Commons:Deletion requests/Files in Category:AI-generated toys

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:AI-generated toys

[edit]

The whole idea of an "AI generated toy" is nonsensical to begin with, but we don't host noneducational amateur artwork anyway. So these images should be deleted as OOS.

Adamant1 (talk) 12:01, 29 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

 Keep the first image you've linked here, which is in use at two pages (en:Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/2022-08-01/From the editors and en:Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/Single/2022-08-01) and the second image (which is in use at the English Wikipedia as the lead illustration for en:DALL-E).
My understanding of the Commons scope policy is that images which are actively in use on other projects are definitionally in scope, and somebody personally disliking the images does not override this. Please let me know if I am mistaken, so I can write a script to locally rehost all of my Commons uploads at the English Wikipedia and request their deletion here -- it is getting quite tiresome to repeatedly have to respond to notifications when someone on Commons randomly nominates in-use images for deletion due to deciding they are "amateur" or the like. JPxG (talk) 20:09, 29 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I addressed your comment on my talk page, but I'd appreciate it if you didn't make personal, off-topic comments about the nominators motiviations going forward. Thanks. --Adamant1 (talk) 00:10, 30 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You explicitly said on your talk page that you nominated the images because you believe "AI generated images are out of scope amateur artwork regardless of it's being used on another project or not"; this is simply not true (it directly contradicts both COM:SCOPE and COM:AI). If your nomination is not based on personal distaste, can you explain what policy or guideline it is based on?
Like I said there: I would very much appreciate if, prior to nominating things for deletion, you checked to see if they were in use, as correcting simple errors in deletion requests constitutes a large amount of unpleasant bureaucratic busywork. JPxG (talk) 01:00, 30 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You explicitly said on your talk page that you nominated the images because you believe.. No I said I nominated the images for deletion because the consensus is that AI-generated images are generally out of scope as amateur artwork regardless of the image is being used on another project. It has nothing to do with my personal belief on the matter. Your just being disingenuous. --Adamant1 (talk) 01:12, 30 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
No. You are incorrect. Here is what the guideline says:
Per the Commons project scope, only media that are realistically useful for an educational purpose should be hosted on Commons. Just because an AI image is interesting, pretty, or looks like a work of art, that doesn't mean that it is necessarily within the scope of Commons. While some AI-generated media fall within our scope, media that lack a realistic educational use may be nominated for deletion.
The argument you give -- that an image is automatically "amateur artwork" because it was generated with DALL-E (and this somehow automatically makes it out of scope) even if it is the demonstration image used in the Wikipedia article on DALL-E specifically to show what the model does -- is not only unsupported by the relevant guideline, but prima facie risible. JPxG (talk) 01:20, 30 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The argument you give -- that an image is automatically "amateur artwork" because it was generated with DALL-E That's just intrinsically true due to the nature of the thing. Like I've said about 15 times now, some in use images are deleted, some aren't. That's just how the process works. If you want there to be a broad ban on deleting anything that's in use be my guest and propose it. I could care less, but needlessly trying to make something that's literally just how this process works into a personal issue when it isn't one. Again, sometimes images are deleted. Sometimes they are kept. Waves come in, waves go out. That's life. Take the L when it happens and move on. Or be my guest and propose a ban on deleting images that are in use. I could really care less, but it's not my issue. --Adamant1 (talk) 01:34, 30 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I have already "taken the L" of being forced to waste an hour of my day responding to a deletion request on two images that you've admitted has no policy-based rationale (but for some reason refuse to withdraw the nomination or remove the in-scope images from). JPxG (talk) 19:41, 30 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I have asked Adamant1 to stop misrepresenting the COM:INUSE policy, which contains no such exceptions. Regards, HaeB (talk) 21:13, 30 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
 Comment I uploaded some of the nominated images and I must say, with all sincerity, that I'm really sick of this kind of DR. In my experience seeing how most of the AI images nominated are finally deleted, I think that the total amount of AI images hosted here should be revomed and forbidden. I'm stating this because most of the DR are based on personal views/tastes from the nominators who don't seem to like this kind of images and art. The concepts "out of scope", "non-educational", and even "amateur", used over and over in these DR sound subjective and ambiguous to me. Fma12 (talk) 14:25, 30 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
personal views/tastes from the nominators who don't seem to like this kind of images and art. Yeah, that must be it and not the multiple reasons I gave that had nothing to do with my personal views about AI artwork. Right. --Adamant1 (talk) 14:40, 30 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This is false. JPxG (talk) 19:43, 30 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@JPxG: OK. The idea that we don't host noneducational images is just my personal view. Right. --Adamant1 (talk) 00:45, 1 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You have insisted on an idiosyncratic definition of "educational" that does not seem to be supported by any policy, guideline, process or consensus; when asked for any evidence to support your claims, you have instead repeatedly called me a liar and insulted my reading "compression level" [sic]. This does not seem like a worthwhile discussion to continue, sorry. JPxG (talk) 01:00, 1 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It wasn't meant as an insult. I was just trying to be accommodating to your reading comprehension level since it seemed like it's short. No insult intended though. I'm not sure what the whole thing about me calling you a liar is about, but you've spent an inordinate amount of time writing messages related to this that seem to go out of their way to either intentionally misconstrue my position or claim intent behind nominations like this one that I've repeatedly told you I don't have. I've said many times now that this has absolutely nothing to do with my personal feelings about the quality of AI artwork. Yet you've repeatedly treated me like I'm doing this simply because I think it's low quality or something. "Lying" is a strong word, but your clearly being intentionally dishonest about it. --Adamant1 (talk) 01:16, 1 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Where does COM:INUSE say how many views a file has gotten determines it's eductional value? Or let me guess, the guideline only matters when it supports your opinion but not anyone else's? --Adamant1 (talk) 06:04, 1 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Nobody said that it does. (Normally I would ask you to stop misrepresenting other people's statements, but considering your reaction to concerns about civility violations against another user [4][5] in the same context - deletions of AI-generated media -, that's probably futile.)
My point is simply that this example shows that your misrepresentation of COM:INUSE here could have negatively affected a large number of readers (and editors) on the aforementioned 13+ Wikimedia projects where this image is being used on content pages. (Similar things might be true about your various mistaken legal claims in favor of deleting or outright banning AI-generated images on Commons that I and another user just spent time debunking here). Regards, HaeB (talk) 08:10, 1 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I think I was pretty fair and civil to you in that discussion. We'll have to agree to disagree though. It seems like you just don't like that I didn't immediately bend over backward to accommodate your ranting. I said about 15 times that your free to have the guideline clarified if you disagree with any part of it. Otherwise I have to believe your concern is just insincere and your only in this to axe grind over my deletion requests. Otherwise be my guest and ask about it on the Village Pump.
I could really care less, but this is whole bad faithed disingenuous back and forth about it on your end is getting super tiring. The same goes for the endless dishonesty on your part. So do me a favor and either put your money where your mouth is or drop it. Again for like the 8th time, if you think there should be a blanket ban on nominating "in use" files for deletion then be my guest and propose one. Otherwise we're done here. --Adamant1 (talk) 08:18, 1 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
 Speedy keep all, Adamant1 attacking AI images for being AI generated and nothing else. They should really be topic banned from deletion nominations (they’ve also indiscriminately nominated other, non-AI INUSE files for no good reason— this is clearly a problem related to the whole field of deletion) Dronebogus (talk) 18:21, 1 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Kept: almost all per the discussion. Deleted: the last one because it was exceptionally low quality and not in use. --The Squirrel Conspiracy (talk) 22:22, 10 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Commons:Deletion_requests/Files_in_Category:AI-generated_toys&oldid=896685768"