Commons:Deletion requests/File:UFO-Meersburg.jpg

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:UFO-Meersburg.jpg

Out of project scope. Similar rationale to Commons:Deletion requests/File:El llano UFO.jpg. ScienceApologist (talk) 16:58, 8 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I think that it is not really out of the scope. Of course, it is not so well suited for a wikipedian use, but what about Wikiversity or Wikibooks? It could be put to an use when it comes to illustrate image falsification or some psychological phenomena in UFO sightings, fulfilling in this way an educational role and coming in the project scope. I would probably have argued the same way on the linked DR above, given that the image was good enough on a technical point of view, but the debate was already closed. There is no need to restrain possible users to only one image and denying them a choice, there is no memory problem here, so: keep. Grand-Duc (talk) 18:20, 8 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. see Grand-Duc and also some Users use this image for their babble boxes. On the other Hand the Images eats no hay :-D --Stefan-Xp (talk) 22:05, 8 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep It's in use in article space on Wikimedia projects. That's all we need to know to verify that it is in fact in scope.--Prosfilaes (talk) 13:34, 9 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Commons is no garbage dump for weird POV --Eva K. ^{is evil} 21:51, 9 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Commons is a dumping ground for whatever Free Content Wikimedia projects feel like using in mainspace.--Prosfilaes (talk) 09:07, 10 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - Thanks for your your lesson in compulsive hoarding. You seem to confuse Wikimedia with Flickr and blogs. --Eva K. ^{is evil} 09:36, 14 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    - If you think I'm confused, I invite you to read Commons policy documents. We're here to serve Wikimedia projects; they use the photo, so it should be kept.--Prosfilaes (talk) 17:01, 14 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Grand-Duc. Many UFO-photographs are photoshopped fakes and we need a photoshopped fake like this to illustrate that. --El Grafo (talk) 15:32, 3 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Kept. Jcb (talk) 15:13, 21 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]