Commons:Deletion requests/Files found with "rawpixel.com 2017"

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.

Files found with Special:Search/"rawpixel.com 2017"

Long-term unused and/or uncategorized stock-photo style Unsplash images that are either shapshot-like or arranged compositions that seem to be of little use and thus out of scope. Certain details may be within scope, while the photo as a whole isn't a meaningful contribution. For example: Yes, white flags are well within scope, but a happy beachgoer waving one isn't a meaningful addition to the topic and probably won't be used. And yes, photos of computers and other objects are fine, but maybe not when they're partly out of frame and/or out of focus, sometimes in an already hazy photo.

Sinigh (talk) 14:30, 12 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This takes far too narrow a view of COM:PS, particularly "realistically useful for an educational purpose", which we interpret broadly. Commons is hosting for the whole world, not just for Wikimedia, and it's very easy to conceive of suitable non-Wikimedia uses for these. To be specific, not one of these arguments takes an image out of scope: "of little use", "long-term unused [on Wikimedia]", "uncategorized", "stock-photo style", "not a meaningful contribution", "details are in scope but not the whole image" (can be cropped), "image probably won't be used", "partly out of frame and/or out of focus" (for these images, that's mostly an artistic choice). MichaelMaggs (talk) 10:27, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@MichaelMaggs: I emphatically agree with what you're saying.

The reason I created this request is that I have seen many requests, deletions, and rationales more or less like this one, and so I have tried to adjust my views accordingly. I've also previously spent some time categorizing perfectly usable files (regardless of whether they were at all likely to ever be used on Wikimedia projects), only for them to be considered out of scope and deleted almost as soon as my categorizing them brought them so someone else's attention.

I should have made a note of all of those cases, because now I struggle to find other examples. You could compare what I've described to the sentiment expressed in this request: Commons:Deletion requests/File:Destination (Unsplash).jpg. As I hope you can tell, I half-jokingly suggested a reason to keep that image, but ultimately voted according to what I believed to be consensus. (Please note that I do not intend do single out, nor do I believe that the opinion expressed is limited to, any individual user. That DR is just one example of the recurring type of opinion that I'm referring to here.)

It could be the case that I simply haven't been on Commons long enough to know what's generally agreed upon, and that what I've thought of as a general tendency is just the sum of relatively few outliers. But I have to say, I'm not yet entirely convinced that that really is the case, even if I can now safely assume that it is just one tendency.

Also: bearing in mind that I do agree with you, please understand that it is by no means evident, at least not to me as a relatively new user, that this deletion request represents a particularly narrow view of COM:PS. For example, it is not unreasonable to conclude that this image and this one e.g. "add nothing educationally distinct to the collection of images we already hold covering the same subject" and should be deleted.

I appreciate your feedback, which I fully intend to take to heart. All of the above is just to show how the situation is (was) a bit more complicated on my end than it may have seemed at first. I hope we can somehow work towards preventing any future misunderstanding and unintentional deletionism. Sinigh (talk) 13:00, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

That being said, these two images in particular are obviously meaningful contributions to their topic and, regardless of how one happens to interpret COM:PS etc., it made no sense that I included them in the DR:

Sinigh (talk) 13:14, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, per above. Sinigh (talk) 22:22, 28 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I don't have the time or energy to look at all of these right now, but after looking at several, I think enough of them are plausibly usable to justify considering each deletion request individually, not in this group. I'd suggest for you to nominate each one separately, carefully considering whether any of them really do tell a story or give an example that is plausible documentation. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 07:33, 29 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, let's embrace plausible usefulness and focus on categorizing images properly. I disagree with my original rationale, and since this deletion request has been up for seven weeks and only has keep votes, I assume it's safe to close it. Sinigh (talk) 13:26, 29 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You can use the {{withdraw}} template. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 16:46, 29 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I withdraw my nomination :) Sinigh (talk) 17:51, 29 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Kept: no valid reason for deletion. --Gbawden (talk) 10:32, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Commons:Deletion requests/Files found with "rawpixel.com 2017"

Files found with Special:Search/"rawpixel.com 2017"

Navigation menu

Search