Commons:Deletion requests/Out of scope images by Joymaster

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.

Out of scope images by Joymaster

edit
Kept per "3 or 4 are definitely enough" --Leafnode 14:32, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Kept per "3 or 4 are definitely enough" --Leafnode 14:32, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Kept per "3 or 4 are definitely enough" --Leafnode 14:32, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Kept per "3 or 4 are definitely enough" --Leafnode 14:32, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
OK --Jarekt (talk) 17:12, 6 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
 Keep File:Szymon i Krystian 003.JPG, as it is used on two enwiki articles. No opinion on the rest. Stifle (talk) 12:23, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
OK --Jarekt (talk) 17:50, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Might be of use; I've added a more meaningful cat. --Túrelio (talk) 14:56, 14 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I agree --Jarekt (talk) 15:05, 14 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Might be of use; I've added a more meaningful cat. --Túrelio (talk) 14:56, 14 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I agree --Jarekt (talk) 15:05, 14 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
View

I believe that the above images of User:Joymaster are out of scope on Commons. Those include:

  • Many on-street and beach pictures of people's backs and bottoms
  • Up-skirt and down-blouse images some indoor and some outdoor
  • Family photos, like kids birthday parties, etc.

User:Joymaster contributed large number of images. Many valuable ones, some borderline useful, and the list above which I believe is low-quality and does not meet "Must be realistically useful for an educational purpose" criteria. Gallery of above images can be found here. --Jarekt (talk) 04:01, 14 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]


Not sure how some of the random beach snapshots (such as File:Plaża_w_Śródmieściu_(dzielnica_Gdyni)_-_042.JPG) are any worse than the typical random beach snapshots already on Commons -- but as a whole most of these images seem to add little value... AnonMoos (talk) 06:38, 14 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
 Comment I did not compared this set to "typical random beach snapshots" - they might be out of scope too. I also did not include other numerous beach images by User:Joymaster that show some details of the places instead of trying to catch the most embarrassing pose of the subjects. If I lived in Gdynia and saw Plaża w Śródmieściu gallery, I might prefer to avoid that beach for fear of running into commons photographer. Overall low quality, time watermarks lack of geocoding and frequent lack of useful categories do not help the matters. --Jarekt (talk) 12:39, 14 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
 Delete Much of them really useless, without an educational purpose. --Daniel Baránek (talk) 08:52, 14 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
 Keep Many of them are useless but some photos (for example that ilustrate Plaża w Śródmieściu) are usable. It need better request or separate requests. --Dezidor (talk) 23:49, 14 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
 Comment Not all pictures from Plaża w Śródmieściu ended up here just the most voyeuristic ones. If yo think some images above are in scope, than mark them the way User:Túrelio did and tell us why.--Jarekt (talk) 12:55, 17 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

 Comment Some of the family photographs could be left, for personal use, since uploading of small numbers of images for use on a personal user page is allowed, see COM:SCOPE#File in use in another Wikimedia project. But probably not all 60 used on User:Joymaster/Template:Images page. See also some other out of scope DR's:

--Jarekt (talk) 20:36, 20 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]


Kept: Closing stale thread now w/o object: most files already deleted or nomination withdrawn: remaining ones kept. -- User:Docu at 16:01, 16 November 2009 (UTC), edited 03:01, 17 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]