Commons:Deletion requests/Image:Baby playsaucer.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.

• Add {{subst:delete-subst|REASON (mandatory)}} on the page
• Notify the uploader with {{subst:idw|Image:Baby playsaucer.jpg}}--~~~~
• On the log, add :
  {{Commons:Deletion requests/Image:Baby playsaucer.jpg}}

Image:Baby_playsaucer.jpg

per COM:CB#Toys. Teofilo (talk) 06:40, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

•  Keep This toy has no artwork on it (children that young can't identify that anyway). The bright colors and objects serve a utilitarian purpose to stimulate the child's senses. I note the angle of the shot is such to hide the logo of the manufacturer. There is nothing artistic on this toy which is not primarily utilitarian first. So  Keep per Commons:applied art. -Nard the Bard 10:37, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

This is your subjective view point. You may say as well that a Hollywood cartoon movie is also purely utilitarian with bright colors aiming at stimulating children. Per definition, a toy is not utilitarian. A toy is art put at the level of what a child's mind can enjoy. Teofilo (talk) 18:32, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

No dude, this is not art. A big yellow child carrier with a clear wheel with some bits in it and a big red stick is pd-ineligible. If it actually had something drawn on it that was unrelated to its function then I'd agree with you. -Nard the Bard 02:01, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

The blue thing on a green pole is a shape I had never seen until I saw that picture. Teofilo (talk) 13:18, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

•  Keep - Chairs and other utilitarian objects are largely not copyrightable. J.smith (talk) 17:56, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

---

Kept. MBisanz ^talk 06:03, 1 April 2009 (UTC)