Commons:Deletion requests/Files in Category:Files from Gare DeSad Flickr stream

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:Files from Gare DeSad Flickr stream

[edit]

Per Commons:Deletion requests/Files uploaded by TwoWings

Patrick Rogel (talk) 11:05, 16 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  •  Keep I still have the feeling that this is a anti-nude art crusade and/or that it's not linked to any neutral vision of Commons. These are the best examples of digital watercolour we have on Commons. And if you start deleting art from non famous artists, I wish you good luck, because there's far worse than that (and not only nude art, of course !). But I don't think the nominator is interested in a wide coherent measure... Is he ? --TwoWings * to talk or not to talk... 11:24, 16 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@TwoWings: What is not coherent is what you said a few hours ago ("And could you explain why these uploads should be deleted and not the other files we already had from the same Flickr account?") and what you now say. And the rationale is always the same: out of SCOPE paintings by -as you say- "non famous artist". --Patrick Rogel (talk) 12:17, 16 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
What's not coherent is focusing on good quality art while there are loads of lower quality art on Commons AND no better examples of digital watercolour (therefore completely in scope !). And what's not acceptable is the way it censors Commons without assuming it. Is there any clear and neutral rule about art by unfamous artists ? There is NO neutral reason of deletion for these files. Just a random choice/decision by deleting those files (hazardously nude art) and not questioning many other files with lower interest/quality. If you were THAT interested in removing unfamous art from Commons, you would try to track down files that are even less useful. But you prefer to continue with good technical quality... --TwoWings * to talk or not to talk... 13:19, 16 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
They are plenty of watercolor art in museums by famous artists and on Commons as well so it's unfair to talk (again) of censorship. --Patrick Rogel (talk) 14:54, 16 July 2019 (UTC) Besides an if you want to give an example of the features of the graphics editor software used by the uploader you should rather upload a before/after picture. --Patrick Rogel (talk) 15:51, 16 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
We may have plenty of watercolor paintings, but not digital watercolor (even if we don't have the before/after comparison). :::::Also, if we consider some specific topics and some specific pictures among those, I don't think we have plenty of hight quality examples of artistic representation of urination.
I think there's a really narrow vision of what Commons has to propose. --TwoWings * to talk or not to talk... 16:41, 16 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Franklky I don't see what is "artistic" in transforming a pornographic picture (like File:Heterosexual intercourse.jpg) via a semi-automated graphics editor software... But you're right: you seem indeed very interested in urination representation, most often non-artistic at all (File:Pee (close-up).jpg, File:Woman urinating in a glass.jpg, File:Public urination.jpg and so on...). --Patrick Rogel (talk) 22:19, 16 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I am not particularly interested in that. Contrary to you, I can contribute on various subjects, including topics I don't care about. And thank you for this comment that definitively shows that the problem comes from the fact that it's pornographic to you, therefore that this DR and the previous one are not initiated for good/valid reasons. --TwoWings * to talk or not to talk... 05:37, 17 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
 Comment The only/main thing I'm interested in, when I contribute to Commons, is trying to do what's necessary in order to have a certain variety of available illustrations about any kind of subjects (and with that same logic, I hate censorship or random judgements). The fact that I find and upload files about a topic doesn't mean I'm interested by that topic. If I take some examples from the illustrations I've uploaded, I would say I'm not particularly interested (and sometimes not interested at all) in vomit, tattoo shops, someone I didn't know, soccer, postal vehicles, minitel terminals, high-heeled shoes, space hoppers, Yorkshire terriers or Japanese Telethon... Nevertheless I had uploaded those files, indeed, because it's my way to contribute to the diversity of this project. So please don't draw any hasty and simplistic conclusions by mentioning any of my upload. You would only prove that you may have a quite narrow vision and a quite easy ability of judgement. --TwoWings * to talk or not to talk... 08:54, 17 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Artistic renderings are considered by some to be less crude than untreated photographs, and therefore suitable/acceptable to illustrate matters that are considered delicate, such a those of sexual nature. As for what’s in COM:Nudity, a file being «significantly different» is a qualification to keep it, but it’s not being (shown to be) substantively unique is not a reason to delete. -- Tuválkin ✉ ✇ 14:18, 24 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • These are high quality, aesthetically pleasing works of art, not poorly lit, out-of-focus amateur photos taken with a cell phone. In addition, the nominated images are amongst the few examples of digital watercolor artwork we have on Commons, which is the main reason they need to be kept. In addition, these files should be reinstated, as they were removed before any solid consensus had been reached. AshFriday (talk) 03:23, 25 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

In use

[edit]

In addition to the arguments to keep outlined above, the following files are currently in use and therefore automatically within scope:

Please note the wording of the official policy:

A media file that is in use on one of the other projects of the Wikimedia Foundation is considered automatically to be useful for an educational purpose, as is a file in use for some operational reason such as within a template or the like. Such a file is not liable to deletion simply because it may be of poor quality: if it is in use, that is enough.

It should be stressed that Commons does not exist to editorialise on other projects – that an image is in use on a non talk/user page is enough for it to be within scope.

The wording of the policy is completely unambiguous on this point. AshFriday (talk) 05:01, 25 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Kept: per discussion. Ruthven (msg) 19:24, 28 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Commons:Deletion_requests/Files_in_Category:Files_from_Gare_DeSad_Flickr_stream&oldid=372361967"