Commons:Deletion requests/Files in Category:Sakiko Miki

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:Sakiko Miki

[edit]
Welcome, Wikipedians!
This deletion discussion is generating interest on Wikipedia. If you are a Wikipedian without much experience of Commons, your input here is welcome, but please be aware of Commons' policies, particularly deletion policy and project scope (criteria for inclusion). Note also that, like Wikipedia deletion discussions, Commons deletion discussions are not decided by voting. You may find Commons:For Wikipedians helpful as an introduction to Commons.

Images of non-notable minor out of COM:SCOPE, excluding the images that are COM:INUSE.

—‍Mdaniels5757 (talk • contribs) 21:48, 15 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I can see why this one should be deleted, but the whole collection, no: I would  keep for now and later work on a more detailed DR with a better criteria than just delete everything not in use. -- Tuválkin ✉ ✇ 02:06, 16 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I think it makes more sense to delete the entire collection (there's more than 600 images in here and the vast majority of them are out of scope), and then carefully choose the images we can realisticly use on one of the Wikiprojects. That's how it should have been done in the first place, in my opinion. ReneeWrites (talk) 15:25, 17 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
So you think the admins, some of whom think they are too busy to type "No educational use" in a deletion request, are going to take the initiative to pick images from within this collection and determine only for themselves which ones to undelete? First of all, where did you get that odd idea, and second, why do you think it should be up to the admins alone to decide which images should be kept, without any discussion of those images by users who can't see deleted images? -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 18:50, 17 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

 Keep High quality--Trade (talk) 22:00, 15 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

 Delete 7 years old not notable minor with +600 images. Out of scope. --Fralambert (talk) 23:08, 15 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

 Keep exactly per Tuválkin. Please give us a much more carefully curated list of photos that are obviously out of scope. If you think none of these could possibly be used, I think you're not being imaginative enough. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 06:32, 16 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Ikan Kekek I think we should at least delete image with personnal data, like File:SAKIKO_-_SAROMAKO_TSURUGA_RESORT_hotel._(22757363808).jpg have her birth date. (At least it was use in Wikidata as a source.) Fralambert (talk) 17:29, 16 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The parent who took the photos didn't seem to think that was an issue, but you are free to delete it from the file description. That doesn't require deleting the photo. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 18:11, 16 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
You're vastly overestimating what people know they're sharing and who they know they're sharing it with. ReneeWrites (talk) 15:25, 17 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
That's irrelevant to a deletion request. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 18:50, 17 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

 Delete Non-notable images of a minor, and out of scope Zppix (talk) 22:58, 16 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

How are these different from any of the other images of children on Commons? Trade (talk) 16:31, 17 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

 Delete Out of scope, Commons is not a free webhost for personal images. Di (they-them) (talk) 23:05, 16 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

 Delete Per COM:SCOPE. This is almost a textbook example of COM:HOST. ReneeWrites (talk) 15:25, 17 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

 Delete This is fucking creepy, and wayyyy out of scope. I would say it runs afoul of the child protection policy, too. LilianaUwU (talk / contribs) 19:48, 17 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@LilianaUwU: Would you elaborate exactly how these images are anything plausibly like child pornography? These seem to be ordinary images of a minor child, not images created to be titillating nor to depict the child in a sexual manner, nor does the posting of images (which were freely available on Flickr) appear to be soliciting any information for any purpose (much less an illegal one). — Red-tailed hawk (nest) 02:09, 18 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, no, they're not pornographic images, and I've struck my comment about child protection (I assumed it was a bit broader of a policy than it is). I'm still getting weird vibes from this, though. LilianaUwU (talk / contribs) 01:38, 19 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
It’s called parenting. My daughter is in her 20s now, but I remember well the joyful urge of posting photos of her here and there and everywhere. The last thought on one’s mind is that photos of a child’s everyday life might be titillating a pedo somewhere, and safety is only a concern when a photo might include home or school location — not the kind we see in this DR, where these girls are shown at public places where they went once in a lifetime. What I found creepy, to be honest, is the persistent claim, often here in Commons, that the mere sight of a child is in itself problematic. -- Tuválkin ✉ ✇ 12:11, 20 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Just my opinion, but at least for me what's creepy about it is the sheer amount of photos and the fact that a lot of them contain extremely personal data like the girl's birthday. A few photographs are fine, but this really comes off like some kind of internet attempt at the parent creating an online modeling fan site for their child or something, which would also explain why a lot of the photographs are of such extremely high quality. They clearly aren't just random shots that were taken while the child was just playing around at the park because they parent wanted to save a few memories of their kid's childhood or whatever. --Adamant1 (talk) 12:27, 21 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe you should contact the Japanese authorities with your accusation of parental mistreatment, if you hold it sincerely, instead of airing it publicly. -- Tuválkin ✉ ✇ 13:01, 21 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
With your accusation of parental mistreatment OK, Tuvalkin. Where did I accuse anyone of parental mistreatment in my comment? --Adamant1 (talk) 13:04, 21 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
«Creepy »« internet attempt at the parent creating an online modeling fan site for their child» — that’s what you wrote. Oh you didn’t mean it? It was just rhetorical hyperbole? You felt that’s fair game, when the matter is children — and an individual case, not a generic situation? Now, that’s creepy. -- Tuválkin ✉ ✇ 14:51, 21 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
No, I meant it. I just don't think my personal feelings that it's creepy and the parent potentially mistreating their child are analogous or mutually exclusive. It's totally possible the child's parent is just totally ignorant of the internet and the type of people online who tend to be attracted to purely vanity shots of young girls like these. If you look at the images they were taken by a professional photographer and there's zero evidence he is the child's parent. So your idea that this is just some random parent joyful and innocently posting photographs of their daughter growing up everywhere is totally ridiculous. It's clearly a long-term modeling gig. Does that mean the parent is mistreating their child by involving them in it? No, of course not. But I think the way it was executed is a little creepy. Just like I've always thought people taking pictures of their children sitting on Santa's lap at the local mall during Christmas time is a little yikes. I wouldn't call it child abuse or report them to CPS over it though. It's just kind of creepy. That's all. I'm sure you get the difference. --Adamant1 (talk) 01:19, 22 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
You never thought the parent in question may be a professional photographer. No, as the gentleman in the elevator said to Archie Bunker — you never thought: And now you escalated your accusation to this being «clearly a long-term modeling gig» and anyone supposing differently is being «totally ridiculous». Just wow. -- Tuválkin ✉ ✇ 00:27, 23 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
It's possible, but like I said there's no evidence the photographer is her parent. If that's the case though, cool. I'm perfectly fine revising my opinion if or when the evidence materializes of that being the case, but then that's on him for posting pictures of her under his professional Flickr account. It's not that unreasonable to think it was done in a professional capacity given that though. Maybe it's different in Japan, but at least in the United States people don't usually mix their work and family life in that way and honestly it's kind of weird your making such an issue out of this. No one said you or anyone else is creepy for posting random photos of their kid on the internet or that doing so is creepy. So get over it and drop the stick. --Adamant1 (talk) 00:29, 24 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
You said «like I said there's no evidence the photographer is her parent» at 00:29, 24 July, but at 12:27, 21 July, you said «internet attempt at the parent creating an online modeling fan site for their child». You’re not really thinking this through, are you?
As for what is done in the «United States », where « people don't usually mix their work and family life», well maybe the world at large and Commons in particular should not model itself after the land of Toddlers and Tiaras, fundamentalist homeschooling, vaccine denial, and school mass shootings.
If this putative parent wants to enrich Commons with unusually well curated photos of their daughters’ everyday life, we should say thank you and move on. Deletion should be enacted for the apparently very few cases of low quality or copyright issues — which should be individually listed by the deletionist crew.
-- Tuválkin ✉ ✇ 16:21, 24 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I suspect there is more to it then just an ignorant mother innocently posting pictures of their child on the internet just for the memories or whatever since a lot of the shots are way to posed and professional looking for that to be the case.

I think you need to get your head checked if these family photos are what you consider pornographic Trade (talk) 22:28, 18 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for striking. — Red-tailed hawk (nest) 18:39, 19 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

 Comment The link to this DR was left in the w:en:WP:DISCORD channel by Fralambert. —‍Mdaniels5757 (talk • contribs) 19:50, 17 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, my message was more a comment with a link. But I didn't expect people to follow in group. I deleted the link on Discord. Fralambert (talk) 22:12, 17 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Is there a policy about canvassing? Asking for a friend. -- Tuválkin ✉ ✇ 00:29, 23 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

 Comment as nominator: I will further explain my rationale. COM:PS instructs that "Examples of files that are not realistically useful for an educational purpose" includes "Private image collections, e.g. private party photos, photos of yourself and your friends, your collection of holiday snaps and so on." This is exactly what is prohibited by our scope policy. If there are individual images you think are realistically useful, by all means, cross them out without discussion. But this is a "private image collection", which is exactly what Commons is NOT for. —‍Mdaniels5757 (talk • contribs) 19:54, 17 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Are these any different than the thousands of other images of girls on Commons? Trade (talk) 02:11, 18 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Kept: I have no doubt that some will disagree but this DR is too broad. I have deleted some clear OoS examples but many are in scope. Resubmit this DR focussing on the ones that are OoS - there are too many to expect an admin to wade through. --Gbawden (talk) 10:10, 25 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Commons:Deletion_requests/Files_in_Category:Sakiko_Miki&oldid=790610210"