Commons:Deletion requests/File:Wizard taking a mandatory trip.jpg

From Wikimedia Commons, the free media repository
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.

File:Wizard taking a mandatory trip.jpg

[edit]

Per Commons:Deletion requests/Files found with insource:" happy-looking Gandalf" The Squirrel Conspiracy (talk) 09:38, 15 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

 Keep It's not low-quality and is one of the only few images illustrating the concept of science fantasy genre fiction and art among several other subjects. Like the other image and even more so the person in the image does not look like Gandalf at all and neither like "Dumbledore", he even has a substantially Asian face.
There are thousands of photographs of the same thing including mundane things like pencils or low-resolution random streets but other aspects of human culture can't even have a mere handful of images of high-resolution modern digital art?
It illustrates science fantasy in that the society around the wizard is using alien technology and aircraft like advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic (Clarke's three laws) (especially when not understood even by the users) and moreover is hinting at a bureaucratic less-fantastical or even dystopian society as in social science fantasy. There are no other images available that could be useful illustrating that, this notable genre and this approach. That they are here doesn't mean they need to be used at all or on Wikipedia in particular. There isn't really a proper deletion nomination either. I'm not sure Gandalf was even used in the prompt but if it was, it was just as a workaround technique to make it have a wizard hat because that term is centric to the images it trained on where the figures had wizard hats not samurai hats or whatever the tool generated as hats earlier; it wasn't meant to look like Gandalf nor does it look like him. Prototyperspective (talk) 13:05, 15 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Delete OOS fantasy illustration -- Infrogmation of New Orleans (talk) 14:40, 15 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    And illustrating fantasy, art genres, and the depicted subjects can also be valuable, useful and educational.
    Why would it be out of scope? You just say OOS but don't support it with anything but your vote such as quoting some policy or providing an explanation for why it would be OOS. There's also lots of other fantasy art even though artists only rarely license their images under CCBY. Like I said it can be useful for example for illustrating Science Fantasy among other things. I don't think I've ever seen you vote/… for delete in any AI-related DR so I consider it possible you indiscriminately vote delete for all images of that kind. (Same comment as in other DR.) "illustration[s]" are useful, I'd argue especially useful, and relatively rare among the giant volume of photos on WMC. Prototyperspective (talk) 15:32, 15 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Why? Commons:Project scope/Summary#Must be realistically useful for an educational purpose. IMO this is an image that if seen some places on social media might get a reaction "that looks cool" but that is not a reason for it to be on Commons. IMO it is no more in scope than make believe flags of make believe countries that some people create for their own amusement and sometimes mistakenly believe should be uploaded to Commons. -- Infrogmation of New Orleans (talk) 15:52, 15 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Okay but above I just explained at least one use-case for which this image is useful: illustrating the genre 'science fantasy' and an approach of it.
    Whether or not such images get such social media feedback is irrelevant but if anything would further support the case that this is useful and matches human evaluations of quality, subject relevance, and usefulness.
    Lots of other images that you supported to be within scope would seem to rather utterly fail this definition if this image doesn't even make it where I'd then ask why these, for which neither a use-case has been elaborated nor is clear, are within scope and this one is outside the scope. This one would clearly meet this quote and that scope policy since there is at least one realistic usefulness case for an educational purpose and, going even further than what the policy, there are nearly no other available images here that could be used for that purpose. Prototyperspective (talk) 17:17, 15 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    IMO any old 20th century pulp cover would be a much better and appropriate illustration of the genre "Science fantasy", even if the artwork was mediocre, for the simple reason that it was created to illustrate actual published science fantasy. Commons has a fair sized collection of such illustrations already. We clearly have different perspectives on this (as is evident from your uploading this file). Cheers. -- Infrogmation of New Orleans (talk) 21:19, 15 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes and why can't there be pulp covers as well as images showing contents in high resolution? Why do you need to delete everything that you think is not as appropriate for illustration? I consider this far more appropriate especially when considering that those covers don't even show any science fantasy and are basically near useless for illustration (except as in 'this magazine had science fantasy contents' which is not an illustration). And no, WMC doesn't have that. That it's on WMC doesn't mean it has to be used on WP. Policies don't matter it seems, what matters is the subjective opinions of DR voters. Prototyperspective (talk) 21:53, 15 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
 Keep illustrative of science fantasy Dronebogus (talk) 18:33, 16 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Delete "Illustrative of science fantasy" is a non-sequitur and the image is clearly OOS amateur fan art in the meantime. --Adamant1 (talk) 06:33, 11 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    It is not a non-sequitor with no explanation given for why it would be anyway. It is not out of scope why would it be. It isn't fan art per fan art Fan art or fanart is artwork created by fans of a work of fiction and derived from a series character or other aspect of that work while this image only displays a generic wizard but not any character or work-specific aspect of an existing work of fiction. This image is the only image useful for illustrating various subjects such as 'social science fantasy' similar to social science fiction. No valid rationale for deletion. Prototyperspective (talk) 11:44, 11 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: out of scope, non-notable personal artwork. --Abzeronow (talk) 22:00, 14 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Commons:Deletion_requests/File:Wizard_taking_a_mandatory_trip.jpg&oldid=851761847"