Commons:Deletion requests/Files in Category:Nude or partially nude women by Stable Diffusion

These are AI-generated images of nude women, and are de facto lacking in educational value as such. Although at the first one seems to be in use on another project to depicted "Body-Horror" but the already the articles where it's being used on are already being illustrated with more factually relevant contemporary sources. And there is no special pass in the guidelines for questionably educational or useful images that are being used elsewhere.

• File:AI-generated horror.jpg
• File:Algorithmically-generated abstract art of short haired women in dynamic posing.png
• File:Algorithmically-generated artworks of classical European women.png
• File:Stable Diffusion - Camping in the desert - 3.jpg
• File:Stable Diffusion - In space - 6.jpg

Adamant1 (talk) 03:12, 1 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

•  Keep the first, as it's in use on several projects (the nominator is incorrect about COM:SCOPE and COM:AI), and  Delete the rest. JPxG (talk) 10:17, 1 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@JPxG: If you don't mind me asking what part of COM:SCOPE and COM:AI am I incorrect about? Because you've made the same accusation several times now in other discussions but I have yet to hear an example of what I'm getting wrong. At least not one that doesn't just involve you misciting things and taking what I said out of context. --Adamant1 (talk) 10:36, 1 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, here is what COM:AI says:

Per the Commons project scope, only media that are realistically useful for an educational purpose should be hosted on Commons. Just because an AI image is interesting, pretty, or looks like a work of art, that doesn't mean that it is necessarily within the scope of Commons. While some AI-generated media fall within our scope, media that lack a realistic educational use may be nominated for deletion.

Here is what COM:SCOPE says:

• The expression "educational" is to be understood according to its broad meaning of "providing knowledge; instructional or informative".
• 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, as is a file in use for some operational reason such as within a template or the like. Such a file is not liable to deletion simply because it may be of poor quality: if it is in use, that is enough.

The meaning of these policies seems extremely clear to me. The term "educational" is given a specific, clearly explained definition. Not only does this definition fail to make an exception for low-quality images, it explicitly says that there is not such an exception. The claim that "there is no special pass in the guidelines for questionably educational or useful images that are being used elsewhere" is false. JPxG (talk) 10:54, 1 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]