, 22 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. A noble effort for the 4th grade science fair. –Fredddie ™ 22:59, 22 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Also:

File:Sr-25.JPG
Delete part of same series, uploaded later. Bitmapped (talk) 20:30, 22 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for the all of the same reasons above. Imzadi 1979 → 00:05, 23 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all, as redundant, poor-quality images inferior to pre-existing SVG images of better quality. ----LJ (talk) 04:27, 23 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
~~Delete~~ - Route11 (talk)If you want to delete them you may. (UTC)
- Striking dup vote. --Admrboltz (talk) 20:20, 23 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted per discussion. abf «Cabale!» 09:04, 1 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Commons:Deletion requests/Low quality redundant highway shields

Low quality redundant highway shields

Navigation menu

Search