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

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 gibberish

[edit]

All of these files are AI-generated images of gibberish that have various rendering issues and inaccuracies. As well as the gibberish text. Plus we don't usually amateur, user created artwork anyway. So these images should be deleted as OOS.

Adamant1 (talk) 09:17, 1 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This mass deletion request seems not to be very constructive. For File:Serendipity 2.png there is a DR running since 12.6. with clear discussion and waits for decision by Admin. I need this file for „educational purposes“ according to our criteria, as described in first deletion request discussion.--Wortulo (talk) 09:56, 1 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
 Comment I don't care about the rest of the images, but  Keep for File:Leon de milei motosierra vs ratas.jpg, which was posted by President of Argentina Javier Milei in his personal account. Milei usually uploads AI generated images where he depicts himself as a lion (and in this case, he refers to his opponents as "rats"). Those kind of mages also are graphic representations of his political points of view and government proposals so the "non-educational" or "trivial" would not apply in this case, according to the relevance of the subject. (in fact, there is a specific category for Milei's AI images). Fma12 (talk) 10:01, 1 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Keep on all of the images in this nomination that are in use at other projects, which is a considerable number of them; Adamant1 seems to be in the habit of indiscriminately mass-nominating AI images, per Commons:Deletion requests/Files in Category:AI-generated toys (another mass-nomination from yesterday, including the literal header image for AI image model DALL-E on thirteen Wikipedias). They consistently misrepresent Commons scope policy in their arguments; in reality, it explicitly considers being in-use on other projects to put images within scope. JPxG (talk) 10:01, 1 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@JPxG: Your being disingenuous and making things personal again when I've asked you at least a couple times to stop with it already. Are you that incapable of listening? The guideline doesn't explicitly consider being in-use on other projects to put images within scope. There's multiple exceptions to it that your choosing to ignore, which your free to do. But I'd appreciate if you didn't keep acting like it's my problem when I didn't write the guideline and I've repeatedly explained to you what it says. As I said on my talk page, be my guest and get anything in the guideline that you disagree with having to do with this or anything clarified. I could really care less, but it's not my issue and your just cry bullying at this point. --Adamant1 (talk) 10:17, 1 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know what you mean by "making things personal", is that a reference to this? At any rate: being in use on other projects making an image be in-scope seems to have pretty solid consensus everywhere but your posts. JPxG (talk) 22:53, 1 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
In german WP this would be vandalism - such mass DR without looking, if there are DR running (in my case) or decisions to keep exist already. --Wortulo (talk) 10:21, 1 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Good thing this isn't German Wikipedia then. Where did I say I didn't look before I nominated the images for deletion though? --Adamant1 (talk) 10:25, 1 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
To have 2 DR at the same file at the same time should also not be a rule here and increases only the work for admins (much is waiting for decision). When there a discussion is running, you can discuss there. --Wortulo (talk) 10:31, 1 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I agree, which is why I removed the file from the deletion request. I just didn't understand what you were talking about originally. --Adamant1 (talk) 10:33, 1 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, thanks and seems also be some misunderstanding. --Wortulo (talk) 10:38, 1 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
As the uploader, File:AI generated figure published in a Frontiers journal.png should not be deleted since it was the subject of major discussion in Frontiers Journal's reliability and thus has a educational merit. See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Frontiers_Media#Controversial_articles Ca (talk) 13:22, 1 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed that that is notable as a quasi-hoax, and should be kept as such (with warnings all over the file page!). - Jmabel ! talk 17:51, 1 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Setting up something that might make it easier to keep track of this large number of images that may each raise different issues; I've ordered this roughly in order of my sense of likelihood of being kept:

  •  Speedy keep another example of Adamant1 trying to indiscriminately purge as many AI files as possible. Not taking this request seriously. Dronebogus (talk) 18:14, 1 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • Some of these probably deserve deletion, and I've done my best to sort it out above (@Dronebogus: please do have a look at the last 10 or 15 in the gallery and see if there is anything you believe should be kept but @Adamant1, this nomination covered a lot of files with very different issues, at least two of which look to me to be noteworthy absolutely clear keeps. Please, do more research yourself before making DR nominations: I've just spent an hour or so sorting through this, and it really isn't fair to make someone else do that work if you want to nominate for deletion. - Jmabel ! talk 18:49, 1 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      I think the burden of proof is on Adamant1 here. I have no opinion on whether the last 10-15 are individually notable but I’m not going through them individually to say “keep toss keep keep toss x3” because Adamant1 clearly couldn’t be bothered themself. Dronebogus (talk) 18:55, 1 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      I actually did look through them before hand. That said, I'm just a volunteer and get things wrong sometimes like everyone else. You as much as anyone should its easy to miss things or be wrong sometimes. Its not like there isn't plenty of DRs where's absolutely wrong calls. The difference is I'm not out there treating like your its intentional

negligence because you just hate nudity or whatever. So you should really stop trying to make these things personal and assume good faith. --Adamant1 (talk) 23:03, 1 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]


Split decision: A large number of these are in scope as in use - either on other projects or, in one case, as part of a collage on this project. A decent number of the remainder are out of scope and have been deleted for that reason, and one was deleted per the uploader's request. It's also worth noting that the nominator was blocked for this indiscriminate nomination and others like it. --The Squirrel Conspiracy (talk) 22:09, 10 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Commons:Deletion_requests/Files_in_Category:AI-generated_gibberish&oldid=896671962"