Commons:Deletion requests/Files in Category:Sakurako Miki

Extended content

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:Sakurako Miki

People in this category are non-notable people and these files are private image collections and are not realistically useful for an educational purpose. Therefore, I request that the images contained in this category and the category itself be deleted. (See here and here for a preliminary discussion).Divide into 20 pieces each--Syunsyunminmin (talk) 08:20, 9 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Group 1

Discussion about Group 1

Group 2

Discussion about Group 2

Group 3

Discussion about Group 3

Group 4

Discussion about Group 4

Group 5

Discussion about Group 5

Group 6

Discussion about Group 6

Group 7

Discussion about Group 7

Group 8

Discussion about Group 8

Group 9

Discussion about Group 9

Group 10

Discussion about Group 10

Group 11

Discussion about Group 11

Group 12

Discussion about Group 12

Group 13

Discussion about Group 13

Group 14

Discussion about Group 14

Group 15

Discussion about Group 15

Group 16

Discussion about Group 16

Group 17

Discussion about Group 17

Group 18

Discussion about Group 18

Group 19

Discussion about Group 19

Group 20

Discussion about Group 20

Group 21

Discussion about Group 21

Group 22

Discussion about Group 22

Group 23

Discussion about Group 23

Group 24

Discussion about Group 24

Group 25

Discussion about Group 25

Group 26

Discussion about Group 26

Group 27

Discussion about Group 27

Group 28

Discussion about Group 28

Group 29

Discussion about Group 29

Group 30

Discussion about Group 30

Group 31

Discussion about Group 31

Group 32

Discussion about Group 32

Group 33

Discussion about Group 33

Group 34

Discussion about Group 34

Group 35

Discussion about Group 35

Group 36

Discussion about Group 36

Group 37

Discussion about Group 37

Group 38

Discussion about Group 38

Group 39

Discussion about Group 39

Group 40

Discussion about Group 40

Group 41

Discussion about Group 41

Group 42

Discussion about Group 42

Group 43

Discussion about Group 43

Group 44

Discussion about Group 44

Group 45

Discussion about Group 45

Group 46

Discussion about Group 46

Group 47

Discussion about Group 47

Group 48

Discussion about Group 48

Group 49

Discussion about Group 49

Group 50

Discussion about Group 50

Group 51

Discussion about Group 51

Group 52

Discussion about Group 52

Group 53

Discussion about Group 53

Group 54

Discussion about Group 54

Group 55

Discussion about Group 55

Group 56

Discussion about Group 56

Group 57

Discussion about Group 57

Group 58

Discussion about Group 58

Group 59

Discussion about Group 59

Group 60

Discussion about Group 60

Group 61

Discussion about Group 61

Group 62

Discussion about Group 62

Group 63

Discussion about Group 63

Group 64

Discussion about Group 64

Group 65

Discussion about Group 65

Group 66

Discussion about Group 66

Group 67

Discussion about Group 67

Group 68

Discussion about Group 68

Group 69

Discussion about Group 69

Group 70

Discussion about Group 70

Group 71

Discussion about Group 71

Group 72

Discussion about Group 72

Group 73

Discussion about Group 73

Group 74

Discussion about Group 74

Group 75

Discussion about Group 75

Group 76

Discussion about Group 76

Group 77

Discussion about Group 77

Group 78

Discussion about Group 78

Group 79

Discussion about Group 79

Group 80

Discussion about Group 80

Group 81

Discussion about Group 81

Group 82

Discussion about Group 82

Group 83

Discussion about Group 83

Group 84

Discussion about Group 84

Group 85

Discussion about Group 85

Group 86

Discussion about Group 86

Group 87

Discussion about Group 87

Group 88

Discussion about Group 88

general discussion

Syunsyunminmin (talk) 06:42, 9 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

?? No valid reason for deletion. Lesless (talk) 06:53, 9 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Lesless: I points to Commons:Deletion_policy#Out_of_scope. Syunsyunminmin (talk) 06:58, 9 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This is too long a list of files to look through to determine whether they're in scope or not. Some are not in scope, but for example, File:2015 shaped sunglasses (15827579308).jpg is in scope. I suggest you nominate these in smaller groups and vote to

Keep them all for now, as I'll never be able to look through all of them. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 07:14, 9 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

File:A girl at Shichi-go-san festival, Japan, 2015 (1).jpg is also in scope. Maybe it's a common sight to you, but not to everyone. And that's as far as I've gotten so far; I won't look at more now. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 07:15, 9 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Shall I divide into 100 cases each? Syunsyunminmin (talk) 07:20, 9 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I appreciate your cooperative spirit, but I feel like 100 at a time is still really too many to look through. 30 is already hard. I recognize the difficulty, because there's no doubt many of these are out of scope, but we risk throwing the baby out with the bathwater. Ultimately, it's to your discretion and that of a closing admin. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 07:37, 9 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I split the requests into 20 each. Thanks Syunsyunminmin (talk) 08:24, 9 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

File:SAKURAKO takes a bike ride. (19880736192).jpg — this one is good illustration. Category Category:Girls with bicycles is not so big, let's keep it. --Alexey Vazhnov (talk) 08:15, 9 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep As pointed out by Ikan Kekek, we can’t possibly judge such a massive DR properly on scope grounds. The files mentioned above are good candidates for keeping. I would add SAKURAKO climbs a tree without fear of falling! (9224538162).jpg, SAKURAKO climbs a tree. (20187024065).jpg, SAKURAKO blows hers nose. (8703957127).jpg, SAKURAKO - Sleeping. (6990244693).jpg and SAKURAKO - Sky jumping simulator. (7053687599).jpg, where the person is actually part of the subject rather than just standing by it. These are just the ones I checked; there may be many more. Then there are the kindergarten festival images, some of which show crowds of children. But most damningly, 2015 shaped sunglasses (15827579308).jpg is in legitimate use at wikidata:Q16933125 and therefore automatically in scope. Brianjd (talk) 13:45, 9 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

SAKURAKO - Cross eyed! (26567573003).jpg is a good quality image of crossed eyes; the category Crossed eyes contains just 12 other files. That one should definitely be kept. Brianjd (talk) 13:56, 9 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

赤いフンドシ 2011 (6317546527).jpg is an interesting sight that is probably worth keeping, and 水風船 (28670014200).jpg seems to be our only image of a person filling water balloons. I could probably spend all day listing in-scope images from this nomination. Brianjd (talk) 13:59, 9 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep It is not appropriate to list a large number of images as candidates for deletion at once for the reason of "out of scope". I think this is an obviously sloppy deletion request, as each image should be individually scrutinized to determine if it falls under the "out of scope". In fact, the above list includes an image that I have used in a meaningful way in the article I have written (see File:SAKURAKO - "Aikatsu!" Official Card Binder. (12384655574).jpg on the page ja:"Third Action!"), which never falls into "out of scope". File:SAKURAKO - AIKATSU card. (14749779435).jpg is also a suitable image to illustrate cards used in Japanese arcade games for girls. --stck_w (^Talk/_Edits） 14:56, 9 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I withdraw my nomination - OK, I withdraw it. Thanks, Syunsyunminmin (talk) 14:58, 9 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I apologize for the trouble Syunsyunminmin (talk) 15:08, 9 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This is a non-controversial DR that may be closed by any user now. I would do it myself, but I don’t have a tool to automatically remove the DR tags from all the files; admins do have such a tool. Brianjd (talk) 23:20, 10 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Kept: per discussion; nomination was withdrawn. --Rosenzweig τ 12:15, 12 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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:Sakurako Miki

Out of COM:SCOPE: personal images of a minor. Excluding 1 COM:INUSE photo.

Extended content

—‍Mdaniels5757 (talk • contribs) 21:45, 15 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion

Delete It's not because the picture are free to use that we have to put them here. We seem to have all the pictures taken from her since her birth. We are not a personnal photo album. --Fralambert (talk) 23:01, 15 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Recent DR closed as keep, now this one even less detailed: I am not convinced. Random peeks yield photos that are in scope, and even seem to be properly categorized. I would gladly vote in favour of deletion of any cruff such large collection unavoidably contains, but the DR must contain a curated list of deletion candidates, not like this. -- Tuválkin ✉ ✇ 02:11, 16 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep A lot of these are just personal images that can be deleted, but for example, one or more skiing pictures might be usable. I can't support the deletion of every one of these pictures, though most should probably be deleted. And since it's really not manageable to look through every one of these photos and mention every image that might be usable, I'm simply voting to keep these as a lot. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 06:37, 16 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep There are several images here that should be kept just because they can be considered art, e.g. File:SAKURAKO in the mist. (27887634383).jpg. PaterMcFly (talk) 10:57, 16 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I think File:SAKURAKO - SAPPORO Festival. (18951177166).jpg and File:SAKURAKO - SAPPORO Festival. (18972041662).jpg are good illustrations of Goldfish scooping, for one. Shāntián Tàiláng (talk) 15:27, 17 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment as nominator: I will further explain my rationale. COM:PS instructs that "Examples of files that are not realistically useful for an educational purpose" includes "Private image collections, e.g. private party photos, photos of yourself and your friends, your collection of holiday snaps and so on." This is exactly what is prohibited by our scope policy. If there are individual images you think are realistically useful, by all means, cross them out without discussion. But this is a "private image collection", which is exactly what Commons is NOT for. —‍Mdaniels5757 (talk • contribs) 19:56, 17 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

It's unreasonable to expect anyone to spend all day looking through every photo from this long a list. Since you're the one who cares so much, it should be up to you to do that and think very carefully about possible uses for each one. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 04:34, 18 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

In general, Keep. Commons is a host of educational media, and the well-categorized and high quality media here serves a large swath of educational purposes; nothing scope-wise has changed since the prior discussion that found consensus to keep the images. These are (in general) high-quality properly-categorized images of everyday life that are useful for depicting everyday life in an educational context. Even things like File:SAKURAKO - Color check. (6337344156).jpg can be educationally useful as a stock image about the act of drawing. Per COM:SCOPE, "educational" is to be understood according to its broad meaning of "providing knowledge; instructional or informative", and I think the vast majority of these files meet this definition. I sympathize with the notion that we don't need a bajillion images of the same exact ordinary toddler on Commons, but we need to address this much more narrowly to see which images are redundant to other images of her—if specific images are redundant to one another, a nomination needs to be more specific and create a more narrowly tailored DR.
However, I do have concerns about copyright on several images, which appear to have been created by the girl herself rather than the photographer:

These are children's artworks that are incorporated in a greater-than-de minimis fashion, but the artworks appear to be over COM:TOO USA. I'm doubtful that the standard CC 2.0 release would also release the works of the licensor's dependent children, so I think these have to be

deleted per COM:PRP. — Red-tailed hawk _(nest) 18:01, 20 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I agree that many of these pictures are out of scope, and should be deleted. However such a large DR is unworkable, and should be remade in small batches. Yann (talk) 20:00, 25 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete the 7 probable copyright violations mentioned by Red-tailed hawk, keep the rest. Renerpho (talk) 22:09, 8 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Kept all but the 6 drawings by the child herself. —holly {chat} 21:45, 14 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]