Commons:Deletion requests/Files in Category:Khoriphaba

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:Khoriphaba

These are historically inaccurate AI generated images of the mythological god Khoriphaba. So the files should be deleted as OOS due to serving no educational purpose what-so-ever.

Adamant1 (talk) 05:03, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete implausible interpretations of ancient mythology Dronebogus (talk) 11:13, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The artworks were created using numerous explanations in the prompts, for which considerable amount of research in the topic has been done. Merely saying historically inaccurate in a deletionist perspective without understanding anything about the topic, just because it's AI, is really shocking. Regarding scope too, the files are used in numerous projects. Haoreima (talk) 19:18, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Haoreima: The images should at least be slightly plausible and realistic if your going to claim this is all about me an ignorant, AI hating deletionist or whatever. The "numerous explanations" aside, you'd have to at least agree that Khoriphaba clearly wasn't a white Aryan who looks like a modern anime character like he's being portrayed in some of these images. --Adamant1 (talk) 19:25, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I am not here for an argument or a debate. I will accept whatever the Commons community say in general. But regarding appearance, Indian people have mixed genes. Looking like an anime character is not an issue, because it's not copyrighted. And you are also free to express your comments. Haoreima (talk) 19:30, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Neither one. I'm simply stating that Khoiriphaba didn't look a modern anime character in traditional takes. Take that how you will or say it's not an issue all you want, but images need to serve an educational purpose to be hosted on Commons and that's not being met if the image is of someone who looks nothing like Khoiriphaba to begin with. Since obviously nothing eductional about an image of a random cartoon character. Again though, that's not to debate this. Just explain my side of the DR. --Adamant1 (talk) 20:15, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as a clear case of COM:INUSE (e.g. the first image has now been in use for over two months on several mainspace articles on two different Wikipedias [1]][2][3]).

Besides, the nominator's rationale is rather absurd that depictions of a mythological god must look realistic or otherwise be deleted as historically inaccurate. If the argument is that depictions of mythical religious figures must only be allowed in the art style of a particular historical period and region, then I fail to see how it is rooted in Commons policy. See also Commons:Fan art regarding a related area where certain educationally useful original artistic representations have been deemed as in scope for Commons.

One problem with the files is that the uploader failed to document the prompts used, as asked for in Commons:AI-generated_media#Description; but at least currently this is not a reason for deletion.

Regards, HaeB (talk) 04:55, 27 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

the nominator's rationale is rather absurd @HaeB: It's rather bad faithed to call the DR absurd without given an actual reason why that's the case. So putting COM:INUSE aside, how exactly are these images educational when (or if) they aren't historically accurate what-so-ever to begin with? Because it doesn't seem like you bothered to address that aspect of this when it was the whole point in the DR. Or are you just going to act like that aspect of the project's scope doesn't matter and COM:INUSE is the only thing that does? --Adamant1 (talk) 06:56, 27 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I reject your insinuation that merely describing a particular argument as absurd violates Commons:Assume good faith. (I did not make any statement, explicit or implied, about your intentions in making that argument, which is what the AGF guideline is about.) If a Commons user makes an illogical claim or a factually wrong assertion in a DQ, it is helpful for the project if other users call that out.

I think that just juxtaposing the parts quoted above (mythological god / realistic / historically inaccurate) will already have sufficed to illustrate the contradictory nature of your argument to many potential readers of this page. But I am happy to explain in more detail: Khoriphaba is not a real, historical person. So your demand that The images should at least be slightly plausible and realistic do not make sense, unless you use the term "realistic" differently from its usual meaning in the English language (wikt:realistic). Similarly, w:historical accuracy refers to the quality of being part of history instead of being a historical myth, legend, or fiction. The subject of these images falls into the latter category. And to repeat myself from above, if your argument is instead that Commons must only allow depictions of Khoriphaba in art style of a particular historical period (say the 14th century AD or the 1970s), then I fail to see how it is rooted in Commons policy.

Now, I of course agree that we don't want Commons to become a repository of religiously inspired personal artworks without educational value. But prima facie I can see an educational value of, say, visually illustrating particular commons attributes of a deity (in this case the mallet and the blindfolding, for example). In any case:

Or are you just going to act like that aspect of the project's scope doesn't matter and COM:INUSE is the only thing that does? - actually COM:INUSE is part of the definition of the project's scope at Commons:Project scope. Please familiarize yourself with what it actually says: A media file that is in use on one of the other projects of the Wikimedia Foundation is considered automatically to be useful for an educational purpose [...] It should be stressed that Commons does not overrule other projects about what is in scope. If an image is in use on another project (aside from use on talk pages or user pages), that is enough for it to be within scope. In other words, yes, your personal concerns as a Commons editor that these images may not be a "realistic" depiction of a "mythological" figure are not only illogical but also irrelevant under Commons policy.

Again, I do not have doubts about your good intentions here. But in the future please try to make a better effort to double-check whether your arguments are logically consistent and in line with Commons policy.

Regards, HaeB (talk) 18:43, 27 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

if your argument is instead that Commons must only allow depictions of Khoriphaba in art style of a particular historical period (say the 14th century AD or the 1970s), then I fail to see how it is rooted in Commons policy. Yes, that is my argument. Not so much that it be in the art style of or created in a specific historical period, but have some historical backing. Or at least professional. Otherwise it's just amateur artwork. Which you seem to be aware that we don't allow for even though your acting like it's not rooted in policy and somehow not logical. You can't have it both ways where something is both amateur artwork that has zero historical basis but is also in scope as educational.

I can see an educational value of, say, visually illustrating particular commons attributes of a deity (in this case the mallet and the blindfolding, for example). So if I were upload an image I drew of my cat holding a mallet while wearing a blindfold and called it an illustration of "Khoriphaba" then you'd be totally cool with that because it "visually illustrates the common particular attributes of the deity." Good to know. And I'm supposedly the one making illogical arguments that aren't based in policy here. Right. Anyway, there's a pretty long established precedent of AI illustrations of historical gods and figures being deleted as OOS. So this whole thing is rather mute anyway. Otherwise take it up at the village pump. But at the consensus is clearly on my side that this types of images are OOS even if you personally disagree. --Adamant1 (talk) 00:31, 28 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I see you have chosen to entirely ignore the explanation about COM:INUSE and your erroneous assumptions about it regarding that policy's implications in this deletion discussion. Again, it states that A media file that is in use on one of the other projects of the Wikimedia Foundation is considered automatically to be useful for an educational purpose. Unsubstantiated claims about a pretty long established precedent don't override that (yes, some images of this kind have been deleted, but others have been kept). Nor do weird though experiments about your cat (obviously not every photo attempting to illustrate certain characteristical visual elements will succeed or have the same educational value). Regards, HaeB (talk) 06:47, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: per nomination. --Bedivere (talk) 22:12, 27 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Commons:Deletion requests/Files in Category:Khoriphaba

Files in Category:Khoriphaba

Navigation menu

Search