Commons talk:Criteria for speedy deletion

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to Commons:Criteria for speedy deletion.

• This is not a forum for general discussion of the page’s subject.
• Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
• Please sign and date your posts by typing four tildes (~~~~).
• New to Commons? Check out the project scope. Ask questions, get answers.

Archives: 1, 2

Policy for users removing tags from their own images

{{Dont remove speedy}} says that users shouldn't remove speedy templates from their own articles and to "make your case on the image's talk page", but {{Speedydelete}} says to "replace this tag with a regular deletion request".

If the second is correct, is that the best advice to give to new users? An editor unfamiliar enough with Commons to be uploading problem images seems unlikely to know how to raise a "regular deletion request", and it seems rather backwards to say that if someone wants to save the image they should request its deletion. --Lord Belbury (talk) 13:33, 16 February 2022 (UTC)

Clarification for "F1. Clear copyright violation"

Hi! The most common case I encounter are SVG logos that are uploaded under the default license as "own work". Official licensing information for a work is often hard to find. Is it okay to just {{Copyvio}} the file or am I supposed to open a deletion request instead? On one hand I usually don't have proof that it isn't own work, but the uploader also provides no proof that it is own work or that the company that uses the logo allowed sharing it under cc-by-sa. TilmannR (talk) 21:42, 2 April 2022 (UTC)

I just found {{Logo above threshold of originality}}, which says "this media is a logo or a derivative work thereof, which are always presumed to be copyrighted [...]". So I'll just place this template and it'll be the uploader's responsibility to show that the logo is available under a free license, I guess? TilmannR (talk) 22:13, 2 April 2022 (UTC)

I'm also seeing some "own work" logos with "No permission since" ({{subst:npd}}). Is that the preferred method? TilmannR (talk) 23:03, 2 April 2022 (UTC)

Limits to G10: advertising

I think this policy needs to be clarified and limited somewhat, and I'll give two examples of types of files currently nominated for deletion that would be better not deleted, if possible:

• File:Weisses Ross.jpg (see Commons:Deletion requests/File:Weisses Ross.jpg)
• Commons:Deletion requests/Files found with Amaro Santoni -pdf (involves several files I propose to keep and others to delete)

I'd like to refer you to Commons talk:Criteria for speedy deletion/Archive 1#Promotional criterion, which has language I think we should insert into this rule and apply to regular, not speedy deletion: "advertising when it is clearly without educational purpose". In other words, I would substitute "This includes only content uploaded to promote goods and services when it is clearly without educational purpose." for "This includes only content uploaded to promote goods and services, outside our project scope.", which, because of the comma and ambiguous language, is clearly seen by some users as forbidding all images uploaded as publicity.

So why would we want to allow any advertising? We should when the image also adds to the sum total of human knowledge expressed in images, such as in these cases of photos of a distinctive hotel and a liqueur with presumably copyrighted bottle shapes and labels waiving most of their rights under copyright laws to share images that others have not shared (or in the case of the liqueurs in bottles, would likely be nominated for deletion if uploaded by anyone not representing the company - another problem that may need clarification in a different thread). Most blatant advertising is clearly seen as watermarks on photos (per se forbidden) or extensive promotional language on the file page (which can be deleted, but the photos in such cases are usually uninteresting snapshots of people and such).

As a bureaucrat/admin on Wikivoyage, I'll also give you some examples from one of your sister Wikis: en:voy:Colorado's Wine Country was largely written by en:voy:User:(WT-en) WineCountryInn, who had a business interest in attracting visitors to their inn(s) but worked conscientiously within site policies on not touting but providing information of interest to travelers and was mainly responsible for creating a good article that was featured on the site's front page. Also, we normally block people who work as paid publicists for hotels when we see a pattern of touting particular chains and such, but one user, en:voy:User:VerbInteractive, worked so studiously within our guidelines and produced work that was so trustworthy that we made them an autopatroller, meaning that their work didn't need to be closely supervised as we trusted it.

I suggest to you that we need to be somewhat selective in deleting advertising, when it is duly licensed and provides useful information, such as in the examples I gave in bullets above, and that fanaticism in rooting out all advertising can actually be a vice, or at least counterproductive to the mission of serving as a source of free information. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 04:42, 22 September 2022 (UTC)

Agreed. Speedy deletion per G10 should be limited to files that are clearly completely useless beyond advertising purposes. In most cases I have encountered so far, an image uploaded with the intention to advertise something just requires a little bit of description page cleanup to be indistinguishable from a regular user upload. Maybe change the language from "without educational purpose" to "without educational use" or "without educational potential", though. "Purpose" sounds too much like "uploader's intention" to my (non-native) ears. El Grafo (talk) 07:09, 22 September 2022 (UTC)

I agree with you. Your suggestions improve the phrasing. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 08:18, 22 September 2022 (UTC)

What about This includes only content uploaded to promote goods and services when it is clearly not useful for educational purpose? This makes it clear that it’s not about the uploader’s intentions (not useful for instead of without), while keeping the wording Commons:Project scope uses so that one doesn’t have to wonder if it means exactly the same or just something similar. —Tacsipacsi (talk) 13:28, 22 September 2022 (UTC)

That seems fine, too, though I'd tweak it slightly to "clearly not useful for any educational purpose" or something similar for grammatical reasons. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 13:51, 22 September 2022 (UTC)

I’m not a native speaker either, so if you say the any is missing there, I believe you. —Tacsipacsi (talk) 16:43, 22 September 2022 (UTC)

Does anyone else have any objections to this proposed change in language or any suggestions for a different form of words? -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 19:26, 23 September 2022 (UTC)

I'm fine with this. El Grafo (talk) 08:07, 26 September 2022 (UTC)

Edited accordingly. Ikan Kekek (talk) 22:10, 27 September 2022 (UTC)

And edited a bit further for grammatical reasons, etc. Is the phrasing ideal? -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 22:15, 27 September 2022 (UTC)

Relevance to non-speedy deletion

In view of this thread, is there another talk page where a policy of deleting educationally useful images just because the uploader's motivation was apparently promotional has to be discussed? -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 18:29, 3 October 2022 (UTC)

I think the correct thread is at Commons talk:What Commons is not#Advertising. I posted a new comment there. Please express your opinion on whether we need to change the wording of COM:ADVERT to make it clearer that files that are uploaded for promotional purposes but are within scope should not be deleted. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 19:00, 3 October 2022 (UTC)

F10 definition

Criterion F10 is currently defined as Personal photos by non-contributors; This includes low-to-medium quality selfies and other personal images of or by users who have no constructive global contributions. My issue is with the ambiguity of "This includes". It could be interpreted as "For example...", but the proposal on which F10 is based, implies it should be read as "This excludes high-quality selfies" etc. I propose the following phrasing:

Personal photos by non-contributors

Low-to-medium quality selfies and other personal images of or by users who have no constructive global contributions.

Pinging Srittau as original proposer. --HyperGaruda (talk) 07:39, 18 December 2022 (UTC)

Sounds good to me. Sebari – aka Srittau (talk) 12:57, 18 December 2022 (UTC)

It has been a week without objections, so I'll go ahead and make the change. --HyperGaruda (talk) 05:58, 25 December 2022 (UTC)

Applicability of "G8" to files on Commons?

As I was curious about a past speedy deletion of a file that was previously referenced in a page, I found the reason given as simply "G8", however the description of G8 on this page seems like it cannot possibly apply to an image file of whatever content, as JPG and PNG files cannot technically depend on other pages. Jbohmdk (talk) 04:15, 28 March 2023 (UTC)

Only situation I could think of is a license template being deleted. What's the file you're asking about? AntiCompositeNumber (talk) 04:50, 28 March 2023 (UTC)

Self-requested copyvio

Sometimes we will have uploaders nominate their own photos for speedy deletion as copyvio. If it happens within a week of upload, then it doesn't matter whether the copyvio rationale is valid; my view of COM:CSD#G7 is that uploaders are entitled to this one-week grace period to have their uploads removed for any reason, or no reason at all. Beyond this period, however, sometimes uploaders will tag their images as copyvio for reasons like no FoP, which is normally not a valid reason for speedy deletion. Where does the community stand on this issue?

1. Continue to follow current CSD requirements to the letter. Since the images do not qualify for any applicable criteria such as F1, F3, or G7, the speedy deletion shall be declined and converted to DR.
2. Allow speedy deletion if there is a reasonably high chance that the images will be deleted at DR and the uploader agrees with their deletion.

King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 18:17, 23 May 2023 (UTC)

The point of 'speedy deletion' is usually confused, because it's poorly named. These are not 'urgent' deletions, they are clear and unarguable deletions. Ones where there is no valid reason to challenge them (and if there is, we convert to DR). So the deletion reason needs to be clear, and beyond likely challenge.

That means that the reason must firstly be clearly identified. So "speedy delete" isn't. Nor is "user request" (that will be bounced forthwith, owing to age). They might be categorised after upload into Category:Minecraft, Category:L'Arc de Triomphe, Wrapped or Category:Atomium, where these categories then highlight a not-obvious, but pretty unarguable copyright problem. A speedy on that basis should be accepted: evidence has been added since upload, the outcome is now clearly for deletion.

FoP might meet this same test, if it's clear; i.e. it's a route we've been down before. So 2D public art in countries where that's obviously stated to not be free. But this would only be the case if it's a clear and unarguable situation, i.e. the identification into the problem group has been done and is beyond challenge, and the applicable law is equally clear. Again, this is likely to be because it has been placed into a category that's already marked as not readily populatable.

User request doesn't move content into the "clear and unarguable deletion" group by itself (we'd still need some licensing-based reason, or an obvious scope reason), but it does remove 'potential uploader challenge' as a reason to disallow a speedy otherwise. So I think this is permissible, but it has to give the other reason along with it, at the time of nomination. Andy Dingley (talk) 08:31, 29 May 2023 (UTC)

Pretty much what Andy said. It can't be a speedy-deletion criterion all on its own, or it opens a back door for anyone to delete an image they uploaded, no matter how longstanding and unproblematic the image may be. - Jmabel ! talk 15:21, 29 May 2023 (UTC)

@Andy Dingley: The examples you cite are not actually unarguable: Minecraft textures may be self-created (which may lead to a COM:SCOPE problem, but scope is not a reason for speedy deletion unless F10 is met). And anything involving FoP is explicitly banned from speedy deletion (F3), even if it is "obvious" in the subjective judgment of one or more users.

But my point here is not to discuss where the line for speedy deletion should be drawn when it concerns normal copyvio tagging (i.e. by users other than the uploader). I want to ask whether the fact that the tagger is the uploader ever results in moving the line. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 17:44, 30 May 2023 (UTC)

BTW, we delete self-created textures for Minecraft too. We also delete blocks that are user-written (and open-sourced) Java mods, no part of Mojang's Minecraft. Also Minecraft cosplays. Probably wrongly, but we do. Andy Dingley (talk) 18:55, 30 May 2023 (UTC)

I say continue with current practice, though I'm OK with closing discussions early if everyone agrees there is a problem, in the spirit of w:WP:SNOW. -BRAINULATOR9 (TALK) 20:35, 6 June 2023 (UTC)

"Advertising, linked page" request

I have a request for delation using this message. I can not find anything with page. This request maybe a personal message or spam. Aimty17 (talk) 07:54, 25 June 2023 (UTC)

Four proposed additions to the text

When we introduce {{SD}}

Please be careful to write "SD", not "sd" or "Sd": the latter mean "Sindhi language".

For G11

For copyright violations, please use {{copyvio|reason or source}} rather than {{speedydelete|G11}} or {{SD|G11}}.

For C1

For badly-named categories, after moving any contents feel free to use {{badname|correct name}} rather than {{speedydelete|C1}} or {{C1}}.

For F8

For duplicates, please use {{duplicate|other file}} rather than {{speedydelete|F8}} or {{SD|F8}}.

Jmabel ! talk 19:35, 23 December 2023 (UTC)