Commons:Deletion requests/Files in Category:AI-generated furry

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.

Files in Category:AI-generated furry

[edit]

Unused OOS AI generated fan art. Commons isn't a personal file host. A couple of these images might also violate copyright due to being heavily based on pre-exiting characters.

Adamant1 (talk) 02:48, 17 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep 2-3 images, delete the rest Kelly The Angel (talk) 14:37, 20 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
90% of the images are generated by the same software, so it wouldn't be a big loss if they will be removed Kelly The Angel (talk) 14:42, 20 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

 Info File:AI-generated furry husky in Times Square.jpg, File:Furry art of a dragon generated by NovelAI, 67578668.png, File:Athletic anime furry girl.jpg are used in main namespaces of Wikipedia.--Nux-vomica 1007 (talk) 08:30, 17 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I have no problem with the images that are in use on Wikipedia namespaces being kept. But at least IMO it's questionable they are in scope or appropriate for either project regardless. Especially Commons since they clearly aren't educational and that comes before usage on other projects. Although I'm fine leaving it up to whomever closes this to decide. --Adamant1 (talk) 16:47, 17 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Comment – I don't understand why people upload so many low-quality and/or rather useless strange fetish images but this isn't a delete vote. Maybe it would be good to keep some of these to better enable illustrating what furry stuff refers to and just delete whatever gets uploaded on top and many of these. The files in-use can't be deleted. However, I think the use of the two images other than File:Athletic anime furry girl.jpg are very inappropriate and should be replaced asap. If they are not replaced with something better soon, then another DR could be made for those two once they have been replaced, albeit the Times Square image may not require deletion. However, they are not fan art except for the three spider man image and no explanation to the contrary has been provided. Prototyperspective (talk) 12:22, 17 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
By fan-art I mean "Art that's inspired by your favourite movies, characters, books and comics." I don't think I have to explain exactly how an image called "Luke Skywalker chihuahua" would qualify as such either. I assume you know what makes an image like that fan art without me having to spell it out even if your choosing to play dumb about it. Although we aren't here to write PhD dissertations on the medium in deletion requests anyway. So if you don't know or can't be bothered to figure out why an image of Luke Skywalker as a dog is fan art then I'd suggest you go do something else instead of just making spurious comments about it. Thanks. --Adamant1 (talk) 15:27, 17 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
even if your choosing to play dumb about it Another bad faith unfounded allegation of yours.
No, you don't have to explain that – I missed that one. I asked about it multiple times elsewhere and never received an answer neither did I do so now at this request where I'm not voting for keep or delete and even tend towards delete.
I did not ask about the Luke Skywalker image and you didn't answer my question. Prototyperspective (talk) 15:38, 17 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Another bad faith unfounded allegation I'd think you wouldn't mind them since that's litterally all you seem to do, make bad faithed unfounded allegations. Regardless, you must have missed where I said "if." I don't care if you weren't asking about the Luke Skywalker image. Your acting like the images in general arn't fan art or that I need to explain why that's the case when they clearly are and I don't have to explain why. I'd prefer if it ended the discussion about it there though since I have zero urge to deal with your bad faithed obfuscation and generally bad attitude around the topic anymore then I have already. Thanks. --Adamant1 (talk) 15:57, 17 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
that's litterally all you seem to do, make bad faithed unfounded allegations No, I've been making clear concise rational arguments naming for example specific educational use-cases and have not made a single bad faith allegation or ad hominem so far.
Your acting like the images in general arn't fan art or that I need to explain why that's the case Surprise, you should actually clarify why these or any images would be fan art and not just allege it. That's what I was asking about.
bad faithed obfuscation and generally bad attitude I was asking why these images would be fan art since that is the deletion rationale. You call that "bad faith obfuscation"? Whatever. Prototyperspective (talk) 16:08, 17 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I've been making clear concise rational arguments That's not what you've been doing. This isn't and doesn't have anything to do with the conversations on the Village Pump though. So I'd appreciate it if you didn't make it about that. Otherwise just don't participate next time if you can't stick to the subject. I'm not here to re-litigate other conversations.
you should actually clarify why these or any images would be fan I'm under no obligation what-so-ever to clarify anything, be that why these images are fan art or anything else. Especially since it's pretty clear already, but even if it wasn't per Commons:Deletion requests "the burden of showing that the file can be validly hosted here lies with the uploader and anyone arguing that it should be kept." If your unwilling to do that, cool. Feel free to participate in another area. I could really care less, but this isn't a debate and I'm not here to explain things that are obvious from looking at the files or how they are named. --Adamant1 (talk) 16:43, 17 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
 Speedy keep the in use ones, obviously.  Delete all the fan art images with some copyrighted character in the name.  Keep all the others because this is ridiculously indiscriminate. AI art is in scope and so is furry art. We don’t mass-nominate 500 images of grass because they’re basically all the same thing, because they’re still individually in scope. Why are AI furries somehow less worthy of inclusion than grass? Dronebogus (talk) 15:18, 18 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
We don't usually allow random, amateur artwork by non-notable artists (see JopkeB's recent comment in the Village pump discussion about AI artwork, point 3). If a random user were to draw and upload 500 images of grass they would probably also be nominated for deletion. I could really care less if its furried, grass, or anything else though. If someone where to upload an eductionally important image related to furries that was created by someone notable I'd be totally fine with that. I don't think every random image of a furry out there or that can generated by AI is suddenly in scope because we have imaged of grass though. Be my guest and nominate the images of grass for deletion if you don't think they are in scope btw, I'd probably agree, but AI generated images of furries are a seperate issue. --Adamant1 (talk) 18:46, 18 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
"Category:Furry in art" Category:Furry in art suggests otherwise Trade (talk) 23:56, 19 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
They can "suggest" otherwise all they want, but that's not really an argument. Just like it wouldn't be to point to a category full of copyrighted images and act like it's somehow indicative that we don't care about COPYVIO. Although I did make it clear that this more about AI artwork, which is why I mentioned JopkeB's comment, not artwork per say and I'm sure you get the difference. I'm not here to litigate every single image of a furry on Commons. Like I said though, be my guest and nominate them for deletion if you think they don't belong here. I'm sure someone else will eventually if you don't, but it's not my problem or responsibility to deal with. --Adamant1 (talk) 00:03, 20 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Not making an argument for either. Just pointing out that we indeed do have a consistent history of allowing random, amateur artwork by non-notable furry artists--Trade (talk) 00:17, 20 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
You could be right in relation to furry artwork specifically, but as far as I know random artwork by amateurs usually gets deleted at some point. --Adamant1 (talk) 00:32, 20 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I dont know if you realize but some of the nominated images are in use. Trade (talk) 19:14, 20 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I do. I was actually probably going to remove them from the deletion request, but my keyboard broke yesterday and I can't really do any editing serious editing on what I'm using now. So I haven't. The closing adminstrator can just keep them if they feel like it though, or I'll probably deal with it once I get a new keyboard. --Adamant1 (talk) 19:33, 20 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: per nomination, except for the ones in use. I will note that them being furry has absolutely nothing to do with the outcome; it's purely whether or not they meet the test at COM:EDUSE. --The Squirrel Conspiracy (talk) 05:57, 7 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Commons:Deletion_requests/Files_in_Category:AI-generated_furry&oldid=840448858"