Commons:Deletion requests/File:Yogo1ct.jpg

File:Yogo1ct.jpg

This is currently in use on a WP Featured Article candidate. Is this some sort of joke? Andy Dingley (talk) 02:26, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

•  Keep:That's not a valid reason for deletion. Besides, it not at FAC yet, people are just thinking of and prepping for that. So your whole rationale is completely flawed.PumpkinSky talk 02:47, 5 January 2012 (UTC)
•  Keep - I'm not nominating it for a quality image. It is a blurry photo because I took it with a cell phone camera with insufficient light. But what IS your deletion rationale? Trust me, when I feel I can get the equipment to take a better image, I will ask the nice people at the jewelry store to go to the trouble to bring it out again for a new image. Until then, last I checked, blurriness is not a valid deletion criteria. Montanabw (talk) 02:56, 5 January 2012 (UTC)
•  Keep - No real reason given for deletion. Tiptoety ^talk 02:58, 5 January 2012 (UTC)
•  Keep - It's a crummy photo, but if it's good enough to use, then keep it.--GrapedApe (talk) 02:59, 5 January 2012 (UTC)
•  Keep:When you view the full image it's blurriness is obvious. But on its Wikipedia article it is much smaller and serves its illustrative purpose. Jessemv (talk) 03:13, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

• This user currently has 4 edits on commons including this one. Tiptoety ^talk 03:17, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

•  Keep No valid reason for deletion given. Nikkimaria (talk) 03:19, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

uh, something amiss User:Andy_Dingley says he has 15 THOUSAND edits. PumpkinSky talk 03:22, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

That's because he does, well actually 16,000. See [1]. Tiptoety ^talk 03:26, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

•  Keep - no valid reason for deletion given. Dreadstar (talk) 04:48, 5 January 2012 (UTC)
• Comment - not going to say keep or delete, because it is embarrassing that: (a) Andy Dingley nominated it in the first place; (b) some of those above poured over here from the article talk page on en-wiki to carry on the argument here; and (c) that this image got uploaded in the first place. I've taken some bad pictures in my time too, but if I upload them here it is only if I don't think other images are possible (in this case, I think redoing the image is possible). I really hope a better image is obtained at some point, and then this can be quietly deleted by user request or as an image no longer in use. While it is still in use, save the arguments for its use or not for the projects it is used on. I do hope, though, at some point, that Commons gets a proper editorial policy in place as you would hope that certain minimum standards are met as regards image quality (if only because as time goes on and Commons gets larger it gets harder to find the good images among the mediocre and poor images). Carcharoth (Commons) (talk) 05:03, 5 January 2012 (UTC)
•  Keep - that an editor doesn't understand the difference between featured article vs. featured pictures is concerning when they start deletion submissions. Ched Davis (talk) 12:11, 5 January 2012 (UTC)
• Delete The image is so poor as to be useless. The Deletion policy says: "Redundant or low quality files only get deleted on a case by case basis after they are listed at Commons:Deletion requests. At deletion requests you will need to provide reasons why a particular file is inferior to the alternative version." Well, there are better alternatives, and even if the alternative were nothing, that would be better than this. Johnbod (talk) 15:54, 5 January 2012 (UTC)
• Comment: What we have here is a technology bottleneck. At the time this image was uploaded, there were ZERO images of a Yogo Sapphire. I had no idea if I would even find a Yogo, let alone be allowed to photograph one, so when I found a jewelry store that had one, I took the shot with my cell phone, which was all I had with me at the time. I didn't realize that the images would be so unfocused (that was, believe it or not, the best one I got). My only other digital camera is a point and shoot, but it does have a macro setting, and THIS is a test shot of the best quality I can get with the equipment I have. Now if y'all think it will pass muster, I'm willing to go down and ask the nice people at the jewelry store if they'd be willing to once again drag out a $5000 gem that I am not going to buy, but I'm only going to bug them one more time. And if I get a better image I will be glad to replace this one, but it would be a kindness to keep it here for now and in the article as a placeholder. Montanabw (talk) 17:41, 5 January 2012 (UTC)
•  Delete Obvious delete. This image does not show a Yogo Sapphire. It shows a unfocused blue spot. Better no image than to use this one, but we do have this. Chesdovi (talk) 17:49, 5 January 2012 (UTC)
•  Delete. No offence Montanabw, but the image is useless. I know absolutely nothing about Yogo sapphires, and looking at this image, I still don't. I could even end up being misinformed about them if I were to only refer to this image and be rendered helpless as my brain sub-consciously filled in the gaps in information for me, as is its wont. About the only thing this particular image could have conveyed was basic size, but there's no frame of reference included for that, so it doesn't even do that (and again, you're going to be a victim to your own sub-conscious which might have pre-conceived ideas about how big that container is and make some deductions for you). These are all valid reasons for deletion at Commons as far as I can see, we surely don't need to close and re-open this with a new rationale before people will deign to discuss it. Ultra7 (talk) 00:43, 6 January 2012 (UTC)