Commons:Valued image candidates/Dode merel (Turdus merula). Locatie, Tuinreservaat Jonkervallei 02.jpg

Dode merel (Turdus merula). Locatie, Tuinreservaat Jonkervallei 02.jpg

**declined**
Image
Nominated by	Famberhorst (talk) on 2015-12-16 16:38 (UTC)
Scope	Nominated as the most valued image on Commons within the scope: Turdus merula (Common Blackbird), dead.
Used in	Global usage
Review (criteria)	Comment I do hope the community does not want to have VIs of every dead animal species. Charles (talk) 23:12, 16 December 2015 (UTC)[reply] Comment If I translate your comment using Google Translate, I do not understand what you meant.--Famberhorst (talk) 06:23, 17 December 2015 (UTC) Comment I am simply asking all editors whether they agree that we, as a community of editors, wish to have scopes for dead animals, potentially every single animal! - I personally cannot see the encyclopaedic value of this, particularly as sex is not identified as it is with scientific images. Cause of death is also not confirmed. I could see the value of a dead animal with an identifying disease or clear cause of death - perhaps caught in a net; beside a broken/marked window; pecked by another animal etc. Charles (talk) 10:43, 17 December 2015 (UTC)[reply] Answer. Okay, Thank you for your explanation. The bird is probably flown against a window because he was under a window.--Famberhorst (talk) 16:20, 17 December 2015 (UTC)[reply] Support* --Medium⁶₉ ^{You wanted talk to me?} 01:35, 17 December 2015 (UTC)[reply] Oppose I don't see any encyclopedic value in a picture of a dead bird, no matter if it flew against a window or a train ran over it. IMO this scope is absolutely useless. --Palauenc05 (talk) 22:15, 17 December 2015 (UTC)[reply] Comment I agree with Charles and Palauenc05 --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 06:07, 18 December 2015 (UTC)[reply] Oppose The illustrative technical quality of the image is good, but, like Charles, I do not see the illustrated content as useful for Commons' purposes. -- WikiPedant (talk) 04:47, 19 December 2015 (UTC)[reply] Result: 1 support, 2 oppose => declined. --Medium⁶₉ ^{You wanted talk to me?} 18:59, 23 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]