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]

Not only does this definition fail to make an exception for low-quality images, it explicitly says that there is not such an exception. I've explained to you multiple times now that this has nothing to do with the quality of the images. What are you finding so hard to understand about that? Your quote would matter if I had nominated the images for deletion because of them being low quality, but that has nothing to do with this or any other DR where you've falsely claimed it's why I nominated the images for deletion.

The claim that......is false. I've already cited it several times now but COM:SCOPE clearly states "any use that is not made in good faith does not count" and that "file not legitimately in use include ones that are not realistically useful for an educational purpose." So again, what are you having such a hard time understanding about either one of those exceptions? --Adamant1 (talk) 11:07, 1 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You are entitled to your opinion, and you can certainly go there and propose they change their policies, but this is obscene. If the Vietnamese Wikipedia thinks this image has enough educational value to use it in their article, why on Earth would you presume to know better than them? Do you speak Vietnamese, Bengali and German? You have never made any edits on any projects in any of those languages. What makes you think you are allowed to dictate to them which freely-licensed images they can use? JPxG (talk) 11:53, 1 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]