Commons:Deletion requests/File:Aircraft at Nuremberg Airport (9629420549).jpg

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.

File:Aircraft at Nuremberg Airport (9629420549).jpg

[edit]

Not realistically useful for an educational purpose. The photo shows little detail of the aircraft, compared with others in the category "Unidentified aircraft". It also shows nothing of the airport it claims to be taken at. Per Commons:Project scope: "examples of files that are not realistically useful for an educational purpose" include "files that add nothing educationally distinct to the collection of images we already hold covering the same subject, especially if they are of poor or mediocre quality". Magnolia677 (talk) 00:34, 21 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

 Keep of course this high quality image is usable on Wikimedia projects. Magnolia is incorrectly connecting existing guidelines with images. This is very close to Vandalism. -- User:Henry.g — Preceding unsigned comment added by 178.7.237.121 (talk • contribs) 02:02, 23 May 2014‎ (UTC)[reply]

Hey 178.7.237.121, you've made 14 edits in your four days on Wikimedia Commons, and now you cast a vote with the rationale--let me get this right--that by quoting the image guidelines I'm "incorrectly connecting existing guidelines with images". Is that correct? Magnolia677 (talk) 03:40, 22 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I say that you do not have a casic understanding of the guideline you are quoting. Your way of argumentation is stupid and shows that you do not have some basic understanding of Wikimedia. Your great knowledge might be needed for the photographs in this category: Category:Penis - there you might find out of scope images. User:Henry.g — Preceding unsigned comment added by 178.7.237.121 (talk • contribs)
 Keep: Borderline case, but this is the only image of this kind of airplane from the front perspective from that airport.    FDMS  4    03:03, 22 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Um...the photo doesn't show any of "that airport". It shows a random airplane surrounded by blue sky. So what difference does it make where it was taken? If there are a hundred pictures of a dolphin taken from the front, and I add another which shows a dolphin--taken from the front--and surrounded by blue sea, I'm not sure I'd argue my picture was unique because of the location I claimed to have taken it. Magnolia677 (talk) 03:23, 22 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I understand your reasoning, but as I said, this is a borderline case in my eyes. The context might be important in some cases.    FDMS  4    04:01, 22 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The original Flickr image was called "IMG_0076", and was placed in an album entitled "Flughafen Nürnberg". That's it for contextual information about the photo. It shows a single-engine aircraft with illegible markings--from the front--against a blue sky. I'm not trying to be difficult, but could you please provide two examples of how "the context might be important"? Thanks. Magnolia677 (talk) 04:35, 22 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I wanted to say that it is true that the airport is not visible, but still it might matter that this photo was shot at the airport.    FDMS  4    05:06, 22 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Of the hundreds of photos I've uploaded from Flickr, I've double-checked and confirmed the location of each using Google satellite or street view. And many times I have forsaken a fabulous photo because I was not prepared to trust the location identified by the Flickr user. My assumption of good faith extends only to Wiki users. This is a photo of an unidentified aircraft...someplace. It is also of a lower quality than the hundreds of photos already in the "unidentified aircraft" category. As I stated already, "examples of files that are not realistically useful for an educational purpose" include "files that add nothing educationally distinct to the collection of images we already hold covering the same subject, especially if they are of poor or mediocre quality". Magnolia677 (talk) 21:18, 22 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

 Keep Absolutely no reason to delete this image which is actually in reference to quality standards surely above average. --High Contrast (talk) 23:26, 23 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

 Delete The photo is big and sharp, but the plane is still unidentified. If it remains unidentified, then it is impossible to use it in any educational way. If kept, I suggest to make a heavy crop, where most of sky is cropped away. Taivo (talk) 10:43, 25 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
 Comment Sorry, but what you are saying seems a bit problematic and shows that you did not understand what a free media repository is. To your 'arguments': there is absolutely no time step given which allows images to stay in 'unidentified' categories. It usually takes a long time for unidentified Commons images to get detailled information or correct categirzation. In addition, there is no need to crop this one. I point it out again, this image does not violate any commons guidelines - in contrast to those many penis selfies in the category I have linked above.
If you dislike the "penis selfies" and other amateur porn so much, nominate it for deletion, as I did here. Magnolia677 (talk) 02:32, 29 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

 Keep No reason for deleting. --Ailura (talk) 09:04, 1 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The image is used on a Wikipedia article.

  • weak keep. The assumption that because the plane can't be identified it must be useless is rather questionable not to say a non sequitur. However having said that, you probably can argue that an identifiable plane might be better and if Commons has enough of those from reasonably a similar perspective already, then "files that add nothing educationally distinct to the collection of images we already hold covering the same subject". But there is the "if" and the whole argument apllied on this case seems a bit contrived to me right now.--Kmhkmh (talk) 09:07, 1 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Kept: No consensus to delete this file as out of scope. I'm following the consensus Natuur12 (talk) 10:11, 1 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Commons:Deletion_requests/File:Aircraft_at_Nuremberg_Airport_(9629420549).jpg&oldid=125478070"