Jump to content

Commons:Deletion requests/File:ChatGPT by Exey Panteleev.jpg

From Wikimedia Commons, the free media repository
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.

File:ChatGPT by Exey Panteleev.jpg

[edit]

Just because is painted on the body does not make it useful for the chatgpt category. then it has nothing of value Tiagomagalhaes (talk) 19:37, 21 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Let me rephrase: Commons typically considers images which are the subject of independent media coverage to be in scope. That each individual image doesn't seem to have all that much educational value is secondary to the fact that this is a notable set of images. Second, we even have a template, which I'll use and collapse below, collecting the many, many times people have nominated these for deletion (just to have them kept). Third, there's no reason to delete one from the set without deleting the others. This happens so frequently that I'd suggest documenting a speedy keep criteria unless someone wants to discuss the whole set [yet again]. See also the collapsed content at the top of Category:Project "Geekography" by Exey Panteleev (nude portrayals of computer technology). — Rhododendrites talk |  23:40, 23 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Collapsed template

That these pics have been nominated so often for deletion is also a minor argument for deletion. I could not find good rationale for keeping in any of these. That they have been kept often is not a good reason, probably no reason at all to keep. --Prototyperspective (talk) 00:28, 24 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You keep saying "could not find good rationale", so a collection of images receiving coverage in multiple publications and various awards/nominations is not a good reason to host images? It's not "keep because they were kept", after all, it's "keep because there's a consensus that these are in scope". For better or worse, we have a broad scope that includes a bunch of things I consider silly, but it is what it is. — Rhododendrites talk |  03:54, 24 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with you. And therefore, although as I said, I wouldn't make an argument for this photo specifically, I'll vote to  Keep it. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 13:55, 24 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, just because any photos of some series gets some minor coverage by a few reliable sources doesn't mean we need to pollute WMC with thousand of uneducational useless porn pictures. In addition, doing so is a violation of the policy I have cited. Prototyperspective (talk) 17:26, 24 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I third the opinions of Ikan and Rhondo— while I personally see this series as completely useless and OOS precedent says otherwise Dronebogus (talk) 12:27, 23 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
 Delete because people still fail to bring up good valid arguments to keep. Like with nearly every DR of these pictures, the nominator's rationale also isn't as good as it could be: COM:SCOPE says Must be realistically useful for an educational purpose without such a policy-reference nothing of value in itself probably is not a valid reason for deletion. Prototyperspective (talk) 23:11, 23 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Delete Honestly I agree with Prototyperspective. At a certain point precedent becomes a self-fulfilling prophecy, to the point of being treated like it’s policy. I’m tired of this stonewalling. This image has no educational use besides illustrating a fairly minor photography project that has become disproportionately represented on Commons like it’s the most important artwork of the 21st century. Exey Panteleev is not the next Alfred Stieglitz or Helmut Newton, okay? Not everything he does is automatically notable just because it’s freely licensed. A dozen or fewer images could get the point across. Dronebogus (talk) 07:33, 24 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • The point of mentioning past discussions is to show that there's consensus for something thanks to the arguments in those past discussions. The point is to avoid the disruption of an umpteenth discussion when no new information/arguments have been presented. Ignoring the actual arguments (that photos which are the subject of extensive press coverage and won awards are in scope, regardless of what they depict) to pretend that anyone is arguing to "keep because it was kept" is silly. — Rhododendrites talk |  14:08, 24 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      They are not ignored: no issue with keeping the few photos that won awards as well as those photos of the series that are in use, maybe even some more. For the rest there is no good reason to keep or is there a policy that says something like "even if pictures are not realistically useful for any educational purpose, if they have been made by an artist who won an award of any kind or are part of a series that received media coverage, they must be kept"? Prototyperspective (talk) 17:33, 24 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      I think the understanding is that we would include as many works by a notable PD artist as possible, so it makes sense we might include as many freely licensed works by a notable contemporary artist as possible; but like I said Panteleev isn’t exactly generation-defining. Additionally his images have no individual educational merit beyond illustrating the Geekography project. Dronebogus (talk) 12:17, 25 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      Is this part of the Geekography project? It seems like it would be. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 17:31, 25 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      Again, is there a policy that says something like "even if pictures are not realistically useful for any educational purpose, if they have been made by a person who won any relevant award or the pictures are part of a series of which some images won any noteworthy award or received media coverage, all of the images part of the series must be kept"? Prototyperspective (talk) 19:12, 25 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      Do you think repeating yourself makes your argument stronger? -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 20:07, 25 November 2024 (UTC)t[reply]
      And to respond substantively: It would be a huge waste of time to argue about which selection of this series of photos to keep, if we chose to delete x-number of them. It's much more logical just to put them in a category and move on to arguing about more easily resolvable issues like obviously lousy or mediocre nudes, copyright violation, etc. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 20:21, 25 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      We keep ones that have some degree of independent notability like File:Body painting - Copy-paste.jpg (which won an award or something). I think that image basically tells anyone anything they need to know about the project, and it’s not needlessly graphic Dronebogus (talk) 16:25, 27 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      Write up a proposal if you like, explaining which photos you want to keep and why those in particular. I'm skeptical it'll achieve a consensus other proposals didn't achieve, but I'd be happy to consider it. Ikan Kekek (talk) 22:01, 27 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      Apparently you think so. Prototyperspective (talk) 22:25, 25 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      The long history of discussions in deletion requests of his files proves that it's a huge waste of time. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 22:33, 25 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Delete Per Prototyperspective and Dronebogus. It's possible I'm misremembering, but there was another conversation having to do with similar images where Ikan Kekek argued at the time that they we're worth keeping as examples of a novel art form or something. I don't really see how that applies here. There's nothing original or different about this image compared to the hundreds of thousands of other images out there of nude women's butts. Just because the photographer did something notable years ago doesn't mean everything by him after that is inherently educational either. I don't think this photograph is even part of the original series that he got the attention for. Otherwise your putting the guy on the same level as artists like Andy Warhol or Claude Monet, which is totally ridiculous. The photographs that are good examples of the genre should be kept though, but they aren't being nominated for deletion and it's pointless to have every single photograph the guy created on here in the meantime. Nothing in Commons:Project scope or anywhere else says that's how something having educational value works. --Adamant1 (talk) 06:28, 6 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Kept: The series of photos has been discussed and kept repeatedly. Substantial precedent. Whether the image belongs in a particular category in addition to that of the photo series is not a deletion issue. --Infrogmation of New Orleans (talk) 20:47, 28 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

File:ChatGPT by Exey Panteleev.jpg

[edit]

This was closed against a broad majority (5:1 counting actual !votes) with the rationale “The series of photos has been discussed and kept repeatedly. Substantial precedent.” This seems to say that: a) individual image scope does not matter in a series, and b) precedent from other files’ discussions overrides consensus at an individual discussion. This is not simply an admin rejecting shitty arguments or no-argument votes; it’s an admin overriding valid arguments because of arguments made for other files. That, to me, seems like a novel and radical interpretation of policy that would not fly anywhere else but this one specific case because it’s become unthinkable that any respected user would ever vote against precedent here, let alone a majority. In fact, it actually seems to contradict policy in several key areas: 1) “Artwork without obvious educational value” is not in scope; 90% of these images have no obvious educational value whatsoever and are simply considered to have sufficient artistic value to be kept. 2) “Files that add nothing educationally distinct to the collection of images we already hold covering the same subject” is not in scope; some of these images are being used to illustrate the project or very occasionally other topics; 90% are not, making them essentially redundant. 3) Many users have defended the project as a whole as notable; however notability and scope are two completely different things— notability is irrelevant to Commons, and this is one of those very rare cases where something notable can be out of scope for the above reasons. Dronebogus (talk) 19:18, 16 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

 Delete because the image fails COM:SCOPE which says Must be realistically useful for an educational purpose and because it is not useful. If one was to illustrate the nude female body or pornography there are far better-suited images than this one and one does neither need hundreds of photos nor this particular image to illustrate the Exey Panteleev Geekography series. In addition, I don't see any good actual arguments to keep this. Prototyperspective (talk) 21:52, 16 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
 Speedy keep, see guideline COM:NOTCENSORED and policy COM:CENSOR. The excrement coming from ChatGPT is similar to the excrement that would come from the model's anus.   — 🇺🇦Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me🇺🇦 22:35, 16 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I made literally no mention of the explicit nature of this image, and NOTCENSORED is not a speedy keep rationale. If you’d like to propose a new rationale that says “Photos from Project "Geekography" by Exey Panteleev may never be deleted”, you are better off proposing it at the village pump discussion. Dronebogus (talk) 22:46, 16 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Also wtf does the ChatGPT thing have to do with anything Dronebogus (talk) 23:13, 16 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Presumably that's an explanation of the point of the image as satire. Text on image says "Chat GPT" with logo centered around anus, presumably comparing the results of Chat GPT with feces. -- Infrogmation of New Orleans (talk) 23:34, 16 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
You made no argument for why to keep it other than saying The excrement coming from ChatGPT is similar to the excrement that would come from the model's anus. I doubt people participating in the prior DR didn't realize that aspect. So again why should one keep this file? Because the file is intended to be humorous – is that your reasoning? Prototyperspective (talk) 23:39, 16 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Commons:Deletion_requests/File:ChatGPT_by_Exey_Panteleev.jpg&oldid=1032365813"