Commons:Deletion requests/Category:Vyletvraji.cz
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
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.
I desagree with the creation and existence of this category. The uploader of files abused commons trying to advertice their business. The advertisement was everywhere (filename, description, username). So creating a special category for them would be another help how to advrtise them. Note that these files lies here 3 years and for 3 years they havent found a use. Morover, personal categories are usually hidden and category about the company usually includes files of the companny itself--Juandev (diskuse) 10:10, 23 February 2017 (UTC) Juandev (talk) 10:11, 23 February 2017 (UTC)
- Wikimedia projects are fundamentally independent, i.e. they categorize their content by items, sources and other attributes independently on the fact whether the information will cause any profit or any detriment to anybody. Wikimedia is not their competitor. Some of the included images can be illustrative to some items, even though they are of low quality and very poorly described (without any location). However, the fact that they depict activities of the mentioned subject is a real, relevant and objective information (which can also enable to suppose their probable localization as Český ráj area). The category helps to find a context of the files, that's a benefit for Commons. A possible advertising (or discouraging) impact to the company or their clients is not our worry.
- I see no strong reason to delete all the files. And if the files are kept, I strongly support to keep them categorized by all relevant criteria, including the category of the affected company. --ŠJů (talk) 10:33, 23 February 2017 (UTC)
- Btw., before start of this discussion, the category was vandalized by removing of 4 from 7 uploaded images belonging there. --ŠJů (talk) 10:39, 23 February 2017 (UTC)
Firstly lets clarify something:
- try to be calm (the category was not vandalized, the category lost 4 files)
- note, this request is not about the deletion of files, but the category itself
- The problem is a scope. Wikimedia Commons scope is to collect edcuational pictures, the scope here was to advertise one small company
- you are sayin "to ilustrate their activities", but it is not sure that pictures depict their activities, most of that additional information was added by you. --Juandev (talk) 11:04, 23 February 2017 (UTC)
- What exactly was added by me? I only put back the factual information removed by you. Generally, the author's (uploader's] informations about location and other facts about the photographed scene is supposed as true if there is no reason to question it. There at Commons are not required "published sources" to prove it. Information which is not directly clear from the image is often even more valuable than a pure description of the image.
- Generally, categories of Commons are intended to organize files, e.g. group related files together. It is usefull to create categories also for small creeks, streets, settlements, companies, even for individual buildings, even when the creek, street, settlement, company or building has not separately an encyclopedic importance. In case of these files with insufficient localization, the relation to a company operating in small specific area is very important and irreplaceable to keep any localizing context of the files.
- Please, don't waste our, my and others's time with needless deletion proposals and discussions. These images are of weak quality and description, but all in scope. Try to focus your energy and time to more than 1 million of quite uncategorized media. There are among them many good images which are unusuable due missing categorization. And many really unusable and uncategorizable files out of scoope. Try to be more constructive and not to initiate quite needles flames and discussions. --ŠJů (talk) 11:38, 23 February 2017 (UTC)
- I am sorry, you keep to be offensive here and you dont need to (e.g. Please, don't waste our, my and others's time with needless deletion proposals and discussions - is a lack of respect that everbody may present his POV by the deletion proposal).
- These images are of weak quality and description, but all in scope. --> I repeat myself again, this deletion discussion is not about images. When this category is deleted, those images will stay. This proposal is about deleting of the category itself.--Juandev (talk) 12:03, 23 February 2017 (UTC)
Deleted: This category name is clearly promoting a website/company, against policy. If User:ŠJů wants to categorize his images in one place, he is free to create a {{User category}} such as Category:Photos by ŠJů. P 1 9 9 ✉ 14:54, 2 March 2017 (UTC)