Commons:Deletion requests/Polandball

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.

Polandball

All files in Category:Polandball, except File:Polandball.PNG.

Articles on this subject were created by 2 users on English Wikipedia, German Wikipedia and Russian Wikipedia (one of the two users is the creator of the artwork; the other is User:Russavia). Two of those three articles have been deleted (en:Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Polandball, de:Wikipedia:Löschkandidaten/26._März_2012#Polandball). The subject is not encyclopedic, and therefore these examples of an unexceptional internet meme do not serve an educational purpose, and are out of Commons' project scope.

In addition, these files are original user-created artwork; it is doubtful whether these would legitimately serve an educational purpose even if the article were encyclopedic. Commons:PS#Must_be_realistically_useful_for_an_educational_purpose says "The expression “educational” is to be understood according to its broad meaning of “providing knowledge; instructional or informative”." User-created artwork does not provide knowledge. COM:NOT#Commons is not your personal free web host applies.

Rd232 (talk) 20:02, 5 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: the only file in use in the main namespace of a Wikimedia project at time of nomination is File:Polandball.PNG, on Russian Wikipedia. All others are English Wikipedia uses either by en:User:Russavia or relating to discussions about his uses of these files. I've therefore excluded this file, on the basis that use in mainspace must be supported by Commons, regardless of our own views of educational purpose. (In addition, use in a userbox may be considered a legitimate Wikipedia-internal use not subject to the educational purpose requirement.) Rd232 (talk) 20:31, 5 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note2: en:User:Russavia/PolandballAE (look closely at the links, and be aware of the en:Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement/Archive111 context which the page is explicitly linked to in the title via the abbreviation AE=Arbitration Enforcement) helps clarify the non-educational purposes of many of these images. Most telling is this: Another ball, I think he be of a Britball (hence Britball be in of cartoons) ("another ball" is wikilinked to User:Moreschi). Rd232 (talk) 20:40, 5 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, some of these images are in use on a subpage, which is valid usage. Some of them will be put into use here on Commons. Such as at the top of userpage right now. Other's will be created in the future too, hopefully covering all countries, and these can be used in a gallery of sorts on Commons, to support those projects which have articles. As a user-generated subject, being user-generated is expected. And it will be near on impossible to get other images licenced under CC. This is what we have at present, this is what we keep. russavia (talk) 20:45, 5 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Speedy keep in fact. ru:Polandball still exists and any of these images can be used to illustrate that article. Might I also add that Commons:Deletion_requests/File:Poland_can_into_Wikipedia.jpg was closed as keep by another admin, to which Rd232 didn't like (User_talk:Beria#DR_close), so he is now trying to subvert that consensus by this DR. So long as files have possibility of use, they should be kept. Also, note that several of the files are used on enwp user pages, humour pages, etc, and do not have to be within the educational scope as such, as is being portrayed here. Nothing has changed here from Commons:Deletion_requests/File:Poland_can_into_Wikipedia.jpg which was closed a matter of a couple of hours ago. russavia (talk) 20:39, 5 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I stated in that DR that actually the same issues applied to all the Polandball images - hence this mass DR. The closure of that DR was also clearly wrong, with a misapplication of COM:SCOPE. Rd232 (talk) 20:43, 5 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry Rd232, but the close was done by an uninvolved admin, and it was kept. You have opened this one up, a matter of hours afterwards, and now you are claiming that others are wrong -- this seems to be more of a case where you didn't get your own way, so you are intent on keep trying until you do. That's not right. russavia (talk) 20:48, 5 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - nothing educational about this, out of scope. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 20:49, 5 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Kept, Oh please, let's not be disruptive. You didn't liked the result of one DR and now wanna delete the whole category? Seriously?!? Do you ever thougth about if everyone did the same with every DR? The full chaos that this would become? You're an admin, start acting like one and respect the policies please. Béria Lima ^msg 20:50, 5 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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.

Polandball

This appears to be some sort of encyclopedia article, and Commons is not an encyclopedia. The topic is already covered on Wikipedia at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polandball; does not fall within the scope of Commons. IllaZilla (talk) 21:35, 16 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - This isn't an article, it's a collection of Polandball icons, aka a gallery, which is a perfectly acceptable thing to have. Given it's covered on Wikipedia, it's in scope. -mattbuck (Talk) 22:11, 16 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The talk page indicates "This should really go the English language Wikipedia, but as the topic is banned there, I will post it here", which indicated to me that it had been deleted from Wikipedia at some point so someone decided to put it on Commons instead. If it's just a gallery, isn't that redundant to Category:Polandball and its subcats? I find it odd that it's structured somewhat like a Wikipedia article, with a descriptive lead section and explanatory subsection intros. --IllaZilla (talk) 22:20, 16 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
You mean it's structured in a way which lets people understand what the page is about? Oh my god, call the FBI. -mattbuck (Talk) 07:28, 17 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - This seems to be a good use of a gallery to me, since it has already been decided not to delete the files or the category containing them. How else would a gallery of these files look like? The same but without the introductory paragraph? We really need more people developing the galleries on this project not deletion of galleries that actually are reasonably decent. Oxyman (talk) 01:24, 19 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Kept: I think these files are out of scope, but there is no community consensus for that point of view. So the files are there, making this gallery valid. --Jcb (talk) 21:45, 22 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Commons:Deletion requests/Polandball

Polandball

Polandball

Navigation menu

Search