User:Ikan Kekek/Bad deletion reasons

Deleting images that should not be here is a very important task, and everyone who does the work of nominating problematic images at Commons:Deletion requests and deleting those that Commons cannot or should not host is performing a very valuable service for the entire Wiki community. This task would be much easier if people would make fewer bad deletion requests, by not giving reasons such as the following. All of the "reasons" and examples you see below have been given in deletion requests:

• This photo should be deleted because it is nonsense. You might be surprised how often this (non-)reason is given (though usually more briefly). Sometimes it is given by vandals when there is absolutely no good reason to delete the image, but in any case, it is about as clear as mud. If you mean that it is impossible to tell what we are looking at, say that. If you mean that the image quality is so bad that it could not possibly have any use, be careful to judge its appearance as a thumbnail for use in articles, but if you are sure, say that. If you mean that it is used for vandalism, say that. Etc.

• This photo should be deleted because it is old. This reason is often given and never becomes easier to understand or more sensible. It is a great idea to take new photos of anything possible, but in no way does that mean that this repository of knowledge and history should delete older images! In fact, there are many cases in which old photos are of great importance. Famous people age, city views change as new buildings are built, other buildings are torn down or burn down, natural formations crumble, forests are clearcut, animals become extinct, glaciers retreat - you name it. Be glad we have as many "old" images as we do!

• This file must be deleted because the filename is inaccurate. No, you should just request a filename change. Use Template:Rename.

• This file must be deleted because the description is inaccurate. Anyone can edit the description on the file page; what is stopping you?

• We know this is a 19th-century photograph, but because we do not know who took the photo or do not know the source from which it was uploaded, it has to be deleted. That is quite rarely the case. Most photographs that old are Public Domain in every country in the world, so although it would be great to know the name of the photographer and what the immediate source of the photo is, not knowing these things has no effect on its copyright status. {{PD-old-assumed}} can be used for works more than 120 years old unless there is some specific reason to believe the work is still under copyright.

• You have to delete this file, which I uploaded ten years ago and is used on ten Wikipedias, just because I do not want it to be publicly viewable anymore. If it is a picture of you, you are not famous, there is nothing unusually interesting about the photo and it is not in use on any Wiki site, we would be very likely to delete it as a courtesy to you, but if it is in use on even one, let alone ten Wiki sites, you are out of luck because you agreed to the terms of a Creative Commons Copyleft license for the image when you uploaded it. And even if it is not in use, if it is of obvious educational value, a courtesy deletion so long after you uploaded it is questionable. So do not get angry, just accept that and move on.

• This file should be deleted because I will upload a new version of the image. If you just want to edit the image you uploaded, edit it, and then upload the new version to the same page by clicking the "Upload a new version of this file" link under "File history"; no deletion is necessary or appropriate in that case. If you plan to take a new photo of the same motif, upload it under a separate filename, and then if you think the old photo is so inferior that it should be deleted, link to the new photo when making your deletion argument, but do not get angry if people disagree with your judgment and keep the old photo, too.

• This photo needs to be deleted because it is 900x900 pixels and was uploaded in 2006 without EXIF information. No it does not. That is not so small, especially for that old a digital photo, and while including EXIF information is very helpful, it is not required and the lack of it does not prove that the uploader did not take the photo, though it can be used as supporting evidence in clearer cases. If the photo were 200x200 pixels and uploaded in 2022 without EXIF information, that would be much more suspicious.

• This file, which is used on ten Wikipedias to illustrate hentai, is pornographic and not age-appropriate. Did you think Commons was restricted to children? It is not, and neither is Wikipedia. Hentai is a pornographic type of animation, so it could not be very well illustrated with photos of butterflies, cars or whatever. Gratuitous pornography is not hosted on Commons, but it is an adult site, and if you do not want your children to risk seeing pornographic images that add to human knowledge, it is your responsibility to supervise their use of the World Wide Web in general and Commons in particular.

• This photo has to be deleted because it is out of scope and could not possibly be of any use. Maybe, but be careful and consider the fact that Commons is the repository of images for the entire Wiki family of sites, including Wikipedia, Wikivoyage, Wiktionary, Wikibooks, Wikiversity and quite a few others, and with only a few exceptions (such as publicity photos of non-notable people; logos of non-notable companies; pornographic images that are not particularly instructive; images that are illegal in the United States, where Wikimedia's servers are; and images of really horrible quality), any image which has the right license and could realistically increase human knowledge is unlikely to be out of scope. If you lack the imagination to realize that a photo of a house, a boat, a penis with all its parts labeled, a person wearing a traditional hat, an intersection of two streets, a bus with a route number visible, a pile of bricks, or any number of other subjects that are part of the broad scope of human knowledge covered on wikis is on-topic, tread carefully when nominating images for deletion on this basis. Sometimes, images are nominated for deletion as "not in scope" because they are of poor quality, but it is clearer to indicate whether the issue is with the image quality or the subject matter.

• This map has to be deleted because it offends me that it shows existing ceasefire lines instead of my country's territorial claims. Did you think Commons would or could take a political stance? Any of us as individuals can and do, but as a site, it cannot, does not and will not. Maps that show existing ceasefire lines and those that show the claims of one competing country or another are all welcome here, as long as they are described accurately.

• This photo of a pet has to be deleted because it is a personal photo. Really? Since when did a cat or dog become a person? Many people consider pets part of their families, but they are not people, so photos of them cannot be personal unless or until pets figure out how to take selfies or hire photographers. Moreover, photos of cats, dogs, birds or other pets are on topic, so do not nominate them for deletion unless there is a case of copyright violation or they are of really horrible image quality. By the way, there was a famous case of a monkey who shot a selfie, and some birds have grabbed cameras and shot videos while flying. Those images are of obvious interest and monkeys and birds have not yet figured out how to sue for royalties, so do not nominate those images for deletion, either.

• This photo has to be deleted because of copyright violation. OK, that is a good reason, but it is not clear enough. Was the image taken from a non-free source? Help us by linking the source. Is the image free but it is a photo of a building covered by copyright in the country where it was shot? That is a viable reason for a deletion nomination, and it may be debated, as principles like freedom of panorama and de minimis could come into play, laws may have changed, or you could be wrong about when the architect died or whether or how long architectural copyright is protected in a given country.