Commons:Deletion requests/Files in Category:Sakurako Miki

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:Sakurako Miki

Out of COM:SCOPE: personal images of a minor. Excluding 1 COM:INUSE photo.

—‍Mdaniels5757 (talk • contribs) 21:45, 15 July 2023 (UTC)

Discussion

 Delete It's not because the picture are free to use that we have to put them here. We seem to have all the pictures taken from her since her birth. We are not a personnal photo album. --Fralambert (talk) 23:01, 15 July 2023 (UTC)

 Keep: Recent DR closed as keep, now this one even less detailed: I am not convinced. Random peeks yield photos that are in scope, and even seem to be properly categorized. I would gladly vote in favour of deletion of any cruff such large collection unavoidably contains, but the DR must contain a curated list of deletion candidates, not like this. -- Tuválkin ✉ ✇ 02:11, 16 July 2023 (UTC)

•  Keep A lot of these are just personal images that can be deleted, but for example, one or more skiing pictures might be usable. I can't support the deletion of every one of these pictures, though most should probably be deleted. And since it's really not manageable to look through every one of these photos and mention every image that might be usable, I'm simply voting to keep these as a lot. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 06:37, 16 July 2023 (UTC)

   Keep There are several images here that should be kept just because they can be considered art, e.g. File:SAKURAKO in the mist. (27887634383).jpg. PaterMcFly (talk) 10:57, 16 July 2023 (UTC)

   Keep I think File:SAKURAKO - SAPPORO Festival. (18951177166).jpg and File:SAKURAKO - SAPPORO Festival. (18972041662).jpg are good illustrations of Goldfish scooping, for one. Shāntián Tàiláng (talk) 15:27, 17 July 2023 (UTC)

•  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) 19:56, 17 July 2023 (UTC)

• It's unreasonable to expect anyone to spend all day looking through every photo from this long a list. Since you're the one who cares so much, it should be up to you to do that and think very carefully about possible uses for each one. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 04:34, 18 July 2023 (UTC)

• In general,  Keep. Commons is a host of educational media, and the well-categorized and high quality media here serves a large swath of educational purposes; nothing scope-wise has changed since the prior discussion that found consensus to keep the images. These are (in general) high-quality properly-categorized images of everyday life that are useful for depicting everyday life in an educational context. Even things like File:SAKURAKO - Color check. (6337344156).jpg can be educationally useful as a stock image about the act of drawing. Per COM:SCOPE, "educational" is to be understood according to its broad meaning of "providing knowledge; instructional or informative", and I think the vast majority of these files meet this definition. I sympathize with the notion that we don't need a bajillion images of the same exact ordinary toddler on Commons, but we need to address this much more narrowly to see which images are redundant to other images of her—if specific images are redundant to one another, a nomination needs to be more specific and create a more narrowly tailored DR.
  However, I do have concerns about copyright on several images, which appear to have been created by the girl herself rather than the photographer:
  1. File:SAKURAKO - Student Summer Independent Research (The third grade at elementary school). (36533573641).jpg
  2. File:SAKURAKO - Student Summer Independent Research (The third grade at elementary school). (36533573641).jpg
  3. File:SAKURAKO - Student Summer Independent Research (The third grade at elementary school). (36276057950).jpg
  4. File:SAKURAKO draw a picture of Jewelpet. (10511025266).jpg
  5. File:SAKURAKO - Student Summer Independent Research. (20974173116).jpg
  6. File:SAKURAKO draws a MIKU. (31888859953).jpg
  7. File:SAKURAKO draws a portrait. (32700675545).jpg

These are children's artworks that are incorporated in a greater-than-de minimis fashion, but the artworks appear to be over COM:TOO USA. I'm doubtful that the standard CC 2.0 release would also release the works of the licensor's dependent children, so I think these have to be  deleted per COM:PRP. — Red-tailed hawk _(nest) 18:01, 20 July 2023 (UTC)

•  Comment I agree that many of these pictures are out of scope, and should be deleted. However such a large DR is unworkable, and should be remade in small batches. Yann (talk) 20:00, 25 October 2023 (UTC)
• Delete the 7 probable copyright violations mentioned by Red-tailed hawk, keep the rest. Renerpho (talk) 22:09, 8 November 2023 (UTC)

---

Kept all but the 6 drawings by the child herself. —holly {chat} 21:45, 14 November 2023 (UTC)