Commons:Deletion requests/Files in Category:Unidentified female models

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:Unidentified female models[edit]

Out of scope. These are all photos of unidentified female models, and we have more than enough photos of female models with a name. Personal photos, perhaps for advertising purposes, which is out of scope. Not in use. Not realistically useful for an educational purpose. See Commons:Categories for discussion/2021/11/Category:Unidentified female models for more information.

JopkeB (talk) 16:23, 28 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

This: File:Body Painting to Live Mannequin, Omotesando, Tokyo.jpg is a shop window in Japan, and shouldn't be there. I don't think these mass nominations of loosely related files are helpful, and actually recommend cancelling the whole thing and nominate separately as applicable. Darwin Ahoy! 16:37, 28 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
But I do agree that most of those seem to be out of our scope. Darwin Ahoy! 16:41, 28 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Some are out of scope, yes, but we cannot put them all in the same bag. Of those that I uploaded, the vast majority are in a professional degree. "We have a lot of photos of women" was not always a good argument, but it is always better, of course, this depends on the quality and focus of the composition. In short, it is a subjective assessment. --Wilfredor (talk) 19:41, 28 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
 Keep all, per DarwIn and Wilfredor. Resubmit as separate DRs with discrete rationales. -- Tuválkin ✉ ✇ 20:11, 28 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Delete, except for the exceptions: I put a lot of time and effort to sort out the original category, see the Notes at the bottom of Commons:Categories for discussion/2021/11/Category:Unidentified female models. So I think the photos that were originally in this category and are in scope, are not nominated for deletion here. And all the ones that are here nominated for deletion are out of scope and should be deleted, except for the ones that have a request not to (with a reason). And no, when so many photos are out of scope for the same reason, I do not think there should be deletion requests for all of them seperately, that is a lot of extra, useless work, for the nominator as well as for the administrator; both of us can make better use of our time.

  • When you think a photo mentioned here should still stay, put you comment next to the file with the reason why it should stay. The rest of the photos can be deleted.
  • Since when is "are in a professional degree" and "high quality" the same as "in scope"? I do not know any better than it is the other way around: A photo should be in scope; professionality and high quality are a bonus but not necessary.

--JopkeB (talk) 14:49, 1 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Speedy  Keep all images. Files are clearly in scope as per other comments. This is another shotgun approach that are, as the others, a waste of time of users, administrators, etc. Only looking at File:VivianaVa.jpg and File:VivianaVasconcelos.jpg is seen that uploader does not speek enough languages (spanish and\or portuguese) to understand that the deletion requester does not know that the depicted model is from Venezuela. Also deletion requester does not need to vote a second time and try to put conditions as to how others vote.
All other users could make better use of our time. Tm (talk) 01:19, 2 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
File:Zara (10074472815).jpg (uploaded by me) is a good example of a boudoir type photograpy (and a very high resolution at 4 912 × 7 360 or 36.15MP). Also taken by a professional photographer (and one that presently works to Getty Images) and images of this photographer have survived a category deletion request like this, after a long undeletion request with deveral participants]. Scope of this images has been established pure and simple along time ago. Tm (talk) 01:46, 2 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
And categories of unidentified concepts, objects, persons, etc like Commons:Deletion requests/Files in Category:Unidentified female models are collectors to images that for several reasons have something in it that was not still identified, not collectors to deletion requests. Tm (talk) 01:52, 2 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The deletion and undeletion requests you refer to, were about licences, not about scope. This deletion request is about scope. JopkeB (talk) 03:17, 2 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
That is the problem: These files are not in scope, other comments did not say how they are in scope, how they are educational media, for which purposes they can be reused. So please give valid reasons, reasons that match the Commons:Project scope. JopkeB (talk) 03:06, 2 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
No. You are the one that has to show why they are out of scope thing that you did not do until now.
1 - Your arguments that you "put a lot of time and effort to sort out the original category" and "Personal photos, perhaps for advertising purposes, which is out of scope." do not had up when you nominated, in this deletion request, photos that were previosly nominated to deletion with arguments like "Unused personal photo. Out of project scope" and were kept as there was "no valid reason for deletion". Case in point File:Diana (8369163184).jpg and Commons:Deletion requests/File:Diana (8369163184).jpg
2 - "we have more than enough photos of female models with a name" is not a valid argument to delete photos as there is not a maximum threshold or set number of files\photos for any category or subject where if there is any number above a threshold some are deleted. See Commons:Scope
3 - "Not in use". Not in use is not and never was a valid argument to delete images. Again see Commons:Scope.
4 - "Not realistically useful for an educational purpose.". Just as some examples, a set of 8 photo studio images of a professional model wearing Category:Equestrian sports equipment and all named "The Equestrian Session (Flickrid).jpg" is realistically useful for an educational purpose, not speaking of images of boudoir, images of studio photo sessions from the 1980´s (
File:Rigmor 1984 15 yrs old.jpg and File:Rigmor 1984.jpg as if there were a lot with free licenses)
5 - The images that i saw all have other valid categories, so one more argument against these being out of scope.
6 - And the "other comments" did say how they are in scope, how they are educational media, for which purposes they can be reused, etc, so please stop trying to circle the drain as all other users could make better use of our time to listen to valid concerns of scope, thing that you until now did not do. Tm (talk) 03:41, 2 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Jopke, are you voting twice? -- Tuválkin ✉ ✇ 14:09, 2 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
No, that was not my intention. I removed. it. --JopkeB (talk) 04:19, 3 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Kept: Blanket mass deletion not supported; over broad. No prejudging of relisting individual image or smaller related subsets of images. --Infrogmation of New Orleans (talk) 20:45, 19 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Retrieved from "https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Commons:Deletion_requests/Files_in_Category:Unidentified_female_models&oldid=843502143"