Commons:Deletion requests/Files uploaded by XRay

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 uploaded by XRay (talk · contribs)

[edit]

Artistically blurred photos of places and lights and trees. It's an effective aesthetic, but out of COM:SCOPE for Commons when we have non-blurry equivalents of these subjects.

Belbury (talk) 15:07, 10 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

 Keep Our project makes such photos possible, some of them are used and some have the QI seal. What is the point of such a deletion request? --XRay 💬 15:26, 10 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The point is that these images seem to be outside of Commons' educational scope, to me. None of these files appear to be in use outside of Commons galleries. Belbury (talk) 15:43, 10 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Half of the photographs are uploaded this morning. Others are used for example outside Commons. Please read the scope not through the glasses of the Wikipedias. --XRay 💬 15:45, 10 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Where are these being used outside of Commons? I don't see any such usage listed on the file pages.
I am very much looking at this through the lens of COM:NOTUSED here. Belbury (talk) 16:02, 10 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
My pictures are often enough used in books, magazines or as printouts. You should know that there are no links. Wikimedia Commons is a media archive for everyone, not just the Wikimedia world. --XRay 💬 16:07, 10 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for clarifying, I didn't realise you were talking about books and printouts. Belbury (talk) 16:10, 10 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
One more thing: I'm wondering how you can read articles like en:Abstract photography or en:Intentional camera movement if you want to delete corresponding photos? Or do you not consider the articles "educational"? --XRay 💬 16:14, 10 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
No, obviously I understand that those articles benefit from having illustrations. Belbury (talk) 16:20, 10 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
 Keep Category:Intentional camera movement has only 120 file directly in the category. That is not to much that we should think about limiting new photos on this topic. GPSLeo (talk) 15:37, 10 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
 Info I find such a deletion request very strange. "Educational" (COM:SCOPE) also contains artistic photos. There are several articles on this in the Wikipedias. A look at categories such as Category:Intentional camera movement, Category:Intentionally blurred images, Category:Zoom burst, Category:Multiple exposure or Category:Photo art may help. Commons is not just for Wikipedia! (This is also in the scope.) I would ask that these deletion requests be removed promptly. --XRay 💬 15:44, 10 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Dear admins, may I ask for your support? In my opinion, this deletion request is unfounded and arbitrary. The arbitrariness is shown by the fact that photographs already classified as quality images are also affected. Other photos that have just been uploaded are up for nomination, but this is prevented by the deletion request. Photos from categories such as Category:Intentional camera movement, Category:Intentionally blurred images, Category:Zoom burst, Category:Multiple exposure or Category:Photo art are a constant source of discussion, but these are also relevant and important for Wikimedia Commons. There are only relatively few photos in these categories, as only a few people deal with these topics. Even fewer photos are labeled as quality images or even excellent images. I ask that the deletion request be rejected and closed. I would be infinitely grateful if this application could be closed and we no longer have to deal with it.

@Belbury: For the above-mentioned reasons, I would ask the applicant to reconsider his request and to withdraw the request for deletion.

A personal note: I have been active on Wikimedia Commons for years. I contribute images to many categories - including those already mentioned. However, I prefer to concentrate on the photos rather than on unnecessary deletion requests or discussions that don't lead anywhere. The deletion request has already cost me a lot of time, excitement and sleep. It is particularly frustrating.

--XRay 💬 04:43, 11 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

If quality images are always considered to be within COM:SCOPE, then okay, I was not aware of that. I'm not active in the COM:QI side of Commons, and I didn't notice that five of the 18 files had the QI mark in the corner when batch nominating them.
Are you saying that of the other 13 images which are not yet QI rated, you intend to submit all of them for QI rating and would expect them all to be accepted as such? Belbury (talk) 10:13, 11 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know what role it plays which pictures are still nominated - it's a selection of the pictures from South Africa, one is even in a shortlist as an excellent picture. But it can't be a reason to delete the others. I don't think that pictures should be deleted from categories if they are of no use to a single person. I find the whole idea of deleting questionable in this respect. "Blurry" is used as a derogatory term, but there is intentional use as well as erroneous use. If you want a discussion about scope, I think a deletion request is the wrong place. As others here have also noted, a narrow view of the term "educational" goes back to the pure Wikipedia era and is now outdated. Even in the scope, the term is defined very broadly. As I have already noted, I would like to concentrate on my pictures again. The unnecessary deletion request costs too much time and effort. --10:25, 11 March 2024 (UTC)
By the way, regarding Qi, here is a quote from the guidelines: "Images should: comply with all Commons policies and practices, ...". So you can assume that these images are consistent with the scope. --XRay 💬 10:29, 11 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Belbury: I would like to appeal once again to common sense and cooperation on Commons. The deletion request concerns good images that are also important for modern photography techniques. Techniques such as ICM (Intentional camera movement) are already well established in North America and are also attracting more and more attention in Europe. It would be a shame if Commons were to lose the relevant representatives as a result of this deletion request. It would be a good and positive sign on your part if you withdrew the deletion request. Thank you. --XRay 💬 05:35, 12 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Belbury In my opinion there is no reason for your deletion request, as the pictures are fully in line with Commons requirements. I recommend that you withdraw the request. Plozessor (talk) 06:55, 12 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Kept: no valid reason for deletion - in light of the discussion and the high artistic AND educational value of the images I am doing a speedy keep here. --Kritzolina (talk) 07:19, 12 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Commons:Deletion_requests/Files_uploaded_by_XRay&oldid=859741737"