Comment Where in the guidelines does it say, a scope must be useful? Nowhere. A picture must be the most valuable within a certain scope. That is the case here. Besides, a number like this may be used, and thus is useful, in many contexts, now or whenever in the future. --Palauenc05 (talk) 20:12, 29 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose It appears that this file is the logo for some TV show. In addition to being an inane scope, Commons should look into whether the file is a copyright violation. —Percival Kestreltail (talk) 03:57, 30 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Support I am amazed almost every day which failed images are praised in both VI and QI. Here we have an interesting and good photo, as it was hardly ever seen here. Why should it be unusable? For me it is a valuable image. -- Spurzem (talk) 09:16, 30 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose The introductory paragraph on the page Commons:Valued_images contians the sentence "Valued images are images which are considered especially valuable by the Commons community for use in online content within other Wikimedia projects". As others have asked "Which article uses (or could use) this image?" Unless this question can be answered, this image fails to meet the criteria for a VI. Martinvl (talk) 17:32, 30 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Martinvl: Thanks for the little convincing instruction. But now I understand why sometimes meaningless and photographically flawed photos are hailed as valuable. Best regards -- Spurzem (talk) 18:19, 30 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
CommentCategory:Time 11:11 would be more suitable for the scope. That category is useful, valuable, common sense and everything else we need. Of course, if one wants to be right by all means, one may object that the gearwheel in the middle is incorrect for the indication of time. This is just one example of its usefulness. Others may come up in the future, who knows. --Palauenc05 (talk) 08:41, 1 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
